Why not use this forum? Alleviate some of the crowding on the OC.

I'm particularly interested in debating some Tom Friedman's points in The World is Flat and Hot Flat and Crowded.
The documentary on Jamaica gives a much darker view of globalization than Friedman's cheerleading.

I've made a few posts on globalization. My general opinion is that globalization can't be stopped. But the kind of globalization is what's at stake. Us "sensitive" humanitarians want global labor unions and environmental protection. Neocons want global unregulated free-market, or at least global regulations that can only help big-business gain the upper-hand against the little guy.

Globalization needs to slow down to allow time for humanitarian influence. Neocons want to speed it up so that global labor unions and environmental protection have no time to develop or take hold.

Tom Friedman seems to argue that advances in IT will accelerate globalization. I'm starting to read his second book. He may becoming more cognizant of at least needs for global environmental protection.

James Howard Kunstler takes a much more pessimistic tack. He anticipates an imminent global economic collapse resulting from resource depletion, global warming, pandemics, and chaotic political upheaval.

That may be true. But IT may also be used to slow it if enough people understood the problem and were willing.

How would IT work to slow globalization?

The medium has been made more important than the message. IT is the medium. We need to change the message and use IT to deliver it.

"Globalization needs to slow down to allow for global labor unions, OSHA and environmental regulations."

For global trade to be regulated we will need a world body yo regulate it.

How do you say, NEW WORLD ORDER?

It's coming.

Run by Wall $treet, using US Dollars.

Let's hope we can get some ethical stewards in there.

I have a similar view...more globlization requires better Orchestration of individual transactions
and various Aggregates of human transactions...family, community, an industry and the Nation
in a World of Nations...

The contest is often between Technocracy/Meritocracy vs Humanitarian Democracy

My wife and I spent a week at Jackie's on the Reef in Jamacia in the early 80's...It is a holistic health
spa and we had a great time. Jackie was a Black woman, retired from the fashion industry in NYC,
operated the place and taught advanced Yoga. She was getting on in years then, so I don't know
whether she still operates the place or perhaps one of her daughters...the place is still in operation
and we are planning to go back this year...she caught rain water to operate the place. the bath
room slogan was, "If its yellow, let it mellow, if its brown, flush it down...

Some Wisdom from Dr. Marley.

I agree somewhat. But these are not completely mutually exclusive. All of the above could share the same goals. Money and Capitalism is opposed to humanitarian democracy more than technocracy & meritocracy.

I used to share the view that globalization happened, and people simply needed to adjust to it.

Now, I am beginning to wonder if it will collapse in on itself.

I am starting to see the areas in the world that were not in the globalization web, maintain their economies better. I wonder if these groups are going to fare better in the face of a collapse?

I have been re-reading some Socialist writing about Capitalism's natural outcome... to exploit all areas of the world, after they were done with developed nations. I know that some of the words here (Socialism, Capitalism) have loaded meanings, but I think we can overcome that loading, if we define our terms carefully.

Also, the term globalization, means different things to different people. It is a meta- topic that has numerous sub categories. Tackling even one of the sub categories is difficult, speaking of all of them as a consequence of globalization is a couple of dissertations. But, it is important.

What strikes me as the most important thing is this consolidation of capital, ownership and resources that no government can control, and no country's people can stand against.

Has anyone else seen the documentary "The Corporation"? I try to balance this against Friedman's ideas, and Thomas Barnett's ideas in The Pentagon's New Map-- The Core and the Gap problem. But, I must admit that Trotsky is looking like a pretty prescient person, and Oscar Wilde's speech to the Socialist raises a lot of questions about the ability of the Capitalist institutions to fix the problems caused by the failures of Capitalism (i.e. the bailouts, increasing negative business externalities, tax cuts to keep capital in country etc.)

Back in November, "W", now completely irrelevant, invited the G20 to DC for a pow-wow. Oh to have been a fly on the wall at that one. If I had to guess, here is what was said:

A representative from Wall $treet announced that:

"we would take care of the crisis (that we created), but that some cooperation from them would be needed. First and foremost, the US Dollar must henceforth and for always be the OFFICIAL GLOBAL CURRENCY. Thou shalt have no other monies before ours. We are presently on the oil standard. one day, we will go on the uranium standard, and the same rules will apply - DOLLARS AND ONLY DOLLARS will be used to purchase energy inputs."

"We are living in a NEW WORLD ORDER. That is a euphemism for the American Financial Empire."

"Lunch is now served".

"Bon Appetite."

Tsk Tsk Tsk!

Heart is reading Trotsky!

I'm going to tell!

Can Obama do anything about this?

Would he if he could?

I own it. I haven't watched it in years, but I think I'll dust it off and watch it again. My wife might be a little more receptive to it now.

Probably



I doubt it. He merely runs the country. Wall $treet runs the world.

Oops, I guess I shouldn't read the books I sell, but if people don't buy them what else am I supposed to do with them? I'm saving them for firewood and toilet tissue in the not-to-distant Mad Max world we may all come to inhabit.

I hate to be nit-picky Jeff, but I've probably never met a premise I liked, so I will nit-pick a way.

The problem with the concept of "New World Order" is the assumption that there is any "order" to it.

The problem with the concept of Wall Street running the world, is that Wall Street is real place, where real people do real things in America. That would imply a lot more order than there really is, and is only helpful as a symbol...A symbol for something much larger and more complex in nature, and because of its nature, it is completely unmanageable.

So, Obama can stave off the perception of the chaos, but he cannot control it, and neither can any government.

It would actually take a world government (i.e. a New World Order) to control it, and we don't have that, or they would control it and we would all be happy little consumers once again.

Painfully true.

There are several "world orders" that are very organized. The problem is that none of them are organized enough to solve the worlds problems. And because they are constantly in competition for power over each other, they often put acquisition of power before the interest of humanity.

I think Jeff meant the metaphoric wall-street, not the NYSE. The metaphoric wall-street is everywhere where capitalism has it's tentacles. And yes, it does run the world by default. It's dumb algorithm and misguided reward system just so happens to be more powerful and influential than any other organization. And no one person or organization can predict what it will do next.

So, are we just discussing the weather, something we can comment on but no one can do anything about to paraphrase Twain?

Is it right or even possible to use private property to cure the ills that are caused by the institutions of private property?

Can any world union ever emerge?

If governments cannot control world markets, then what tools do the people have at their disposal to curb it?

It's not enough to say, the problem is our wallets. That assumes post-scarcity existence. It is insulting to tell the starving to eat less, and essentially, that's what blaming one's wallet reduces to when all you can afford are basic necessities. Admittedly, Americans consider things "basic" that are not really basic at all....But, if you used that definition of "basic" with some discretion towards American sensibilities, you would have:

Modest house
Food and hard goods
Electric
Heat
Water
Garbage
Television (cable, sat dish)
Internet
One or two cars or public transit money (depends on situation)
Insurance car
Insurance health
Insurance home
Insurance life
Insurance disability

What else?

If we could define the above as "basic" which is how the Living Wage Institute uses it, you would have "poverty" wages of aprox $10 an hour, and that leaves out the "insurance" entirely.

It can't be merely, the enemy is the wallet if this is all you have, so what can be done without blaming the poor for being poor (oh...Wait...I mean "the middle class" because we don't have poor people anymore /sarcasm). What will reign in the chaos that people can do, because we cannot rely on our government to do it...Obviously.

Why don't people just take over those locked factories? Is that an answer? What would shock the system enough to bring it into better equalibrium without bringing it back down on all of our heads first? If anything?

No. We have much more control over globalization than we have over the weather. We can change the course of globalization and make it more humanitarian.

BTW, We can do something about the weather like avoid it or shelter ourselves from it. We just can't do anything to change the weather.

Yes. For one, not everything that is considered private property should be considered private property. Second, any private wealth gained through public abuse is undeserved.

Sure if we move fast enough and slow globalization down enough.

Governments can control world markets, just not by themselves.

There are several ways that the negative influences of money can be used against itself:

They are on private property.

An excellent summary statement...this is the back ground against which emergent leadership
provides an Organizing perceptual-conceptual Schema to re-integrate the major Socio-political Networks in a more adaptive way...

Davos doesn't look like its emerging anything except more of the same.

I hope something emerges soon.