Go ahead repeat the words of your masters, but you will never be free because you submit to authority. China since 1978 -who benefits? Everyone? What about sweat shops in China since 1989 - good business? Trickle down economics - does it work? If YOU want to become part of the game - don't bother -YOU'VE LOST. Let's create a new game and dance to a new song.
Everyone who wants to demonize globalization are simply the Luddite of this generation. People want blame globalization and free trade for sweat shops and other negative aspects attributed to globalization need to wake up and start blaming people. You see man is a imperfect being and anything we do will have a downside and to act as if globalization is the problem lacks reason and accountability.
Globalization will be the downfall of America, you need to to look no further than NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1993, to see this. If all was equal it in theory would be good. However that is nothing more than communisim, and look how well that worked out for the U.S.S.R. Theory is great but reality is far different.
I think that some how, (though unexplained by you)you have confused globalism with collectivism or communism. They are not the same in any fashion. Globalism is alot more like a republic then a communist government.
You also point the tariifs on US exported goods as tho that is globalism fault. That is just a bad deal. For which the US has not the balls to confront. Also golbalism was birthed with dawn of the industrial age and to have any nothion that man should digress in the name "whatever" is simply not going to happen. Globalization is the ability to move four things: People, Money Goods and Data
To do this we have to agree on some common denominator. And that will be DEMOCRACY!!!
I am not trying to compare the three at all. What I am saying is that in order for Globalization to work everything must be equal from top to bottom and country to country. And that my friend is the true meaning of Communisim which in theory is great(as is globalization) but has never and will never work. Globalization is only making things worse for this country. We have become a nation that only consumes we are no longer manufacturing things here, due to inequality in standards between nations
We (the U.S.A.) export something to China it has a 25% tariff (tax) they export something here ZERO tariff. Not only are laws unequal between countries so are standards. Look at the F.D.A.. Look at China knowingly exporting products to hospitals in South America that contain POISON just to cut costs. No other country in the world has what the United States of America has as far as standards in manufacturing. Globalization will not work.
Globalization will work if it is done via free trade. If tariffs and restrictions are upheld, yes, the effects will be and are disastrous. But if we let the economy work its magic without the gov't sticking its fingers in all the pies it can; countries (including ours) will expand and prosper. Wealth is unlimited because it's really what we do with the resources and services we discover, cultivate, and provide. All we need to do is give people free reign to work.
It is not our country "sticking its finger in all the pies" you have to worry about it is countries like china that pay people 2 dollars a day. Basically making their citizens slaves to the companies that employ them. If all was equal it would work but its not and never will be that would be global communism and we all see how well that worked out for the former USSR. China can't even make milk without screwing it up!
Let alone lead based childrens toys and cough medicine made with rat poison sold to South American hospitals. Globalization must be regulated so all countries are on an even playing field it is not and there are no plans to make it so. Which means globalization will be the downfall of all great societies.
So you say that if it was equal-Global Communism-it would work, but then you say that that very thing didn't work? That doesn't make sense. Slaves wages and sweatshops are only transitory. Competition pushes wages up because supply and demand applies to workers as well as the products they make. If an employer doesn't pay his workers enough, they will go somewhere else. And when globalization takes place, it expands commerce so there are many other places they could go. End pt.1
Pt.2 If the economy is regulated, gov't-backed monopolies form because competition is destroyed so there is no incentive to make quality products. Now that we know China makes dangerous toys, free importers will most likely get their toys from somewhere else. The only thing that would stop them from doing that would be gov't imposed tariffs and restrictions that would make looking elsewhere too expensive.
The economy was regulated in the US since the crash of 1929 it wasnt until Clinton signed NAFTA( which is a debacle even by Hillary CLintons standards) into law in 1993 that true Globalization was started he also deregulated the banks from selling mortgages to wallstreet in 1999 the housing boom then occured because banks didnt care if you pay the mortgage they sold it and got their money. We are seeing how well that worked now.
Companies will continue to buy the product from the cheapest manufacturer they can find so they can sell it cheaper and take customers from other companies and thus creating the monopoly you speak of and then raise prices (since they are now the only game in town) to make even more money by exploiting the cheapest labor force they can find anywhere in the world.
In theory yes it would but so would communism as i have said here before. In reality neither work. If you think slave wages wont last you have not been paying attention to world markets. Competition pushes wages up in a country like ours because there is a minimum wage. However worldwide it does nothing but force companies to go to the cheapest labor force bringing wages down. The same as shopping for a car you go where the price is the lowest, without regard to service.
Minimum wage actually hurts laborers in this country. We think it is this necessary thing so people don't get ripped off, but in actuality 90-95% of today's US workers make more than the minimum wage. MW actually hurts unskilled laborers b/c employers are less likely to take a chance on them as they wouldn't be worth the money. So no one can get a foot in the door. Workers are also fired everytime the MW goes up b/c employers are not going to take a pay cut themselves. End pt.1
Pt.2 When companies go overseas to pay cheap laborers and build a factory there, not only do they create jobs, but build commerce around the new plant via merchants, food vendors, services. In Vietnam, a nike factory gave workers a chance to escape poverty by paying them three times+ what they used to make; giving them the $ to send children to school, and buying new amenities. Employers may go somewhere else, but the factories still stay in place. End pt.2
Pt.3 Nike has been in Thailand for 20+ yrs. And even if they go somewhere else, they have stimulated the economy with new money and productivity. Remember, wealth is unlimited. It's the use of capital that matters. Already in Vietnam, new shoe companies indigenous to the area are growing in popularity and making more $. You say the economy was regulated since 1929- that's true, but it started before that and the regulation was the very thing...end pt.3
Pt.4 ...that prolonged the great depression. Btw, it was regulation under the Community Reinvestment Act and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that caused the housing crisis, not deregulation.
They create jobs and stimulate the economy there at the expense of the economy here. The physical factory may stay but the jobs are lost when the employers leave to find cheaper labor the new employees work in the new factory. If you are right is saying that nike gave the workers a raise it is still poverty that their workers in Vietnam live in. The only reason they would have given the employees a raise is because of outcry from the US of what they paid them.
God forbid we reguire our workers to be skilled in the job they are performing we wouldn't want to actually hire competent people. I love going somewhere asking for help from employee and being "I don't know". MW doesnt hurt workers it guarntees a standard of living not found in these 3rd world countries that companies go to to find cheap labor. Workers are not always fired when MW goes up it usually only goes up by about 25-50 cents. If the employer can't afford that how secure is his business?
It's not about an employer who can't afford to pay his employees MW, but abotu an employer who isn't willing to take the cut himself by a)getting less $ himself or b)by keeping unskilled workers who are now costing him more money even though their work doesn't warrant it. So he will fire some of them. Unskilled workers with a good work ethic are what this country was built on. By unskilled, I don't mean people who are too stupid to help you find something in a store. End pt.1
Pt2 I mean a person who learns carpentry on the job or a person who shadows a refrigerator repairman to understand the trade. Without jobs like this, we ended up in the situation we're in now--with very little new jobs and more people on welfare than necessary. And the people in Vietnam are still making less than we are, but that doesn't mean they are slave wages. Many workers can buy TVs for the first time and send their kids to school. How else are countries like this going to increase wealth?
The workers you are talking about here are called apprentices and journeyman. They are not minimum wage employees most start out making $20/hour. We do have jobs like these and the reason for the "very little new jobs" is Globalization those jobs are not here because you have shipped them overseas. Unskilled workers are farm workers and such. You also say "How else are countries like this going to increase wealth?" How about the same way America did it, without the help of Globalization.
Even if those workers are considered apprentices, an employer still has to choose to pay them while they are of little or no use to him b/c they are still learning. Farm workers may account for some unskilled labor, but other jobs apply as well. And America was remarkably independent, but we still had help certainly. And when did it start to go downhill? When regulation stepped in and hampered small business' to boost big business. When the little guy wasn't free to trade and sell as he wanted.
Pt.2 Restriction and regulation always start out as a good idea. We need to help the poor men and women working for slave wages, they say. But it always gets out of hand. George McGovern tried to open a family-run hotel after he lost the presidential race. He couldn't stay open b/c he couldn't afford all of the inane "security/safety" regulations and his staff didn't work to the potential of their high wages. He had to close because of regulations, many of which, he himself put into place. :)
Pt.3 Mary Ruwart talks about a disabled man who asked her if he could paint and help repair the apts she had bought. He knew he wasn't as capable as an able-bodied person so he offered to work for less $ in exchange for a good recommendation from Ruwart and experience he could use later. But Ruwart couldn't pay him less b/c of gov't instituted MW regulation. A healthy person was just more cost-effective. So the man was regrettably turned away. How does MW help him?
Sorry just saw this today. MW is not there to help the disabled we have disability to help people like him. Also if he is disabled why would he be looking for a job in which he is hindered by his disability? He wouldn't try to be a fireman would he? No of course not. Why? Do I have to answer this one or did you already do it in your head?
The employer usually keeps the se people and passes the extra cost on to the end user: you and I. Yes many other jobs apply as well as farm workers who I beleive actually don't fall under minimum wage regulations kind of like waiters. Things started to go downhill when big business started shipping jobs overseas not with regulation. The little guy is still free to sell and trade as he wishes by the way. And America did just fine untill globalization theory began. Reality is far different.
I'm sorry too: I've been busy. If the employer keeps his employees and passes the extra cost onto the people, he still suffers b/c customers will buy less from him and with less $ he can't produce as much. Eventually, the workers will suffer; the business may even fail. Back to the disabled man-He may be better suited for another more cerebral job, but what if he is not educated enough for a job like that. Or maybe their aren't any. The key to this whole argument is freedom. End pt.1
Do we allow anyone to do whatever job they are capable of (or even one they may not be suited for, but wish to try)? Or do we try to "help" by limiting their opportunities? Should we condone the gov't presuming to know what's best for people? Or do they know what's best for themselves?
We allow people to do whatever job they are capable of clearly he wasn't capable (or at least as capable) due to his handicap. We do not limit peoples oppurtunities or to know what's best for them(unless your Obama). But clearly whats best for him is not too offer to work for less then MW due to a handicap. He should look for a job he is more qualified for.
Whether he's qualified or not, he should be able to look for any job on the basis of his merit, not on the basis of where he can wiggle past some gov't restriction. But now licensing laws enter the fold here too. We do not allow people to do whatever job they want. For instance, if poor women decide to braid hair as a source of income, they can't unless they have a license given after taking classes that are too expensive for them. These laws also help big businesses over the little guy.
This is why small businesses offer great service because they can't compete in price with the big companies who use overseas labor Globalization) like wal-mart.
ok then, i apologize, if this was meant to actually promote globalization then of course it would anger some. if it was meant to be ironic then i completely understand. well edited i must admit, im a combat cameraman so i know good editing from bad.
haha no worries...as long as the video evokes some kind of emotion then I'm happy...no matter what that emotion may be. Plus, anyone who dislikes Bush is fine by me.
this video has been approved by George W. Bush. get real, showing people dance around inside a checkered box talking on cell phones. you must be joking. obviously the person who made this music video never went to bangladesh, romania, moldova, or many other countries where the products featured in this video were made. enjoy your new ipods and die.
just so you know, I Despise George W. Bush. In fact, my hatred for him helped fuel this video when I made it....IN HIGHSCHOOL. Chill out, it was just supposed to be entertaining.
If there is a real redistribution of the wealth and knowledge at global level, the countries on the way to deasarrollo do not tendrian that to have extraction of resources so elevadad and having to generate amibetales damages like atmospheric so elevated. That the countries developing like which they estan them alxanzando give to the example and entregemos the wealth and knowledge (I&D) the maximum that this a their reach.
But there is no shortage of protectionist political views about, potential recessions/oil crises or acts of global governance (kyoto, EU, UN for example) that can act in the opposite direction and promote investment in poorer countries - to benefit the poorer countries.
I'm not saying it's desirable - our standard of living would decrease, but it's definitely not a 'safe bet'.
i don't agree with you that it is narrow-minded to say that globalization is a process that can't/won't be reversed, because the world is moving at a fast pace towards this ideal world of globalization without much consideration of the consequences that will come with it.
I think it's narrow minded to say that globalisation is a process that can't/won't be reversed.
It's most definitely a process that's underway; the liberalisation of industry, finances, trade and manufacturing etc. are all allowing this intergration of cultures and economies at the present rate. This is facilitated by promoters of free-trade (WTO, IMF etc.) - and this is most definitely to our advantage!
i dont agree that its most definitely to our advantage. after all, with globlization, the income disparity between the rich and poor and the First World and Third World countries will increase. is this to our benefit? on top of that, globalization harldy protects the rights of the less developed countries and TRIPs are reflective of the interests of TNCs rather than the local and domestic interest.
Bush is ending democracy in the USA under the guise of globalism. This repackaged internationalsim is making the oil elites wealthy as the middle class shrinks and the constitution dies. US bond market posed for massive crash
This has been flagged as spam show
Globalization = New Communism.
chinasucksforever 3 years ago
can anyone tell me the first song? i know its by death cab
and also the second song,the one that starts at 1:49
carterkiller 3 years ago
I don't know the second song, but the first is, you're right, Death Cab:
"Brothers on a Hotel Bed" from their album
"Plans".
Apmhflick 3 years ago
great music- kept me watching it!
pervyduck 3 years ago
A high tide raise all boats. And globalization tho not evenly is going to make this planet a better place for everyone.
SchierForce 4 years ago
Go ahead repeat the words of your masters, but you will never be free because you submit to authority. China since 1978 -who benefits? Everyone? What about sweat shops in China since 1989 - good business? Trickle down economics - does it work? If YOU want to become part of the game - don't bother -YOU'VE LOST. Let's create a new game and dance to a new song.
Jetstream74 4 years ago
Everyone who wants to demonize globalization are simply the Luddite of this generation. People want blame globalization and free trade for sweat shops and other negative aspects attributed to globalization need to wake up and start blaming people. You see man is a imperfect being and anything we do will have a downside and to act as if globalization is the problem lacks reason and accountability.
SchierForce 4 years ago
Globalization will be the downfall of America, you need to to look no further than NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1993, to see this. If all was equal it in theory would be good. However that is nothing more than communisim, and look how well that worked out for the U.S.S.R. Theory is great but reality is far different.
tackman06 3 years ago
Hey Tack ,
I think that some how, (though unexplained by you)you have confused globalism with collectivism or communism. They are not the same in any fashion. Globalism is alot more like a republic then a communist government.
Continued:
SchierForce 3 years ago
You also point the tariifs on US exported goods as tho that is globalism fault. That is just a bad deal. For which the US has not the balls to confront. Also golbalism was birthed with dawn of the industrial age and to have any nothion that man should digress in the name "whatever" is simply not going to happen. Globalization is the ability to move four things: People, Money Goods and Data
To do this we have to agree on some common denominator. And that will be DEMOCRACY!!!
SchierForce 3 years ago
This was a continued response to tackman06
sry
SchierForce 3 years ago
Feel free to email me to continue this debate. I feel we are both limited by the charcter count.
tackman06 3 years ago
I am not trying to compare the three at all. What I am saying is that in order for Globalization to work everything must be equal from top to bottom and country to country. And that my friend is the true meaning of Communisim which in theory is great(as is globalization) but has never and will never work. Globalization is only making things worse for this country. We have become a nation that only consumes we are no longer manufacturing things here, due to inequality in standards between nations
tackman06 3 years ago
We (the U.S.A.) export something to China it has a 25% tariff (tax) they export something here ZERO tariff. Not only are laws unequal between countries so are standards. Look at the F.D.A.. Look at China knowingly exporting products to hospitals in South America that contain POISON just to cut costs. No other country in the world has what the United States of America has as far as standards in manufacturing. Globalization will not work.
tackman06 3 years ago
Globalization will work if it is done via free trade. If tariffs and restrictions are upheld, yes, the effects will be and are disastrous. But if we let the economy work its magic without the gov't sticking its fingers in all the pies it can; countries (including ours) will expand and prosper. Wealth is unlimited because it's really what we do with the resources and services we discover, cultivate, and provide. All we need to do is give people free reign to work.
Apmhflick 3 years ago
It is not our country "sticking its finger in all the pies" you have to worry about it is countries like china that pay people 2 dollars a day. Basically making their citizens slaves to the companies that employ them. If all was equal it would work but its not and never will be that would be global communism and we all see how well that worked out for the former USSR. China can't even make milk without screwing it up!
tackman06 3 years ago
Let alone lead based childrens toys and cough medicine made with rat poison sold to South American hospitals. Globalization must be regulated so all countries are on an even playing field it is not and there are no plans to make it so. Which means globalization will be the downfall of all great societies.
tackman06 3 years ago
So you say that if it was equal-Global Communism-it would work, but then you say that that very thing didn't work? That doesn't make sense. Slaves wages and sweatshops are only transitory. Competition pushes wages up because supply and demand applies to workers as well as the products they make. If an employer doesn't pay his workers enough, they will go somewhere else. And when globalization takes place, it expands commerce so there are many other places they could go. End pt.1
Apmhflick 3 years ago
Pt.2 If the economy is regulated, gov't-backed monopolies form because competition is destroyed so there is no incentive to make quality products. Now that we know China makes dangerous toys, free importers will most likely get their toys from somewhere else. The only thing that would stop them from doing that would be gov't imposed tariffs and restrictions that would make looking elsewhere too expensive.
Apmhflick 3 years ago
The economy was regulated in the US since the crash of 1929 it wasnt until Clinton signed NAFTA( which is a debacle even by Hillary CLintons standards) into law in 1993 that true Globalization was started he also deregulated the banks from selling mortgages to wallstreet in 1999 the housing boom then occured because banks didnt care if you pay the mortgage they sold it and got their money. We are seeing how well that worked now.
tackman06 3 years ago
Companies will continue to buy the product from the cheapest manufacturer they can find so they can sell it cheaper and take customers from other companies and thus creating the monopoly you speak of and then raise prices (since they are now the only game in town) to make even more money by exploiting the cheapest labor force they can find anywhere in the world.
tackman06 3 years ago
In theory yes it would but so would communism as i have said here before. In reality neither work. If you think slave wages wont last you have not been paying attention to world markets. Competition pushes wages up in a country like ours because there is a minimum wage. However worldwide it does nothing but force companies to go to the cheapest labor force bringing wages down. The same as shopping for a car you go where the price is the lowest, without regard to service.
tackman06 3 years ago
Minimum wage actually hurts laborers in this country. We think it is this necessary thing so people don't get ripped off, but in actuality 90-95% of today's US workers make more than the minimum wage. MW actually hurts unskilled laborers b/c employers are less likely to take a chance on them as they wouldn't be worth the money. So no one can get a foot in the door. Workers are also fired everytime the MW goes up b/c employers are not going to take a pay cut themselves. End pt.1
Apmhflick 3 years ago
Pt.2 When companies go overseas to pay cheap laborers and build a factory there, not only do they create jobs, but build commerce around the new plant via merchants, food vendors, services. In Vietnam, a nike factory gave workers a chance to escape poverty by paying them three times+ what they used to make; giving them the $ to send children to school, and buying new amenities. Employers may go somewhere else, but the factories still stay in place. End pt.2
Apmhflick 3 years ago
Pt.3 Nike has been in Thailand for 20+ yrs. And even if they go somewhere else, they have stimulated the economy with new money and productivity. Remember, wealth is unlimited. It's the use of capital that matters. Already in Vietnam, new shoe companies indigenous to the area are growing in popularity and making more $. You say the economy was regulated since 1929- that's true, but it started before that and the regulation was the very thing...end pt.3
Apmhflick 3 years ago
Pt.4 ...that prolonged the great depression. Btw, it was regulation under the Community Reinvestment Act and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that caused the housing crisis, not deregulation.
Apmhflick 3 years ago
I disagree with this completely but that is another debate.
tackman06 3 years ago
They create jobs and stimulate the economy there at the expense of the economy here. The physical factory may stay but the jobs are lost when the employers leave to find cheaper labor the new employees work in the new factory. If you are right is saying that nike gave the workers a raise it is still poverty that their workers in Vietnam live in. The only reason they would have given the employees a raise is because of outcry from the US of what they paid them.
tackman06 3 years ago
God forbid we reguire our workers to be skilled in the job they are performing we wouldn't want to actually hire competent people. I love going somewhere asking for help from employee and being "I don't know". MW doesnt hurt workers it guarntees a standard of living not found in these 3rd world countries that companies go to to find cheap labor. Workers are not always fired when MW goes up it usually only goes up by about 25-50 cents. If the employer can't afford that how secure is his business?
tackman06 3 years ago
It's not about an employer who can't afford to pay his employees MW, but abotu an employer who isn't willing to take the cut himself by a)getting less $ himself or b)by keeping unskilled workers who are now costing him more money even though their work doesn't warrant it. So he will fire some of them. Unskilled workers with a good work ethic are what this country was built on. By unskilled, I don't mean people who are too stupid to help you find something in a store. End pt.1
Apmhflick 3 years ago
Pt2 I mean a person who learns carpentry on the job or a person who shadows a refrigerator repairman to understand the trade. Without jobs like this, we ended up in the situation we're in now--with very little new jobs and more people on welfare than necessary. And the people in Vietnam are still making less than we are, but that doesn't mean they are slave wages. Many workers can buy TVs for the first time and send their kids to school. How else are countries like this going to increase wealth?
Apmhflick 3 years ago
The workers you are talking about here are called apprentices and journeyman. They are not minimum wage employees most start out making $20/hour. We do have jobs like these and the reason for the "very little new jobs" is Globalization those jobs are not here because you have shipped them overseas. Unskilled workers are farm workers and such. You also say "How else are countries like this going to increase wealth?" How about the same way America did it, without the help of Globalization.
tackman06 3 years ago
Even if those workers are considered apprentices, an employer still has to choose to pay them while they are of little or no use to him b/c they are still learning. Farm workers may account for some unskilled labor, but other jobs apply as well. And America was remarkably independent, but we still had help certainly. And when did it start to go downhill? When regulation stepped in and hampered small business' to boost big business. When the little guy wasn't free to trade and sell as he wanted.
Apmhflick 3 years ago
*businesses
Apmhflick 3 years ago
Pt.2 Restriction and regulation always start out as a good idea. We need to help the poor men and women working for slave wages, they say. But it always gets out of hand. George McGovern tried to open a family-run hotel after he lost the presidential race. He couldn't stay open b/c he couldn't afford all of the inane "security/safety" regulations and his staff didn't work to the potential of their high wages. He had to close because of regulations, many of which, he himself put into place. :)
Apmhflick 3 years ago
Pt.3 Mary Ruwart talks about a disabled man who asked her if he could paint and help repair the apts she had bought. He knew he wasn't as capable as an able-bodied person so he offered to work for less $ in exchange for a good recommendation from Ruwart and experience he could use later. But Ruwart couldn't pay him less b/c of gov't instituted MW regulation. A healthy person was just more cost-effective. So the man was regrettably turned away. How does MW help him?
Apmhflick 3 years ago
Sorry just saw this today. MW is not there to help the disabled we have disability to help people like him. Also if he is disabled why would he be looking for a job in which he is hindered by his disability? He wouldn't try to be a fireman would he? No of course not. Why? Do I have to answer this one or did you already do it in your head?
tackman06 3 years ago
Sounds to me like he closed because his employees "didn't work to the potential of their high wages". Maybe he should have hired competent employees.
tackman06 3 years ago
The employer usually keeps the se people and passes the extra cost on to the end user: you and I. Yes many other jobs apply as well as farm workers who I beleive actually don't fall under minimum wage regulations kind of like waiters. Things started to go downhill when big business started shipping jobs overseas not with regulation. The little guy is still free to sell and trade as he wishes by the way. And America did just fine untill globalization theory began. Reality is far different.
tackman06 3 years ago
I'm sorry too: I've been busy. If the employer keeps his employees and passes the extra cost onto the people, he still suffers b/c customers will buy less from him and with less $ he can't produce as much. Eventually, the workers will suffer; the business may even fail. Back to the disabled man-He may be better suited for another more cerebral job, but what if he is not educated enough for a job like that. Or maybe their aren't any. The key to this whole argument is freedom. End pt.1
Apmhflick 3 years ago
Do we allow anyone to do whatever job they are capable of (or even one they may not be suited for, but wish to try)? Or do we try to "help" by limiting their opportunities? Should we condone the gov't presuming to know what's best for people? Or do they know what's best for themselves?
Apmhflick 3 years ago
We allow people to do whatever job they are capable of clearly he wasn't capable (or at least as capable) due to his handicap. We do not limit peoples oppurtunities or to know what's best for them(unless your Obama). But clearly whats best for him is not too offer to work for less then MW due to a handicap. He should look for a job he is more qualified for.
tackman06 3 years ago
Whether he's qualified or not, he should be able to look for any job on the basis of his merit, not on the basis of where he can wiggle past some gov't restriction. But now licensing laws enter the fold here too. We do not allow people to do whatever job they want. For instance, if poor women decide to braid hair as a source of income, they can't unless they have a license given after taking classes that are too expensive for them. These laws also help big businesses over the little guy.
Apmhflick 3 years ago
This is why small businesses offer great service because they can't compete in price with the big companies who use overseas labor Globalization) like wal-mart.
tackman06 3 years ago
the transnationals have owned people for a long time. and they control the world, and the moon and stars.
nedlund 4 years ago
great music choice
popnfresh1965 4 years ago 2
ok then, i apologize, if this was meant to actually promote globalization then of course it would anger some. if it was meant to be ironic then i completely understand. well edited i must admit, im a combat cameraman so i know good editing from bad.
startropic 4 years ago
haha no worries...as long as the video evokes some kind of emotion then I'm happy...no matter what that emotion may be. Plus, anyone who dislikes Bush is fine by me.
lulu525 4 years ago
this video has been approved by George W. Bush. get real, showing people dance around inside a checkered box talking on cell phones. you must be joking. obviously the person who made this music video never went to bangladesh, romania, moldova, or many other countries where the products featured in this video were made. enjoy your new ipods and die.
startropic 4 years ago
just so you know, I Despise George W. Bush. In fact, my hatred for him helped fuel this video when I made it....IN HIGHSCHOOL. Chill out, it was just supposed to be entertaining.
lulu525 4 years ago
For a well researched video on globalization, view the No Logo or Noam Chomsky clips. This is a pointless music video that mentions foreign trade.
cnbayer 4 years ago
relax
lulu525 4 years ago
If there is a real redistribution of the wealth and knowledge at global level, the countries on the way to deasarrollo do not tendrian that to have extraction of resources so elevadad and having to generate amibetales damages like atmospheric so elevated. That the countries developing like which they estan them alxanzando give to the example and entregemos the wealth and knowledge (I&D) the maximum that this a their reach.
cdconcha 4 years ago
Excelente composicion!
CarlosSantaniello 4 years ago
oil elites are only wealthy because we buy oil.
RoteHaareMann 4 years ago
But there is no shortage of protectionist political views about, potential recessions/oil crises or acts of global governance (kyoto, EU, UN for example) that can act in the opposite direction and promote investment in poorer countries - to benefit the poorer countries.
I'm not saying it's desirable - our standard of living would decrease, but it's definitely not a 'safe bet'.
adamlyons87 4 years ago
i don't agree with you that it is narrow-minded to say that globalization is a process that can't/won't be reversed, because the world is moving at a fast pace towards this ideal world of globalization without much consideration of the consequences that will come with it.
kamegal 4 years ago
I think it's narrow minded to say that globalisation is a process that can't/won't be reversed.
It's most definitely a process that's underway; the liberalisation of industry, finances, trade and manufacturing etc. are all allowing this intergration of cultures and economies at the present rate. This is facilitated by promoters of free-trade (WTO, IMF etc.) - and this is most definitely to our advantage!
adamlyons87 4 years ago
i dont agree that its most definitely to our advantage. after all, with globlization, the income disparity between the rich and poor and the First World and Third World countries will increase. is this to our benefit? on top of that, globalization harldy protects the rights of the less developed countries and TRIPs are reflective of the interests of TNCs rather than the local and domestic interest.
kamegal 4 years ago
Thank you, great use of music an visual to portray the message!
pikmena 4 years ago
100% true what eobo4ver said
vomitflight 5 years ago
Bush is ending democracy in the USA under the guise of globalism. This repackaged internationalsim is making the oil elites wealthy as the middle class shrinks and the constitution dies. US bond market posed for massive crash
eobo4ver 5 years ago