Readers’ Responses to Our Question (32)

qodml fgvoxjych xqighda lmnxhd cbruakn dpzrmlivk nyhuige

In my country, Nigeria, many lives have been tremendously transformed by Information Communication Technology(ICT) and internet,which are critical factors in globalisation.
For in the last six years, the ICT and internet have dramatically removed most of the barriers to free flow of information between Nigeria and the world. Because such information is now available to a greater number it has been encouraging freedom of expression within my country and promoting my
people's relationships with citizens of other countries.

Thanks to the internet,books in major libraries of the world can be read on the desk of a Nigerian internet user, just as I do read most of the major newspapers of the world shortly after they are rolled out of the printing machines in Western Europe and North America.

The internet makes its greatest impact in e-commerce which makes it possible for Nigerians to do business with the world from the comfort of thier homes and offices.I am one of such people whose lives have been tansformed by the internet as a vehicle for wealth creation.About 18 months ago, a friend called my attention to an online multiple level marketing program(MLM).Promoted by Cashcards International, I saw and still see the mlm program as a money-spinning activity for any aggressive salesperson.The program yanked me from writing,bringing dollars which,when converted to my country's national currency,is some money.Materially my life has grown!
It is form this context that I would like to answer the question, What impact would reduced international trade have on my country.
I am of the view that reduced international trade,if it affects my e-enterpreneuship, will diminish my status as a genuine international e-businessman.It will return many like me to living from hand to mouth as years of inept leadership and bad governance have failed to establish structure for gainful employment for educated people like me.For people like me international trade should not be reduced but increased.

Dear Mike B,

When facts don't fit their pre-conceived theories, stupid people restore to insults. So, please, don't put yourself in the same category as Bush, Chavez, and many others who justify their lack of reasons by attacking those who disagree with them.

You have said something reasonable in your last post, however: "osmosis is a principle because it's a necessary thing for reaching equilibrium".

Let me repeat your words: "reaching equilibrium". Therefore, according to your words, equilibrium is a good, desirable goal.

Equilibrium about what? Clearly: living standards.

Whose equilibrium? Who is separated from whom by existing "osmotic" barriers -trade restrictions, subsidies, gargantuan fences, etc? Clearly: rich and poor countries.

Now, let's put your ideas together: Reaching equilibrium [regarding] living standards among rich and poor countries is a desirable goal.

I completely agree with you.

they're here because of money.

They are not here because of poverty, they've had that for centuries. It's nothing new. Most countries south of the United States are run by the rich for the rich.

Something that seems to be finding it's way into favor in the United States. Do you know what an osmotic barrier is?

Do you know why osmotic barriers exist in the world of organics? They prevent balance from happening sooooo quickly that damage occurs. Can you say, "we don't need more poor people." Can you say "We don't need to transform United States Citizens that aren't rich, and therefore victims of market forces into Nicaraguan peasants."

Right now, the United States is forcing, via outsourcing, and moving American Manufacturing overseas.......our disenfranchised poor people, who have had their benefits steadily removed, and our former LARGE SEGMENT of the population BLUE COLLAR MIDDLE CLASS, into peasant status....

telling them that they need to compete with people that are used to making tops, $4/a day........

textile workers in North Carolina have been displaced by Chinese and Indian people that make 27 cents and hour....

look moron, regardless of how poor everyone else is if you don't have a standard, we'll all be peasants...and that includes you

your executive branch and complicit congress have been stripping the United States like a stolen car....the upper middle class is next

why not have doctors from India, examine patients via camera with nurses? They're already diagnosing from X Ray

how stupid are you?

Osmosis exists because if a change occurs too quickly, the entity will die....in this case it would be

fair standards of wage and living....

make sure that you have an existent standard before you start trying to save poor people.

you want to save poor people honestly? change the world they live in don't give them mine..........

talk publically about why their problems are existent, the stupidity of selfishness to class and so forth...osmosis is a principle because it's a necessary thing for reaching equilibrium. Without a standard you get a median at best, which doesn't hold because of the inequties that you introduce into the system...

you would do to look at ecologies and how shifting things are skewing for one organism destroys the environment..........life is an organic thing as are business practices, which is why the president should be arrested before he destroys the world....

.

Mike B, I'm glad you are an engineer. And I truly appreciate your explanation about energy and transportation. I, however, disagree with your approach to social and economic issues.

Let's start with agriculture and manufacturing. You say "Corporations and big farms laid off American workers beginning back in the 1980's". This is not true. This trend began three centuries ago, with something called Industrial Revolution that caused massive shifts in employment. As recently as one century ago, industrial centers in the mid-west attracted hundreds of thousands of workers to its huge factories such as Ford's. At what rate should you hire in order to staff a 75,000-men factory? Thousands per day!!! So, poor rural workers were attracted to those cities by high wages, the same way poor latinos are attracted to the U.S. now. Such waves of economic development are not easily foreseen and can hardly be stopped.

In order to be able to keep paying those workers competitive wages, farmers successfully lobbied for government subsidies. Those subsidies have been in place ever since. Obviously, products from other countries cannot compete against heavily-subsidized U.S. agricultural products, which keeps them out of the U.S. market. In recent decades there has been a push from U.S. farmers to open global markets for their subsidized products, which has had the effect of destroying local agricultural markets all over the world. This was a key reason for the failure of the Doha trade talks, as the U.S. and Europe refuse to eliminate those subsidies.

Now, on the immigration mess. It's not about the Indians or the Chinese. It's about Latinos. After all, those Chinese scientists working for Nasa and those Indian engineers doing computer work for Microsoft entered the U.S. legally, many of them with scholarships paid by the U.S. government.

What white supremacists scream about are those 11-12 million illegal immigrants from Latin America, who insist on speaking Spanish, who are already the largest minority in the U.S., who already have many mayors and a number of governors, who puzzle political analysts by voting Democrat while being strongly pro-family and pro-life. And who, more than anything, keep waving Mexican, Colombian or Argeninian flags. Those illegal immigrants don't work for Nasa or Microsoft; they mostly do farm and construction work (males) and clean houses (females); when they are caught moping a Wal-Mart floor at night, their employers face severe fines.

Why are they in the U.S, in the first place? Why did they dare to cross the desert, with no food or water?

Although there is plenty to talk about, the main reason can be summarized in one word: POVERTY. Many of those people are poor peasants, whose products cannot be sold at competitive prices, neither in foreign nor in domestic markets, because those markets are flooded with subsidized agricultural products from the U.S. and Europe.

When you grow... lets say... corn, you expect to be able to sell your harvest at the local market. When you see your harvest spoil because subsidized U.S. corn is all over there, then you end up with no harvest and no money. Then you are willing to risk your life to get to the U.S., to get paid $1 per hour, to sleep on the streets, to save a few bucks that can be sent back to your family. Better something than nothing.

I am an engineer. Here is a relatively simple solution to much of our energy problem. Hybrid cars are all the rage right now becasue they have such good fuel economy. It's actually better than advertised, too. My wife and I own a Prius and we regularly get over 60 miles per gallon. An engineering friend modified his, adding an additonal battery in the truck area that he "tops off" each night in his garage via an extention code and charger array. He gets over 160 miles per gallon. Cummings and several other manufacturers have developed hybrid motor truck engines, too.

Now, everyone knows that our power line grids have an enormous loss factor. Sending electricity long distance via power lines wastes between 60 and 80 percent of the electricity transmitted. That loss is transmited as an electrical field around those transmission lines. By tyhe simple expediant of burying them in channels in our interstate highway system, that loss could be used to power hybrid motors. A relatively simply modification to that class of engine would allow them to run solely on that wasted electrical energy AND chrwge the battery array at the same time. Imagine being able to drive from (say) Seattle to Los Angeles on one gallon of gas, that being consummed for bathroom and food stops off the highway. The same, of course, would be used to power trucks using that highway system.

Now, since roughly half of the diesel and gasoline consummed in this country is over exactly that same highway system, you would expect that we would save something like a bit under half. It doesn't quite work that way. What would happen, especially as a result of market forces, is that hybrid motors would be in demand and in very short order we would see the majority of our cars and trucks with them. So upshot is that we would cut fuel consumption by roughly TWO-THIRDS! Add to this the two thirds or more cut in hydrocarbon and other vehicle immissions and the corresponding effect on gobal warming and other forms of pollution and you have one of those situations where it simply doesn't make sense to not do this.

Of course, as more and more vehicles end up using this technology, there would be a need for additional electrical power plants. The answer, of course, is nuclear. Now, I haven't got anything against fission technology but I'm an engineer and know it is safe, but et's assume that the American people are so fearful of fission power plants that none will be built. Well, there is fusion. We have made incredible strides with this in the laboratory. A crash government program could bring fusion generating plants on line within ten years (the experts that claim 25 years are using the present amount of research and monye being devoted to this technology for their estimates.....I'm talking about a crash program that assumes our very survival depends on it....and it does!). Those sorts of plants would power everything from interstate commerse and transportation to air conditioning and heating.

All of this merely uses present day technology. We could, with appropriate leadership and political vision begin doing this right now...not off in the future. We could have this sort of system running in the Washington D.C.- New York area within three years, and nationally within eight years. If, over that time span, we put some effort into improved battery technolgies and even more efficient hybrod motors, we could reasonably expect to the wholy energy independent of the rest of the world. No more Iraq's, the Middle East would become an uninteresting place covered with sand.

Globalization is another tool of rich Western countries to take as much as they can from the impoverished developing countries, and make the trade sound it is for the benefits of the "developing" world. I come from a country that's been described as "developing" since 1955, rich in natural resources, i.e. forests, arable land, tin, copper, fisheries, etc. Throughout that time, those natural resources were expended for the rich countries with small returns. Quotas had been imposed on almost all export goods so my country continued to be developing, never fully developed. Globalization is like one of those "benevolent" white man's burden concept. Meanwhile, the West has become so wealthy selling tobacco/cigarettes, liquor, guns, ammunitions, planes, tanks & all other kinds of killing machines to the developing countries. What a joke!!

I'm absolutely wrong? Where? Take something simple like the immigration mess. Coporations and big farms laid off American workers beginning back in the 1980's. They paid them about half of what Amercian workers made. A meat packer in 1986 made about $18 an hour. Today the wage is about $9 an hour. The same has taken place in all of the construction trades - framing carpentry, roofing, concrete and brick work, painting, you name it. Now, with a push to curtail illegal imigration we keep hearing the refrain that they are doing work that no Amerian would do or that our economy would suffer becasue these illegals are doing work that is essential to our economy. Well, the answer is that Amercian workers were quite literally forced out of those jobs. The same is taking place with manufacturing jobs right this minute.

In the 1990's, during the dot-com boom years, we saw high tech firms crying that they couldn't get enough enginners. So the H1-B visa was born. Now the supposition was, and it *was* in he original law, that these workers would merely act as temporary fill-in workers while Amercian's were trained in schools for these jobs. Instead these companies found that they could pay these Indian engineers about half of what their American counterparts paid. So, today those Indian, and now Chinese, egineers have become a permenant fixture and Amercian engineers cannot even get jobs. Did you know that 20% of U.S. trained engineers are out of work? This while Microsoft and other firms whine about the need for evn more H1-B visa's.

Back in the late 1990's, when the outsourcing wave was just starting, Amercian firms discovered that engineers were needed on site for some jobs and there were not enough H1-B visa's available. What to do? They got them vistor and training visa's . They brought them into the U.S. and worked them for their 6 month stay in crews and, then sent them home, replacing them with another crew. Now these engineers weren't being paid in the U.S. They were being paid in their country of origin. They were housed and fed in company provided housing complexes. When some of them were caught doing this illegal activity were they fined? No. Senator Gordon Smith to the rescure. He sponsored legislation that allowed corporations to bring in these crews, but for up to 8 years! They were paid and housed in exactly the same way. So they pay no U.S. taxes at all. And, many of them bring their families. Their children attend public schools, sometimes get into trouble with the law, and he wives and older children take jobs, being paid under the counter. All of this serves to place even more American's out of work.

Not only that, India didn't have the engineering schools so they sent their students to Amercian schools. Today, well over half of the students in our engineering schools are from China and India. It has nothing to do with being better "qualified", either. In every single instance I have researched there was one or more fully qualified Amercian applicats for the spot in school. They were turned down simply becasue the colleges were paid up to four time the amount of tuitopn and fees for a non-resident student. It's a quick way they found to pad their budget.

The Indian and Chinese engineers also basicly stole every piece of technology they could get their hands on. Today most of them end of working on one piece or another of our military technology and they are paid big bucks at home for that knowledge. So, they steal plans, software, even complete circuit boards. Tht underwater missile system recently tested by Iran? That came from the U.S. The guidance system circuit board was walked out of this country by an Indian engineer. I had an opportunity, myself, to look at the guidance system for a new shpoulder launched missile system that had been stole by one of these engineers. Mind you, this system is so advanced that it isn't even in the hands of our own millitary...but the Chinese have! The Chinese are even worse. Now everyone knows that China is at least a competetive country, an enemy at worst. It is also a closed society and a dictatorship. All of those CHinese engineers? Every single one of them is **VETTED** by the Chinese government before they are sent here. Many are active memebers of Chinese intelligence or the Chinese military. They TRY, and sadly succeed, in working on top secret military contracts. The FBI documents in excess of 5,000 major cases of espianage last year alone due to this alone.

And, back to the India's. This is not a culture of bagwans and India holy men. India has an enormous Islamic population, most of them radical. Those people have been entering, are encouraged to enter, high tech trades. They have been srteadily infiltrating terrorist cells into theis country via the H1-B and L series visa programs. No one knows for sure, because the security for H1-B and L visa employees is actually handled by the companies and not by Immigration or the Department of Homeland Defense, but the nearest thing we have to an estimate is that over 20,000 of these people have essentially disappeared. It's a safe bet, and of concern to the FBI, that we have paid for around 500 genuine Al Qaida terrorist cells in this country. Cells that will be activated some day, cells with training and expertise in biological and chemical warfare, capable of developing home grown agents that will kill millions of Amercian's.

Let's switch to energy prices. The futures market contributes to 20% or more of our energy costs. It's basically the same sort of legal scam that Enron trades ran with electricity in the Northwest. This, of course, is just one class of investors. Add in the oil companies and their direct investors and you get profit addons to energy prices that amount to between a 30 and 50 percent increase. The trickle down of this, especially during the current energy crises, is affecting food and other prices and threatens to sink the entire U.S. economy.

This is two examples of what I was talking about. I am sure the investors merely think of this as doing business and making money and no one weants to stop becasue someone else will just step in if they do. The problem is, we have to stop them, all of them, becasue they are wrecking our economy, they are responsible for the single largest security threat we face, and if they are not stopped, this country will simple cease to exist within ten years.

If by reaching peak means decline is started then of course yes. the graph of globalisation now is on downward trend. The main reason for the failure is practically every country is sincere and interested in globalisation only as long as it suits its intrests. Therefore optimimum conditions could never be achieved.

For Countries like Pakistan who are hopeful for industrialisations controlled international trade is more beneficial for stabilising their own crawling and ineffeciantindustries as well as creating employment for large poulations.

this is interesting to note that while the talks of international trade increase is being made by all quarters the barriers of international travel, education opportunities in reputable universities for deserving students are becoming more and more difficult.

Mike B, you are absolutely wrong.

There are about 6 billion people in the world, this is 20 times the 300 million living in the U.S.

We have the right to work, too. If someone in India can make a $2000 family car, why do you complain? If someone in China can make $20 DVD-players, why do you complain? If someone in Guatemala can make $1 shirts, why do you complain?

Let's imagine a world where those billions of people that now live in poverty had jobs that paid them $1 per hour. That would be enough for them to earn a decent living for their families. The immigration mess would come to a sudden end, no need for 2000-mile walls.

Of course those newly industrialized nations are consuming more energy, oil included. But the U.S., with less than 5% of the world's population, keeps swallowing 26% of world's oil and producing 25% of world's greenhouse gases.

The real problem of globalization is the pressure by major U.S. corporations to expand markets for their unsustainable products. Had Brazil had the same proportion of oil-guzzling SUVs that clog American highways, global warming would accelerate by 10%. Instead, most Brazilian cars run on a mix of gasoline and ethanol, which is a much more sustainable, less pollutant and less oil-dependent fuel.

Has the U.S. taken any steps to reduce oil-dependency? Hillary Clinton's bill aimed at encouraging flex-fuel vehicles and ethanol stations is not even a topic of discussion these days.

American motorists keep paying higher and higher prices for gasoline. Of course, those huge amounts of money don't go to common people in poor countries (just see Iraq) but to oil companies, which are now showing all-time record profits. So much that the Bush administration has little interest in stopping the current carnage in Lebanon. Every day the crisis continues, oil prices rises even higher; and Bush cronies get even richer.

So, stop blaming poor countries for your problems.

The example of the softwood lumber controversy between Canada and the US reveals the weakness of the WTO in the face of unprincipalled bullying by unequal participants in global "rules-based" trade. When the rules can be arbitrarily manipulated through domestic legislation, the concept of world trade by agreed rules becomes flimsy. It is easy to understand how trust in the WTO is lost. The values of its main champions are in question in the context of trade, as in other domains, at this point.

Toronto, Canada

I rather liked the old term - "Free Traitors" - for that is what advocates of globalization are. They have sold our nations future for a money. They have sent jobs, technology, personal information about American's and our entire infrastrucure, off to India and China where it has been actively sold and exchanged on the world market. Investors are the chief reason for outsoucing and guest worker programs, for higher energy costs, for our insane involement in Iraq, for the immigration mess, and for much more evil. The history of the Bush and Clinton years will name the excesses and greed and self serving immorality of these people and the politician's they support and who allow them to wreck so much harm.

Has globalization peaked? I sure hope so. Globalization and the activities of "investors" is responisble for most of our societies ills right now. Everything from the imigration mess, to high oil prices, to the decimation of our national security, can be directly tied to the activites of investors and big corpoirations that our the chief proponents of globalization. I wonder what these devils think is going to happen when they offshore our technology, databases on everything from health and credit records, and detailed information about our infrastructure? Is it just supposed to stay there and the kindly third world clerks wont even dream of selling it to Iran and North Korea and Burma/Mymar, etc. Of course not. They have been actively selling that information for at least since Bush and his rabid dogs stole the election in 2000. God help us, but advocates of globalization are at least guilty of treason and ought to be imprisoned for the rest of their lives. I am quite sure George Bush thinks he is going to retire from the Presidency as past Presidents have done. Hey George (and Rove and Cheney) when the country becomes truely aware of the harm you have done, you will be hunted down like Nazi war criminals, tried, and you can plan on serving your retirement in a 10X10 cell aong with the Wall Street thugs who helped you wreck country.

the current administration and complicit congress, doesn't want you to discover that there _are_ alternatives to the way that they are doing things...

_they_want_to_keep_you_addicted_towhatevertheywanttosellyou.

at this point that would be oil, and overconsumption.

lying, theiving, sons of perfidy....

want some homophobia disguised as "family values"?

how about calling it what it is, a _hate_ crime of controlling emotionally immature audiences.

.

and ecology is about understanding a system of interactions so that the system supports a rich diversity of life.

altruism, is necessary for balance. wanting the system to succeed and understanding that balance implies enough for all.

please note: no gawds need apply to run the system, as the gawds currently manifesting are old tribal style gawds that are used as totems to demonize other/opposing cultural viewpoints

we need engineers to run the world, not greedy frickin children.

.

as in Benjamin Franklin

I'm not addressing the current administrations' and complicit congresses' contention that the bs_"altruistic" reason for their policy is to make the world a better place to live in.

IF YOU'RE MAKING OVER $14 Million PER/ANNUM, the world is becoming a much better place to live in especially when the estate tax disappears and bloodlines become de riguere' again....

take your wealthy out to lunch and stick them with the bill, have it a requirement that they cleared at the Secret Level before they can be sworn in, make them as responsible as your average Washington DC citizen, or send them the eff home.

.

I think it could go either way. The ultimate answer to the question of whether "globalization has peaked" turns on technological innovation. What we know as "globalization" operates on a hydrocarbon-dependent infrastructure. That version or manifestation of globalization is coming perilously close to collapse. The failure of the Doha trade talks is only a symptom of the deeper problem of the centralization of power and the failure of the human species to form a common society. Centralized power and segmented communities are obstacles to achieving (or approximating) the idyllic free markets theorized by the classical and neo-classical economists.

Our current hydrocarbon economy contributes to the centralization of power, and gives corporations and governments no incentive to participate in a truly free market. Newer technologies, such as hydrogen fuel cells, biofuel, wind power, solar power, and even nuclear power can can reconfigure the hierarchies and authorities that structure modern social interaction, but it is becoming increasingly unclear whether these technologies will emerge before global war or natural disaster disrupts human progress.

Even if Doha were successful, it would only prolong the life of an essentially flawed manifestation of globalization. We need to reform our agricultural subsidies and trade barriers, but that's just the tip of the iceberg. There are much bigger changes that need to occur, and these changes are as much social and political as they are economic.

of mutual impact.

One poster noted that if everyone consumed at the Rate Of Consumption that the Americans did that we would be livingon a desert world within a few years.

How about America managing it's resources as a sustainable thing, rather than viewing Americans as a consumer class only. Who needs more fat Americans driving hummers?

Having someone besides greedy children running the corporations and government would go a long way to wards making the world a better place to live in. Exhibiting moral restraint, keeping osmotic trade barriers up between participants that were trying to mandate third world conditions as "fair" environments and requiring civilized nations to start trading their citizens rights away and leveling the playing field by reestablishg the peasant class in their home countries, in order to stay competitive doesn't make the world a safer place to live....it makes it a hungry, deeply dissatisfying place to live...

and given a choice I would like to let the aristocracy taste the peasant life immediately....for their selfish gift of understanding hell that they wish to foist on the rest of us....

Iraq and democracy.....right, and I'm the friggin tooth fairy.

I would start arresting people that sell arms to stupid people in Africa...

Globalization could be beautiful or ugly, with the current administration and congress in power it'll be darned ugly....

lying theives of perfidy....opportunists of gluttonous aspect...the 600 pound man in the wheel chair demanding 6 steaks and a dozen eggs for breakfast.

On the other hand, actually finding alternatives to oil would evaporate the danger of having oil in the hands of "the wrong people," it would cease to be an issue and we could use our resources to make the world a better place...

IF we were in a "war," instead of an "occupation" we would have mandated changes at home that would keep our country out of risk and would make for easy changes if the middle east went up in flames. We would pass laws that made it a crime punishable by paying more money for extravagance in gasoline usage.....payable at the pump. We would mandate telecommuting as a way of doing business, we would require that people that work over the telephone for United States Companies actually be United States Citizens.....there are a boatload of OUT_OF_WORK_EX_FACTORY_WORKERS that have been a burden on the rest of us since their companies moved to China, Indonesia, India and other places....that could use the work, and could stay in the rural areas and not bother the rest of us with their commuting needs. You could also mandate urban travel rules at a federal level....this is ?wartime? right ha ha ha......war against stupidity _WOULD_ be nice.

You take oil out of the equation, the Middle East becomes SUPERFLUOUS to planning, and they either fall in line with social skills or stay isolated.........

YOU KEEP OIL IN THE EQUATION, then we _have_ to control the region....

you bunch of stupid people.....OIL IS A NON RENEWABLE RESOURCE, IT IS GOING AWAY!!!!!!!!!!!

start living without it NOW! and make the world a safer placeto be living in immediately.

.

No, globalization has not peaked, it never will.The concept of globalization has always been there in the past and will remain so in the future also for as long as the globe survives and in this I totally agree with Daniel. What we need to understand is that globalization is a much wider issue and should not only be related and restricted to trade. Although trade linkages are very strong and motive driven but may not be long lasting.A cheaper and a better product is a stronger force than customers' permanency.Therefore failure of Doha talks at this juncture of History may seem very important because of the ongoing Middle East crisis but otherwise in the global context it is not. This does not mean that we should not learn from this failure but we need to widen the concept of globalization to some other important facets of life also. The first and the most important thing that comes to my mind is 'Environment'. A fire in Indonesian forest, cutting of trees in Amazon, population boom in South Asia or the spillage of oil in the Pacific may seem very far from us but actually it is affecting us and will definitely affect the future generations. I believe that unless we physically, mentally and spiritually get globalized as one humanity, many talks like Doha will fail.We as humans have to rise above our national and personal interests to ensure that the child of tomorrow does not look upon us,his ancestors, as 'power driven self centred specie of humans'. Can we do it? Are we anywhere near achieving the feeling of being part of one global village in the 21st Century? I leave the answers to the best judgements of the readers. While you read this, the after affects of Doha talks failure may not be felt so intensely but you will definitely see images of humans dying of hunger, bombs, rockets, mines, explosives,diseases,viruses, floods, tsunamis and earthquakes on your TV screens. Everytime such an image is seen, we all think it will or shall not happen to me, but then if it is happening to another human on this globe, what are we doing about it. When shall we all think like one race of humans rising over religion, ethnicity,colour, creed and nationality?

We need to take a view of gloablization that goes beyond simply multilateral negotiations. I agree with Rowan, who pointed out that regional trade agreements are accomplishing the same goals as multilateral liberalization on a smaller scale.

The lack of forward movement in the WTO is a result of a collective action problem - when you have too many actors (148) with completely different agendas, the voting structure makes it almost impossible to reach an agreement. The smaller scale of bilateral agreements gives developing countries the ability to gain access to market that the industrial countries cannot open unilaterally (i.e. agriculture).

In this sense bilateral agreements are great for developing countries that know how to use them - look at Chile, look at Mexico. Both of them have multiple FTAs that have given them the experience and know-how to negotiate agreements that are beneficial for them. I see the collapse at Doha as a symptom of a larger problem of the voting structure of the WTO. However, the existance of FTAs means that the collapse really doesn't slow the overall pace of globalization in a way that will hurt developing countries any more than it hurts the industrial powers.

Anybody trying to seriously answer this question first of all has to arrive at a stable definition of "globalisation". Mainstream media coverage of this "unstoppable" phenomenon is almost always synonymous with the workings of "free trade", "a borderless world" and "eliminating barriers to the free exchange of goods and ideas". What any of these sub-properties really means is, again, unclear, at least when compared to real world events.

One would think that the words "free" or "global" would connote an intuitive meaning - "free" for all, on a "global" scale, perhaps. In the restrictive context of economic "globalisation", however, nothing could be further from the intuitive meaning.

The recent collapse of the Doha round is ample proof of the assertion that "globalisation" means nothing more than ensuring the continued concentration of the world's resources into the hands of private enterprise, as well as the actual means to create more resources (e.g. agriculture) - as Monsanto hopes to achieve with its "suicide seeds".

According to the New York Times (27 July 2006), "the big multinational corporations that have gained the most from globalization did not push all that hard for a [trade] deal, apparently convinced that they would continue to prosper even if further progress toward an open trading system faltered", while "American and European officials say the real cost of the failure will be borne by the poorest countries." Typical commentary such as this should in no way obscure whose interests are being served at the negotiating table.

Indeed, there seems to be an undeniable trend for developed countries to engage in bilateral, rather than multilateral, trade deals. As the recent Economist's leader article notes, "Bilateral deals are complex and tend to be bad for poor countries. In multilateral deals, poor countries can piggyback on powerful countries' negotiating clout; in bilateral deals, they're on their own." Such asymmetries of power will of course have all too obvious outcomes - either in a resounding success for Western companies eager to penetrate vulnerable emerging markets or all-out negotiation breakdown, as seen recently with the failed US-South Korean trade deal, the failure of which is ascribed to "South Korea's planned reform of its prescription drug system, which [US trade rep. Wendy Cutler] said would discriminate against U.S. and foreign companies"(AP - 14 July 2006). So South Korea is blamed for the "failure" to establish a trade deal with the most economically powerful country in the world (who itself discriminates against almost every foreign company on the planet), just because South Korea thinks it is more important to maintain a decent standard of health among its citizens than to maximise Big-Pharma profits. Again, the real meaning of "globalisation" slowly becomes clear.

But citizens of developing countries are not alone in their resistance to this "inevitable" process of expanding world trade. Citizens in privileged, highly developed countries are painfully aware of the dangers that lay ahead. At a recent Democratic symposium hosted (oddly enough) by the ultra-trade-orthodox Brookings Institute, speakers at the event put forward "the usual arguments about how globalization has helped the U.S. economy, boosting growth and productivity through scale economies, specialization and increased innovation." The event could however be interpreted as more of a Democratic strategy to lead disaffected American voters away from Bush's corporate friendly agenda, by raising the issue that globalisation "has had some unpleasant side effects: insecurity about job losses, downward pressure on wages, widening inequality, and an unsustainable trade deficit."(Washington Post, 26 July 2006). But the Post's Steven Pearlstein, who covered the event, seemed to have no confusion over what might happen should the free-trader-Democrats find themselves backed into a political corner by big business: "when you scratch the surface, the free-trade members of the Democratic establishment turn out to be more committed to...more globalization, [rather] than making sure the benefits from globalization are widely shared. For them, it's really not a package deal. And if push comes to shove, which it always does in trade politics, they'd welcome more globalization even without the compensatory social policies."

The philosopher Schopenhauer once observed that "all great ideas go through three stages. In the first stage they are ridiculed. In the second stage, they are strongly opposed. And in the third stage they are considered to be self evident." A quick glance at the history of global trade, going all the way back to the Industrial Revolution, will show that the idea of "globalisation" has already met the first two criteria - the first during the end of the 19th century, the second during the emergence of what is euphemistically called the "anti-globalisation movement" of the 60's and 70's and continuing up to the present day. If we assume for just a moment that there are those in the world of politics and media who tirelessly work for the expansion of corporate control over global resources like water, agriculture and medicine, then we can safely assume that "globalisation" will never "peak" - it will simply become "self evident".

To Carolyn,

These mechanisms already exist in forms of Mercosur, G77-non allied nations, ECOWAS in West Africa, GCC in the Persian Gulf and ECO in non-Arab Middle East which includes Turkey, Iran, Pakistan and Central Asian states and the EU where 90% of EU trade is internal.

North America must make some tough choices and the politicians are not willing to sell that to the "red states". If the rest of the world, or even China on its own, starts to consume resources at the rate of Americans, there will not be enough resources in the world to support that kind of consumption...starting with energy, raw materials, polluting machinery and industries, etc.

To Carolyn,

These mechanisms already exist in forms of Mercosur, G77-non allied nations, ECOWAS in West Africa, GCC in the Persian Gulf and ECO in non-Arab Middle East which includes Turkey, Iran, Pakistan and Central Asian states and the EU where 90% of EU trade is internal.

North America must make some tough choices and the politicians are not willing to sell that to the "red states". If the rest of the world, or even China on its own, starts to consume resources at the rate of Americans, there will not be enough resources in the world to support that kind of consumption...starting with energy, raw materials, polluting machinery and industries, etc.

Isn't there an old saying about every failure being an opportunity in disguise? If the Doha round is not resumed in the near future, what I expect to see in the next few decades is a new multi-lateral trading system led by some combination of China, India and Brazil — with an open invitation to the US and the EU to participate if and when they're willing to play by the rules (as written of course by China, India and/or Brazil).

that are going to declare a jihad or a fatwah against people? and think that there is such a thing as a gawd that takes sides?

question to ask, is have people lost sight of what a real global economy would consist of?

having socioeconomic mores that supported the growth of countries at a sustainable rate would be nice.

why have more people if you can't feed them.

why sell everything in the United States to countries that will be out of oil in 30 years and are composed mainly of sand?

Arable land is something that the United States _is_not_ short of that WILL BE a scarce commodity in a world where people don't manage their population.................get it?

Who gives a rats but about the price of oil..........we could be out of a dependency as_easily as mandating telecommuting and requiring companies to keep their customer service resources in_country....so that rural people could have jobs that would prevent them from having to commute 40 miles everyday....using rail and commuter trains as necessities rather than as slumming....oh yeah, that would tear the royals that are depending upon creating a false need for oil...

find an alternative energy source, mandate and engergy policy and remove the reich as a governing force, require your congress to adhere to the same law standards that you have to.

got a clearance? do these air heads? why not? they can't get one or bush doesn't want oversight....require congress to be clearable.

why should they hold jobs passing laws, if they don't have the credibility to hold clearances?

Jefferson, Pelosi, Hastert three of a kind, DeLay making a comeback after failing to uphold his oath of office...yeah, you guys are covering the news....right.

.

Simply put "no", the globalization of trade is based on a more general globalization of culture driven by instantanious communication pricipally via the world media, the internet and global stock markets. In reality the actions of individual governments can have little impact on halting the overall trend towards the globalization of trade.

The question we should ask is "do the actions of individual goverments tend to concentrate a large amount of the revenues from international trade in the hands of a few rich people and multinationals from the richest countries ?"

I believe the answer to this question is Yes and that global agreements to more fairly distribute the revenues from international trade would be mutually benificial to all coutries.

Most importantly this would lead to improved economies in many of the developing countries taking many people out of poverty and helping reduce the burden of international migration of people to the USA and EU contries.

Let's get the questions straight. First, what has peaked is political support for general trade liberalization. This by itself is seriously unfortunate; it means, among other things, that a major obstacle to governments resorting to protectionism in response to the next economic downturn has been removed. For the United States specifically, the collapse of the Doha round means that important political cover for policy changes that should be made anyway — especially in the agricultural sector — isn't there anymore. European and Japanese protection of economically inefficient farmers was perhaps not very effectively challenged even with a functioning Doha round, and certainly won't be without one. Finally the alternative to general trade liberalization, bilateral or regional trade agreements, will if anything leave the smaller developing counties with even less leverage vis a vis large international traders than they had before.

Reductions in international trade resulting from the collapse of political support for general trade liberalization may not be seen for years. It is a good bet, though, that they will be seen eventually. The United States may be of all countries least likely to notice these, since it has many exporting industries with market positions ranging from very competitive to dominant and since its own import barriers are already low in most areas. Moreover, it is not the prospect of higher American barriers to imports but instead a reduction in the American public's ability to sustain high and increasing levels of indebtedness that most likely to make a serious dent in American trade with the world (and, therefore, most likely to impact the economies of several countries now running very large trade surpluses with the United States).

Grass will not start growing in the streets of the world's major cities because Doha fell apart, not this year or next. But in terms of economic growth today and blocking a return to nationalist economic policies and protectionism tomorrow, Doha's collapse is very bad news. A year from now we may not be sure it has had any impact at all, but ten years from now we will likely regret it very much indeed.

It's peaked? Who said so? The same guy who wrote about the end of history a while back? Or the guys proclaiming the end of cowboy diplomacy barely a few weeks ago?

It would be a mistake to think that the current collapsed state of the Doha Round negotiations is linked to some kind of antipathy to globalisation. What happened in Geneva was a political failure where major trading countries like Japan and the European Communities found themselves unable to open their markets to greater imports from developing countries. Mandleson tries to blame the US for insufficient flexibility on domestic farm subidies and claims the EC offers "duty and quota free access" on everything but arms to the world's poorest countries but he neglects to add that EC sanitary and phytosanitary food and health standards keep these goods out of the EC market anyway so tariffs aren't needed. The other problem with Doha is that Brazil, India and China (the leaders in the developing world) are currently doing too well without results from Doha for them to be convinced of a need for further progress in liberalisation. Too bad for the smaller developing countries that would have gained from increased access not just in the developed world but also in these major developing country markets.

No, globalization has not peaked. What does seem to have peaked is the ability and insight of leaders to close the distance between nations without either destroying the lives of citizens or losing leadership completely in worldwide chaos (the citizens swamping the little islands of leadership within nations as if water rising and swamping the archipelagos of nations). In other words we seem incapable of moving forward without on one hand leaders putting the crunch on their respective citizens (the move toward tyranny) or on the other losing control completely as nations come together and lose sovereignty in an integrating world. It seems eventually nations must bleed into one another but it has to be a controlled process. But not so controlled a process that there really is no bleeding—or rather that all the bleeding that is occurring is the bleeding of the respective citizens of nations as they are crunched under the boot heels of their leaders. A controlled process is needed. Citizens respected but carefully watched as nations bleed together in globalization. No fearful falling back by leaders as nations integrate and the imposing of tyranny within respective nations against integration. But also no falling forward on our faces and a total loss of sovereignty in worldwide chaos. I hope I have explained the paradoxical situation to satisfaction. It seems as globalization has been occurring, as sovereignty within nations has been threatened and citizens have been benefiting, we have also had a fearful falling back by leaders and the threat of tyranny as well as the attempt by leaders to integrate with other leaders at the expense of their respective citizens. The goal is to somehow close the distance between nations so that all the citizens of nations prosper, but do this process without a sudden collapse of nations in worldwide chaos. It seems all the leaders of nations are becoming paranoid and against their citizens and simply trying to integrate with other leaders at the top of society only, but to truly integrate it must be a dance of citizens across nations. I put it badly. I apologize. the guy who wrote the first blog though has lots to say. I am sure many more interesting answers will be forthcoming by other readers.

"most people," tend to think in paradigms that are already existent.

Globalization has always existed, most people are aware of trading ships that have moved around the world since the beginning of time. The Phonecians sailing in reed ships to the British Isles to trade in iron. Usually through the years there have been royal families that have held connections with other royal families that has been part of the backdrop on which trade is done.

Right now, we have a royal family, or suite of royal families that are trying to push for world dominance and escape government notice. There are even some countries that are willing to use their military, and intelligence operations to benefit their royals....

That is olde stuffe. What hasn't truly happened is a benevolent, socialistic, democratic, semi-capitalistic society emerging to work with the peoples of the world in an

ecologically sound way.

Now, mind you, ecology means on some level that all of the niches serve a particular purpose, that makes sense _FORTHESYSTEM_

not for a particular part of the ecology.

From an engineering standpoint, we have piracy rampant within the ranks of the so-called free world.

We have the MILITARY_INDUSTRIAL_COMPLEX, a money making, money oriented portion of the extended government family, making decisions for the Executive Branch. We have an Executive Branch that is not acting in the best interests of the country that it purports to serve but acting in the best interests of the ruling families, some of whom are not even from the United States.

We are _not_ operating as a soveriegn nation, we_are_acting as a tool of a few rich people.

Raising minimum wage, being linked to estate tax abolishment...how benevolent is that managment of resources? How benevolent is it of the congress to increase the medicare burden on fixed income peoples' by $30 to pay for their containment of scarce resources.

Look, we don't need oil, and are not threatened by a lack of it unless you're an oil sellor....and don't want an alternative, or alternatives to be developed because you want to make top dollar. If cars start, "running on water," as it was implied in the movie Syriana....the need to control or dominate the middle east ceases to exist.

That is not what this administration, Exxon, BP, Chevron and whoever else is playing you, the citizens of the world and United States want.

FIND an alternative to oil, and destroy the families that are using the United States Military as their personal tool.

An Engineer, doesn't waste his or her time backing a favorite product or group, they get the job done by doing it effeciently.

You can not run a country efficiently, if you don't take into account the effect of globalization on the citizens. The current administration and congress, is only looking at globalizations impact from their personal level, which is corporate....

These pikers, are a bunch of sociopathic mommas' boyz that want to get drunk, steal, lie and mandate raises and benefits for themselves as they destory the lives of ordinary citizens as a way of doing business.

There are ways to stop this, most of them involve telling the truth. I suggest, you the media, start doing what I _have_ been doing which is using plainspeech to address what is going on so that the average citizen can _get_it_

for example: apparently with the finding of 500 or so old chemcial warheads and using the administrations phrase, WMD's the republicans have convinced the public that WMD's did exist. Weisman, spoke of this in his Friday column.........why is that okay? Keep people informed, take the spin offffffffffffffffffff.

Do that and we'll arrive at a globalized economy that doesn't turn eveyone but the elite into peasants....otherwise, what you're calling globalization looks to me like the United States inviting third world standards into the United States as _the_ standard.

This congress and president doesn't obey or adhere to the same standards of responsibility that the ordinary citizenship does. That has to change.