Globalization, what it is and it's key flaw

Globalization

What it means for better or worse

Globalization in its rawest form is control. It means the dissolution of the national borders that have hacked the globe up into nations and territories. It is an umbrella term for forces that often are contradictory in their effects. It has many different aspects to it. Globalization can mean an increased communication between businesses and people from different nations. It can also mean the pure exploitation of less developed nations by those that are developed. As the protagonist of Jack London’s Sea Wolf might say, "the big yeast eat the smaller yeast". Globalization can be both beautiful and exciting but also tragic and hurtful. And much of what determines what it means to you and your nation was determined in the past.

In its essence, globalization is the worldly fluidity of things like capital, information, jobs,  commodities, culture and people. In essence, the faster and easier these things can be transferred between global borders, the more “globalized” things are.

Globalization is not, and does not have to be beneficial to the world's majority, nor democratic at all. It has often and may continue to lead developed nations exploiting undeveloped nations (with various NGO’s etc. convincing the first-world citizens that 3rd world poverty is due to things like excessive breeding of people instead of western raping of resources). Eventually we may see a state where one civilization or neo-empire is controlling all of the world.  The Rothschild banking system and Isreal for example. Globalization does not stop wars for many reasons, Enemies at a nation's gates helps solidify and distract a populace. It presents  a contrast, a red herring, for it’s corporate exploiters to blend with. Multinational corporations have profited off of wars for decades. Some say multinationals and globalization helps developing nations. But even helping the third world means nothing if that help is not genuine but rather a way to launder tax money to large corporations while the act is presented to the helper nation's citizens as unfair hand-outs to the dark “breeders”. Such only helps divide people. Propaganda can overcome a nation's desire to interact with others. Just as the Creel Commission helped ensure, WWI was not stopped by the intertwining of economies, shared national heritages, or globalization.

The form in which globalization is being manifested,  in my opinion is, positive only for a minority of the world. From the IMF, and World Bank, to trade deals like NAFTA, the current overriding form of globalization is one in which some Developed nations, Multinational Corporations, and NGO’s can thrive. NGO’s like the World Bank have likely been involved in corrupting the leaders of governments (ours or foreign) in order to strap the less developed nations with debt created for the nation with the stipulation that it must spend the borrowed capital on Western companies to “develop” the country's land and get it ready for resource extraction and sweatshops (see John Perkins, Confessions of an economic Hitman and Secret History of the American Empire).

NICHE BOOKS ASIDE, THE WORLD BANK'S LENDING PROGRAMS PROMOTING UNSUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS THAT BUILD UP POLLUTING ECONOMIES THAT THEN DISPROPORTIONATELY FEED THE CONSUMPTION OF RAW AND PROCESSED RESOURCES BY THE "ADVANCED" ECONOMIES, AMOUNTS, IN MY VIEW, TO NEO-COLONIALISM. DEBT INCURRED IN ORDER TO PAY FIRST-WORLD CORPORATIONS TO "DEVELOP" INFRASTRUCTURE WHOSE BENEFITS FLOW TO THE FIRST WORLD, ALSO AMOUNT TO DE FACTO CORRUPTION OF THE INDEBTED GOVERNMENTS.  AND AS THE RECENT BRIBERY SCANDAL IN BRAZIL SHOWS, (PETROBRAS INFLATING CONTRACT PAYMENTS SO CONTRACTORS COULD DONATE TO ONE PARTY) THE NET EFFECT CAN BE TO SUPERCHARGE CORRUPTION. HOW MUCH OF THE WORLD'S BRIBES ORIGINATED FROM THE DESIGNS OF AMERICAN CORPORATIONS OR GOVERNMENT AGENCIES?

 It must be mentioned that nobody is going to stop the CIA from doing things like publishing books, or  infiltrating our colleges and media outlets, nor infiltrating or creating Nonprofits or NGOs. (see the Pentagon Papers and Confessions of an Economic Hitman) to hold power and act in ways they feel are best (for them and their corpocratic associates ).

The Wallace Global Fund, claims populations must  be stabilized. But such a view is pedantic and reductionistic. For instance,  when America currently consumes 25% of the world's resources yet makes up 5% of its population, there is something more to be said about sustainable lifestyles.  I am not saying the Wallace Fund is incorrect but that such a tag line is highly suspicious to me. It’s mission in general smells bad to me--without researching more, I will assume it is infiltrated and/or a fraud.

One very consistent effect of increasing GDP per capita are drops in birth rates eg, Mexico  one generation has gone from eight children for women of childbearing age - 2.4. Barely above a replacement level. And as population stabilize per capita consumption rises. But the paradox is that lowered birth rates leads to labor have historically led to labor shortages. But this may be something of the past or at least absent in the near future. Technology continues to advance and most jobs will very soon be obsolete. Computers will do nearly everything for us. What will the world look like then? De facto social engineering involving the existing development models is evaluated in a very short time frame and longer term effects are ignored, kicked down the road. Social structures, especially traditional structures, can be doomed. Is that good or bad? Asserting that it is all bad takes you back to  wishing that the Industrial Revolution and things like modern medicine, mass education  and travel never happened. On the other hand, ignoring the negative has led to a kind of neocolonialism with an uncritical acceptance of all of the effects of development as either good or necessary evils. It's all pretty unenlightened. Globalization, thus, I would suggest is a market-driven phenomenon allowed to run ahead full speed, enhanced by free trade ideology, without adequate thinking through of the effects and without giving voice adequately to the various peoples affected. Ultimately, globalization is intensely undemocratic and there's the problem.