Globalization/Free Trade

Good, or bad?

>>1
Free trade unions are good thing, however globalization like EU is very bad thing. I'm all for free trade, one money and open borders, but EU shouldn't have real political power and ability to affect it's members domestic politics.

>>2
why is the eu a bad thing? what is wrong with a larger, more centralized government? bigger government is better, for many of the same reasons and arguments presented by the unionists in american history

>>3
Nothing would be wrong with it if there wasn't countries like UK in it. They can drive their police state agendas Europe wide by using EU. That's not nice now is it?

>>4
"Nothing would be wrong with it if there wasn't countries like UK in it."

I disagree.  The larger and more centralized a government is, the more likely it is to become tyrannical, and corrupt.

I'd prefer a unified EU, but the current setup has little representation or accountability.

And while I'm a social democrat at heart, I have to agree with >>5. Tis a pity.

Its fine as long as all the countries involved are on the same level and playing on fair ground.

>>6

"I have to agree with >>5. Tis a pity."

Which is exactly why we should reject the U.N. as well.

>>6
>>5
Enjoy your future police state.

>>9
How would the rejection of a large, centralized government, as well as the U.N. produce a police state?

If anything, I think it would protect us from the possibility of a police state, at least somewhat.

Some kind of strong, powerful commitee that could investigate corporations and blacklist those that work immorally in front of the whole world. I think capitalism and globalism are natural bountiful expressions of human nature. That doesn't mean I think we should accept all of its side-effects by default and call everyone else "anti-human idiotarians" or some other pathetic, made-up word

>>11
I think the creation of such strong, centralized, powerful commitees, that can investigate individuals, are the core of the problem to begin with. 

Not centralized, just unrelenting and focused on exposing how corporations harm both the world and humanity. Composed solely out of educated, bi-partisan scientists that could evaluate and inform the public. Information is holy.

>>10
Damn, looks like I was reading something else when writing that up. Oh well, should sleep more.

>>13  Overall, corporations create a vastly greater amount of benefit to humanity than any negative side effects.  I'd rather have them than not. 

>>12 is right Xel, the free press can take care of revealing faults in institutions and since they are less centralised than /b/, there is less risk of someone amassing power.

corporations create a vastly greater amount of benefit to humanity than any negative side effects

Which cannot be achieved any other way?

Just because organised human endeavour has been a success (excluding our suffering environment) doesn't mean that one type of organised human endeavour should be given carte blanche.

Information of all kinds would make it easier for educated consumers to spend according to their beliefs, creating a force acting negatively on corporations that create negative side effects. Capitalism's negative side effects are results of corporations cutting corners for profit. They should not be allowed to do that lest the negative side effects escalate.

There are endless amounts of information on this available. Most people don't give two tugs of a dead dog's cock about it.

In that case, capitalism will be unrestricted, make itself unaccountable and supreme and within this century another attempt at communism will be the desperate result.

>>20
If that's the end result of human nature, may we live in interesting times.

>>20
You're joking right? In free capitalist country majority can't ever be so poor that they will resort to communism. Minorities surely, but masses always crush them if they rise up.

>>22 I wish I could believe that, but anyway I can assure you I'm in no way convinced of what I'm saying. I want to be more nuanced, which is why I'm here in the first place.
     In america, income gaps are slowly widening and entire demographical areas are slowly marginalized. Let's just say that the '00 and '04 elections and the handling of Katrina evacuees left a few nasty, unanswered questions. There are simply times when I feel we are the proverbial frogs in the pot.

Globalistion brings us closer to an utopian dream.

Tho.. we are a loooooooong way from it. but eh, it's a start

500-1k years or so, everyone will have one color one language. Tho the difference in religion will stay, or fade away. But thats just what I think.

>>24
In 500 years humanity will not exist.  We will have built an AI that exterminates humans.  Either that, or we will have evolved enough using cyborg and genetic techniques that no current issues will matter any more.

>>25

Ye It Could go many ways actually :)

But the possibility we blow ourselfs up is quite real indeed.

>>25
>>26
I guess we blow ourselves in to new stone age and everstopping cycle continues.

>>27
Unlikely. The first time we had easy access to the earth's resources and most of those are expended now.

>>28
So it's eternal dark age then.

>>17
"Which cannot be achieved any other way?"

It is possible that it could.  Nonetheless, the rich in a Capitalist society contribute the most, and their work is actually worth more to society than the salaries many of them actually recieve.  It is just that their rewards are sweeter.

Corporations' efficiency is brought about by the free market, and competition.  While it is possible such creation could be brought about in other ways, it is not likely to be as quick, efficient, or effective. 

From a moral standpoint, anything decreed by the government is enforced at the point of government guns.  Anything a businessman tries to "force" on the public is done through persuasion.  I would rather the latter.

If you advocate voluntary social safety nets, on the other hand,  there is absolutely no reason (that I can think of) preventing   the pursuit of these within the confines of the market.  If people think they are really of the worth that which the members of the said safety net contribute voluntarilly, they likely will join. 

And if they don't want to, it clearly wouldn't be voluntary, and you are clearly trying to force your values upon others through physical force. 

Money is a great force for good in the world.  It gives people an alternative form of dealing with one another than through violence.  It's either guns, whips, knives, and violence, or money.  Got a better idea?  I'd LOVE to hear it.

>>30
With that in mind, the entire world belongs to a long dead amoeba that was the first life on earth. Should we start making down payments?

trade is good.  free trade is ironically not very liberating at all.  the imf and the world bank are tools of the dictatorship of vested interests, and as such are reprehensible organisations.

Globalization has been going on since the 17th century, it's just a coin word for people trying to sell stuff and build factories 10 years after the fall of communism as the effects of liberty and openness come to fruition.

>>30 Considering the endless wants of humans, won't every money-making institution try to slowly make itself inscrutable, unaccoutable and supreme in order to *ensure* consumer faith rather than use persuasion. Then again, there was som 1000-page work done by a guy in defence of capitalism that is yet to be fisked to any degree. I should read that. Just remember that the worst and most persuasive corporations in the world (Coke, Nike, McDonalds et al.) are leading in their areas.

>>34

I <3 Xel and concur completely.

>>34
Wouldn't a socialist government try to do the same? Yes it would. The smaller the government the more power there is to the people and the less tyranny there is. Face it, money-making institutions are accountable under the law and the US is a freedom loving nation and will never bow down to your tyranny.

I thought liberals loved freedom?

>>36 The Swedish taxation level is considered the best in the world - assuming it would be handled expertly. But now the incumbent social democrats are stealing an infiltrating to an incredible degree, limiting and hating on private hospitals, despite them being superior to the poorly funded and ineffective public ones. Secondly, money-making institutions want nothing more than to avoid being under the power, scrutiny and mercy of the consumers, and this is obvious when you look to America. Thirdly, liberals want freedom to a high degree, they are just worried that an abundance of rights are counter-productive in the long run. Then again, they are wrong about guns and they are too weak to stand up to protestants and give the crusade on drugs the finger, so you win that argument.

>>36
>>37
Liberal as term can refer to many things. It can refer to classical liberalism which was essentially predecessor to modern libertarianism in America. That was what term liberal originally meant, but the world was stolen by dirty sect of social democrats who are not actual liberals at all.

>>37
Hooray!
>>38
That makes sense, but why didn't freedom loving hippies support the libertarian party?

>>39
Because most freedom loving hippies want the freedom to use drugs, but they also think the "greedy, selfish rich" folks should pay taxes through the teeth to fund all their bullshit programs to "win the war on poverty" such as welfare, social security, etc.

So, they vote for Ralph Nader, or whoever the Socialist candidate is.

>>40
Libertarians support your rights to use drugs too and note that true hippies don't hate anyone and are infact very nice people. Their ideology is infact very liberal(in true meaning of word) although they like to live in communities and think capitalism as evil. Typically they aren't politically very active either. Now pseudo hippies like peta crazies, feminazi's and ofcourse those social "liberals" are the ones who are problem.

>>41
Exactly.  Many of them hold non-violence and freedom as virtues, but they are inconsistant in their own beliefs.  They won't vote libertarian.