Why oppose Globalization?

Somebody on the Politics tribe recently was advocating a one world currency as a solution to the worlds economic inequality....what a joke.

<Somebody on the Politics tribe recently was advocating a one world currency as a solution to the worlds economic inequality....what a joke.>

I actually like the idea of a single currency for the world. Not as a means of control but as a means of taking control back.

I have been advocating for some time now the need for an alternative currency that is owned and operated if you will be the people. One that gives incentives for not hoarding (demmurage based0 one that gives incentives for taking care of the environment (like the Terra).

I think this currency should be managed without any banking system (banks and interest are evil and are the root cause of many problems in the world). A currency that is really all software but with no central computers, everybody carries it in their pocket like coins but can send it around the world to facilitate trade. No central computers means no tracking, no identity theft and no central banks, hell no banks at all.

It is not a one world currency that I worry about it is the multinational companies that want to turn the globe into a slave labor camp, a place to extract money from debt laden consumers and a place to trash with pollution. This is the threat of globalization that I see a growing corporate elite that have the world to hide in and a world of laws to use against the rest of the population.

<including Jazz- the one positive contribution to the world in the last century>

Wait, what about Rock and Roll as a derivative of Jazz? Before the corporate takeover of the movement?

I perceive the inherent problem within Globalization the same way its own founding father, Stiglitz, perceives it. It's ironic to me, however, that the antithesis here at home, i.e - Antitrust, seems to have the exact same effect. There's no more protection of the consumer, employee rights are falling by the wayside, and that's just here in this country. Out there, what was supposed to be the opening of free markets to inefficient economies has broken the bank for a lot of them. Third world countries are worse off for the phenomena, and anyone as a proponent of Globalization either doesn't know or doesn't care about the infringement of human rights that has taken place. And the worst part is, while America is fighting a tangential war on foreign soil and a far more abstract war on terror, the effects of Globalization have increased our own support of the terrorist cells. We provide them the same safe havens for monetary protections that we provide ourselves. And every blockage of that has been predominately Republican over the past 6 to 7 years. It's a problem where only the greedy benefit, and until the rest of us start speaking out against it in droves, it's not going to go away.

One thing to remember about globalists, is that all their theory looks good on paper to them, and benefits them at the end of the day. They aren't middle class folks designing ths policy. They are the wealthy bankers and corporate types who have never even shopped at a grocery store in person, many of them. They are inherently blind to the problems they create and don't feel the seriousness of it because they are too divorced from it. I have Yahoo delivering news stories to my inbox based on the keywords World Bank and International Monetary Fund. The stories almost all read as though the World Bank is *fighting* poverty, and *creating* opportunity, not the other way around. Despite the studies done in developing countries by anthropologists documenting the problems created by the structural adjustment mandates, 'free trade zones' and phoney baloney projects that nations (such as Brazil) have to pretend to undertake to get funding, the corporate news takes the stance that these are benevolent institutions.

No bank ever spent money they weren't getting a return on, count on it. It's not the way it works. They know developing countries have needs and they are exploiting them by offering the needed loans under very strict terms that benefit the exploitative forces of western capitalism, example number one is privatization of utilities and resources. If you privatize it, it can be bought out. Who can buy it out most easily? The biggest kids on the block. Simple math.

Its a systemic evolution of the capitalist process, a process which has high appeal, because it allows humans to pursue and rationalize their inherent self-interested natures. At the top of that heap are those with the most self-interest, and the least contact with those they gain their fortunes from. Hopefully in time, we can come to create a system that acknowledges our natures and has enough viable checks and balances that exploitation is less possible, and a system of accountability is put in place that can cover all levels of wealth. Until then, the fox owns the henhouse. Always has, just now he wears a tie instead of a crown.

Does all this make them evil? It makes them so far out of touch that their actions fall so short of anything even remotely beneficial to those affected by it, that onlookers generally have their sense of fair play insulted to such a degree that they have difficulty classifying it otherwise. I say it's humans, acting as humans do, which is inherently in their own interests. The less they experience a situation, the less real it is, and the less urgent it is for them to act on. Those creating the environment of globalism are not only the most apt to act in a protectionist and uncharitable way (you only stay wealthy by keeping the money, not by giving it out), they also don't have to live in the negative side of the conditions their actions create. Entirely the opposite is true. They benefit from the decisions, so between being utterly dicsonnected from the realities, and seeing only what is on paper, and in their coffers, OF COURSE they promote it. It's quite natural. I don't see natural as evil. I see the state of things as imbalanced to an extreme as never before. Its an all new situation, one we've never had to deal with before. Obviously its out of control, and needs a reality check.

So what do we do?

Outside of affecting the market, we have no meaningful voice to inform the globalists with. Affecting the bottom line is the only way to affect their decision making. Hordes of protestors outside meetings don't change much, except to shut down or relocate the talks. It sends a message, but not one they will hear as easily as if they lost their money. Disrupt their bleeding of the desperate by disrupting their profit. Then you have something. Everything else is the angry yammering of the impotent.

I'm here to see who actually has viable ideas. Non-violent ideas, and no "anarchy" ideas. We can do better than violence and anarchy. We're smarter than that. Besides, the rebels taking over oil factories in Africa doesn't seem to be having the desired effect. :-)