Image via Wikipedia
Reference a ‘Sott.net’ post as reported by ‘The Guardian‘.
Globalization may have been intended to improve the lot of the undeveloped countries by giving them work and income, but this has not necessarily been the result.
It may have been intended to improve the quality of life for the developed countries because their “needs” would be cheaper. Again, this is not necessarily the result.
In the former case, the usual exploitation based on greed has still complicated the outcome, with standards of living offset by inflation. Reduced consumerism also offsets gains.
In the latter case, job and expertise losses are beginning to make heavy inroads into economies. The resulting loss of purchasing power and hence sales, reverses the intended benefits.
Now consider that the whole idea of globalization may have been not to simply reduce the imbalance in countries economies to realize a net benefit. It may, in fact, have been introduced in order to bring the over-productive, “fully” employed countries to their knees.
Whether or not this was the intention, will be vehemently argued. Nevertheless, that has turned out to be the result.
“The worldwide public realises there is something deeply wrong with today’s world economic system
When Karl Marx called for the workers of the world to unite, it seems unlikely he had in mind an iPhone boycott. But suggestions for just such a campaign in the US have thrown the spotlight on possible abuses at firms producing goods for hi-tech giant Apple, urging the public to think again about what happens at the other end of the production pipeline that leads to its swish, minimalist stores. Stung by the criticisms, Apple boss Tim Cook told his staff last week: “We care about every worker in our worldwide supply chain,” and the company is now inspecting scores of factories, providing the latest evidence that the public is no longer willing to ignore the dark underbelly of world capitalism.
Before the Great Crash, critics of globalisation were isolated on the loony fringe: tear-gassed in Seattle and whacked with truncheons in Prague, as the west’s leaders gathered to congratulate themselves on reaping the benefits of unfettered world trade.
When the Asian financial crises of the 1990s toppled governments and forced one desperate country after another into mass impoverishment and emergency bailouts by the International Monetary Fund, the west’s leaders – even many on the left – explained it away as a result of shoddy governance or poor economic management, instead of a devastating side-effect of globalisation.
And even after the financial shock waves rippled out from the American housing market in 2007 and caused catastrophic collateral damage in countries across the globe, and the deepest world recession since the 1930s, many felt that a few tweaks to bank capital rules, and sharper teeth for financial regulators, would fix the system.
Yet two things have derailed world leaders’ attempts to get back to business as usual. The first is that in many countries, more than four years on from the start of the credit crisis, millions of people still wait for economic recovery to take hold. Growth is sickly or non-existent; unemployment is rising; the only people who seem to escape are a tiny, super-rich elite.“
Please read the Sott post here.
In Australia manufacturing capabilities have been annihilated, agricultural industries threatened and export income reduced through free trade agreements. The mining industry hangs on the hope of continuing expansion in China, now under threat.
In America, unemployment is a national disaster. Their only lucrative industry is ammunitions and the military, financed by the taxpayers, present and future, and is dependent on eternal wars. Their economy is completely bankrupt. Their social structures, welfare, health, education and civil services are going out backwards. The opportunities for future taxpayers to pay the debts are unrealistic.
My view is entirely in agreement with their post.
Related articles
- Globalisation: World Trade Organisation (WTO) (knowledge-skills.com)
- Globalisation has turned on its Western creators (telegraph.co.uk)
The GOLDEN RULE 
I think that the financial crisis has been assumed to effect the emerging economies more than it actually has, another example of the west seeing itself as the centre of the world – globalisation and the financial crisis
Thanks for your contribution.
From your link: “Therefore it appears that although globalisation is very real, and there is independence amongst nations, the idea that the financial crisis was a globalised phenomenon that has bought the whole global economy to its knees is another example of Western-centric thought. In the future the situation may be very different, as Western economies stagnate and emerging economies become the economic powerhouses globalisation may come to mean something very different to people in the West.”
Globalization and the global financial crisis are not perhaps so closely associated as you seem to suggest. They, I think, were born independently, BUT can both be seen to cause loss of independence, and to facilitate reliance on ‘outside’ support and control. Hence they have the common origin of ‘intent to create collapse’ resulting in the door opening for World Government control.