Slashdot Mirror
Globalism Post 9/11
We seem to be running away from the world, and much of the world hates us for it. Such forces make America not only the world's leading superpower, but probably its most feared and hated nation. As the U.S. evolved rapidly from an industrial to a data-based economy, much of the world hasn't come along, or doesn't want to.
Our technology is running away from the rest of the planet, from genomics to supercomputing to bio-tech research to weaponry. Globalism, arguably the single most significant political issue on the planet even before 9/11, is even more critical now, even though there is little consensus on what it is or how we should feel about it or even define it. Deep-thinking billionaire philanthropist Soros jumps in with a significant new book -- George Soros on Globalization -- in which he advances some exciting and startling ideas about the future.
Anti-globalization protests have become a staple of international summit meetings, Soros points out, a sort of "fragmented potpourri of laments about life in the modern world." A ferocious advocate of open societies, he takes on what's good and bad about globalism, and how we might put it to better use. We'll take up that discussion here.
As Soros points out, 'Globalization' is a much overused term with a wide variety of meanings and contexts. Soros uses it to mean the development of global financial markets and the growth of trans-national corporations, along with their increasing power over national economies. "I believe that most of the problems that people associate with globalism," writes Soros, "including the penetration of market values into areas where they do not traditionally belong, can be attributed to these phenomena."
One could also blame the globalization of information and culture; the spread of television, Internet and other forms of communication; and the increased mobility and commercialization of ideas.
But Soros understandably concentrates on economic issues. Globalization as he defines it, is new. At the end of World War II, most countries strictly controlled international capital transactions. International capital movement accelerated in the early 1980s under Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, and financial markets became truly global only in the early 1990s, Soros says, after the collapse of the Soviet empire.
That period also happens to coincide with the most explosive growth of the Net and the Web, perfect engines for the new data-driven economies and systems for the rapid movement -- literally -- of capital.
By contrast, as we can see on the evening news most nights, while governments may not be able to restrict the flow of capital, they're still fairly effective at controlling the movement of people. (Although even there, the Net ultimately makes that more difficult, at least in terms of intellectual property and ideas. This kind of content is liquid, no longer confinable within territorial boundaries.
Since capital is the essential ingredient of contemporary production and economies, countries compete to attract it. It's no accident that nations who can't or won't are also incubators for political discontent and terrorism. Globalism has transformed our historic economic and social arrangements. Since capital can move anywhere in seconds, any nation-state's ability to exercise control over an economy has been radically undermined. This was a huge club the British held over the Chinese government during negotiations over the transfer of Hong Kong. The Chinese were forced to be somewhat more democratic when, with the stroke of a key, billions of dollars in capital could have fled Hong Kong in a micro-second, even if its people couldn't.
"The globalization of financial markets," argues Soros," has rendered the welfare state that came into existence after World War II obsolete, because the people who require a social safety net cannot leave the country, but the capital the welfare state used to tax can."
This was no accident, he explains, even if few Americans had any idea it was happening. The Reagan administration (along with Thatcher) was determined to reduce the state's ability to interfere in the economy and, helped enormously by globalization's rise, it succeeded.
So, exuberantly costumed demonstrations aside, globalism is not about to evaporate or even weaken, not any time soon. Quite the opposite: nation-states and their constituents now have to choose between globalism (and its attendant prosperity) or religious fanaticism. This leaves us with the central question:
Next: Is Globalism good or evil?
"promote the development and maintenance of open societies around the world. OSI does this by supporting an array of activities dealing with educational, social, legal, and health care reform, and by encouraging alternative approaches to complex and controversial issues."
From what I understand, he is committed personally and professionally to helping ensure that globalization proceeds in an open, democratic (in a broad sense) manner.
sig my booty, check my website
i just found this article on these protests from the point of view of an anthropologist who's also an anarchist.
"The New Anarchists"
i found it quite amusing, and also informative. it goes over a lot of misconceptions found in the media.
"The value of a man resides in what he gives,
and not in what he is capable of receiving."
--Albert Einstein
Your argument about this being a stick used by the British is probably not strictly true.
Also, the odds that China would do anything to mess with HK are extremely low and always have been. They needed HK to prove that Taiwan could safely come into the fold.
What most people don't realize is that the final prize is regional dominance, not HK. This means bringing all of the past conquests into the fold. Chinese people, and the PRC government especially, are very proud. Their goal is ideological, not economic. Although it follows that economics will help them in their quest.
In summary, I think that even if the British took all the money out of HK that A) the Chinese would have taken it back anyway, B) there would have been a rather large impact on global financial markets, and C) Asian would have gone into a massive recession (thereby impacting the rest of the world).
Linux is UNIX.
60%? um no you are incorrect. the largest reserve of oil on the planet is right off of the texas coastline. it is called the Gulf of mexico, and it is basicly one large pool of oil. we (the U.S.) have just not gone out and tapped it much. why else do you think that mexico imports so little oil themselves.(no proof on that one. only the word of a friend who lived down there for 18 years)
One other untapped(or surveyed) area of oil is siberia. that frozen land has vast ammounts of untapped oil fields.
the middle east has about 60% of the oil Market . Not of the known oil reserves.
if you want "No More Hiroshimas" then I say "You First. No More Pearl Harbors."
"I believe that most of the problems that people associate with globalism," writes Soros, "including the penetration of market values into areas where they do not traditionally belong, can be attributed to these phenomena."
Just to let those who aren't aware of it, Soros is not an actual capitalist. Don't take his views as those of a repentant capitalist and free marketeer.
"All mankind is at the mercy of a handful of neurotics". - Norman Douglas
Suicide and Murder rates (per 100,000 inhabitants)
--------------------Suicide---Murder
United Kingdom______8.0_______0.9
United States______11.9_______9.4
(as per the United Nations)
U.S.A._____________11.1_______7.0
(as per the U.S. Dept. of Justice, 1997)
Guns by themselves don't kill people, but they greatly facilitate the killing of people. There are no good arguments for the lack of gun control in the States, save perhaps for the feeling of power that it gives to its owner. [begin sarcasm] Since as a nation americans seem addicted to power, taking the guns away might be too big of a shock to bear...[end sarcasm]
Reminder: find a new sig
Actually, Saudi Arabia is a theocracy. They are adherents of the Wahhabi sect of Islam, the same sect from which the Taliban sprung. There is a Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and Protection from Vice, just as was in Afghanistan. The laws the committee enforce became world-infamous when they led to the burning death of several schoolgirls who were dressed too "immodestly" to be allowed to flee their burning school.
As to that US muscle, we actually inherited the old British "Arab Facade" (of which the House of Saud is an integral part) from the UK following their effective mortgage of the British Empire to the US during WWII. The US owns them, effectively. What the US does NOT own is the allegiance of the extremely disaffected people in North Africa and Arabia. We overthrew Mossadegh, we upended Nasser, so fundamentalist Islam is all they've got left.
As to concentration of wealth and rising Western standards of living, the fact that Bill Gate$ and the MS permatemps work for the same company is but one sign of the rapid rise of income and wealth disparity within the US. 40% (or so) of the US population owns stock, but 90% of that stock is owned by 10% or less of the population. We're a rich country, we've got a lot of wealthy people, but the growth of the 90's came at the expense of the folks at the bottom.
-- "Why, Mr. Anderson, why? Why do you do it? Why get up? Why keep voting? Do you think you're voting for something?"
(KJV) Matthew 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
(KJV) Luke 12:51-53 Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
(KJV) Luke 19:27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay [them] before me.
(KJV) 1 Peter 2:18 Servants, [be] subject to [your] masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.
For "servants", read "slaves". Persons in glass houses, avoid stone throwing.
-- "Why, Mr. Anderson, why? Why do you do it? Why get up? Why keep voting? Do you think you're voting for something?"
Disclaimer: I work in the oil/gas industry, and am biased to believe that my job is relatively secure. :) Also, my company does ~80% gas welltesting, so my ideas about oil may not be perfect.
:)
First of all, you begin by saying that we've "used up" oil in all these different places. I'm sure that's not what you meant, but it's misleading to say that when the areas in question are covered with oil wells producing millions of barrels a day. These wells are still active, and will continue to produce for years (probably somewhere on the order of 10 to 20 years).
The MBendi report is full of alarmist theories, inaccurate facts, and misconceptions. Discovery rate and production rate naturally rise and fall as time passes. The revenue earned from production goes into research. Research creates better traditional methods and innovative ways and places for finding and extracting oil. Discovery of marketable oil reserves (both in extracting more from old resevoirs and finding new ones) due to the new technology increases, and begins a new cycle of production.
Which brings me to my final point: The Canadian oilsands are absolutely booming right now. Your assertion that there is no efficient way to extract it is correct but misleading. There is no efficient way to extract oil out of a resevoir either, but it is still done, and in massive quantities. The amount of oilsands more than makes up for the amount lost to inefficiency. Try sucking all the water out of a sponge without squeezing it. That's about what it's like trying to get oil out of the ground. It's unfortunate that it's not very efficient, but I don't think inefficiency's ever stopped *anyone* from trying to make a buck.
Yes, I agree that our petroleum resources will eventually run out. Of course we are using them up. But there is no need to be alarmist about it. If someone doesn't invent fusion reactors tomorrow, we'll still be okay. (Though I hope someone does.
Random and weird software I've written.
Then by that measure, there are no democracies. A pure democracy has never been tried (on a whole country scale at least). It's for good reason too: i.e. civil rights in the US couldn't happen in a pure democracy.
Turkey is in some respects less of a democracy than many other Arab countries. The Kurds in western Turkey are treated pretty bad, many are political prisoners.