Slashdot Mirror
Globalism, Corporatism and Open Source
To Soros, the current state of globalism -- capital is free but social concerns are underfunded -- represents a distortion of globalization, not its true promise.
Corporatism and globalism have become hopelessly confused in the public mind.The many excesses of valueless, greedy, proprietary and unrestrained multinational corporations have become enmeshed with tech-driven networked economies. It's difficult to even imagine what an effort it would take to separate one from another, sadly.
In his book George Soros on Globalization, the billionnaire asks for institutional reforms to address some of the many political concerns globalism raises:
l. Contain the instability of financial markets.
2. Complement the World Trade Organization (WTO),which is supposed to generate equitably-distributed global wealth, with equally powerful international organizations devoted to social goals, like reducing poverty and making necessary goods available all over the world.
3. Improve the quality of public life in countries suffering from corrupt, repressive or incompetent governments.
Free software advocates have argued for years now that open software could help create wealth and promote open societies in once-repressive, impoverished and technologically-primitive regimes. This idea is exciting. It attracted non-geeks like me to Open Source and Slashdot in the first place. That they are right is almost beside the point. How will proprietary software be curbed, and open software developed, in regimes that are corrupt and repressive? Why would these noxious governments support the use of software to develop an open society any more than they would encourage free speech or abandon censorship?
Legal scholars like Lawrence Lessig see the GPL as a major cornerstone of a vast, global "digital commons." So far, this vision has failed to materialize. In fact, new software is creating personalized, fragmented, narcissistic media in which screening and blocking (products, people, differing opinions) has become widely accepted, even epidemic.
In his terrific new biography of Richard Stallman, Free As In Freedom writer Sam Williams quotes Stallman: "What history says about the GNU project, twenty years from now, will depend on who wins the battle of freedom to use public knowledge. If we lose, we will be just a footnote. If we win, it is uncertain whether people will know the role of the GNU operating system -- if they think the system is 'Linux' they will build a false picture of what happened and why. But even if we win, what history people learn a hundred years from now is likely to depend on who dominates politically." So far, the big winners are the big corporations.
But Stallman, the Thomas Paine of the Net, is obviously right in some ways. To many people on Wall Street and in Silicon Valley, the GNU project is already a footnote. It remains the most vibrant and exciting political idea on the Net, whatever the obstacles. But it seems that corporatism is too deeply entrenched to really change, and who is going to make it change? Few governments in the world as as powerful as Microsoft or AOL-Time-Warner. The multi-nationals are, in a way, the new nation-states of globalism. In recent years, they have been the primary beneficiaries of globalism -- as Soros concedes -- and for much of the undeveloped world and many political activists, they are the spawn of globalism's first generation of existence.
Soros skirts some major obstacles to his proper and idealistic vision. He recognizes that the networked global economy is forcing market values into areas where they don't properly or historically belong, from copyright to publishing to medicine to the law. These intrusions also occur in foreign cultures where they are distinctly unwelcome. Anti-Americanism has become a staple of life in many parts of Europe, and even more virulently elsewhere, where the United States is equated with evil, greed, corruption and blasphemy.
One of the great -- and widely foreseen -- political consequences of the rise of the Net was a widening gap between developed and undeveloped countries, many of which simply lack the infrastructure to wire up their populations and economies. How can governments in places like Afghanistan embrace open software and an open society if they can't even bring electricity and telephones to most of their citizens?
There's already enormous opposition to ideas like the ones Soros proposes. Market fundamentalists and conservatives object to tinkering with the global marketplace. And the broad range of people who call themselves "antiglobalization activists" don't buy the idea that globalization could conceivably improve lives in impoverished parts of the world. Many don't believe meetings should even be held by governmental officials to discuss globalism.
Soros argues that the world's worst conditions aren't necessarily caused by globalism. It's bad governments that are responsible for exploitive working conditions, lack of social and economic capital, and political repression.
Soros's primary argument is that globalism could be used as a powerful social tool, one that could undermine or circumvent incompetent or repressive regimes. The increased wealth globalization produces, he maintains, could make up for the inequities and other shortcomings of networked, global economies. The problem is that the winners don't compensate the losers, says Soros. "There is no international equivalent of the political process that occurs within individual states. While markets have become global, politics remain firmly rooted in the sovereignty of the state."
The Net becomes a significant political factor in this evolution, because it is both individualistic and trans-national. It permits the rapid movement of capital and, if open source activists are correct, could also use free software and other technologies as a powerful tool for developing nations who want to join the globalization movement.
But it's difficult to see by what process this is going to occur. As a result of globalization, the divisions between the world's rich and the poor continues to widen. According to the United Nations Development Program, the richest one percent of the world's population receives as much income as the poorest 57 percent. More than a billion people live on less than a dollar a day; nearly a billion lack any access to clean water; 826 million suffer from malnutrition; 10 million die annually due to lack of basic health care. Some of these conditions pre-dated globalization, but the new economy has hardly improved matters. And it seems to be generating hatred of the United States, where contemporary notions of globalism were born and shaped.
Next: Getting specific about reforming globalism.
But wait - that was Jon Katz!
(ducks and runs)
Caller: Globalism
Caller: Corporatism
Caller: Open Source
Me: BINGO!
Jon ... I fear your slashdot headline generator has become jammed in the "on" position again.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
"Herd-like college kids"
But then, for the most part, you repeat yourself. As a college student, I'm amazed how often kids who have led sheltered lives, upon finding out there is more in the world, latch onto every new idea they get like its the holy grail of modern thought. I think this explains a lot of the college protests going on.
When is the JonKatz madness going to stop?!
Mentions globalism: check!
Mentions Open Source: check!
Mentions WTO: check!
Makes some strange connection between Open Source and social politics: check!
If only he could somehow blame Swaziland's continuing strife on Microsoft's business practices, he'd be set.
Sounds like a closet communist trying to show that the GPL and open-source support communism.
:-)
I think they are more like democracy, allowing everyone to know the truth and everyone to have a vote. Everybody knows humanity as a whole is greedy and collectivly ignorant of its own well-being. The only reason that open-source really works is because it has more of a republic-style structure. There are very smart people working in a tight-knit group for the good of the software and those that use it. They don't allow just anybody to get their hands on the code (read that as modify the CVS tree), and if the community doesn't like what's going on in it they fork and create a new small tight-knit group that does the same thing a different way.
The problem with extending this philosophy to government is that software can passively take away the goods of the closed-source guys by the rules of supply and demand. Try to take away governments candy and you are going to pick a fight. They don't have to compete, they RULE.
My $0.02 will always be worth more than your â0.02, so
"Herd-like college kids and knee-jerk political activists associate the term with a broad range of bugaboos, from cultural imperialism to sweatshops to environmental destruction."
Bugaboos?! BUGABOOS?!
oh come ON!
no
Like so many other things, globalisation can be good, or can be bad. Make that "can be great, or can be dreadful". Unfortunately, it seems to swing to one or t'other extremes, and the rhetoric certainly focuses on little else.
Certainly the removal of trade barriers should be a force for good all round, but not when unrestricted trade allows a masive multinational to come in and crush local industry by running at a loss until the market is "secure".
The only possible solution is a carefully moderated one, but that's what the EU was supposed to achieve, and it's proving a MUCH more painful process than expected.
Trouble is, the conglomerates only ever talk about the pros, and the protesters only ever talk about the cons. It's very very rare to encounter a forum which discusses both sides frankly, AND attempts to find middle ground. Which is silly - there's no fundamental reason why everyone couldn't benefit from the process.
2c, anyway.
>Some of these conditions pre-dated globalization,
>but the new economy has hardly improved matters.
>And it seems to be generating hatred of the United
>States, where contemporary notions of globalism
>were born and shaped.
It's hardly economy 2.0 that's causing the much-propagated hatred. US just reaps what it sowed through the 70's and 80's.
Truth doesn't stick to glossy paper. (Bill Horton)
If there is anyone anywhere who comes closest to the Smoking Man in the X-Files, it is Soros. The guy is a genius, no doubt, and I'm all for rampant capitlism and money making, but Soros is just a son-of-a-bitch. Really. That guy would be more than happy to utterly destroy the economy of any third world country to make $50. Happily.
Come to think of it, maybe I actully like Soros and I'm just suprised to read a limp wristed, whiny, leftist, apologist like Katz stick up for him.
Cunning linguists
But Stallman, the Thomas Paine of the Net, is obviously right in some ways.
I've never heard him called a "Thomas Paine" before, but I have heard him mentioned as another type of "Paine".
Soros supports globalism, and not only because of the new wealth he believes it can produce.
The cynic in me reads "new wealth he believes it can produce for him."
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
You say valueless, greedy, and proprietary like they are bad things. Have you been talking to Ralph Nader?
When talking about George Soros, the Asian Crisis around 1998 comes into mind. Before being to accepting of his ideas, remember that he and the funds that has made him a billionaire where suspected in taking part in currency specultions that helped deepen/cause the southeast asian currency crisis. (Currency selling/buying to increase the values of the funds).
On the same note, he and the same funds were suspected of being involved in the heavy Swedish krona speculations that caused a major currency crisis in Sweden in the early 90's.
/Mattias
Anyone who thinks that if the west hadn't got rich through the industrial revolution , and
science and technology in general then the 3rd world would somehow have inherited that wealth
and would all be living in some happy nirvana right now is either a fool or living in some hippy
cloud somewhere south of reality.
I get sick and tired of people trying to make me feel guily because I can afford a computer and
some kid in africa is starving to death.
Povery is caused by a combination of degradation of the enviroment, despot dictators, poor economic management, religious zealotry and plain old overpopulation.
Fuck the 3rd world, its not our fault the state they're in. We dragged ourselves out of a stone
age culture, they didn't. Well thats their damn problem.
...please...
What we need is good education in developing countries, we need equal possibilities to trade under similuar sets of trade-rules.
Open source (the idea that people should give their work away for free) has abolutely NOTHING to do with this. Giving work away for free doesn't create welth.
I'm sick and tired when not-so-serious articles tries to connect one thing that they support with something else thats really has nothing to do with it.
First of all, globalism is as much of a dream as communism. It looks good on paper, but people in general are too corrupt to make it work properly, so it will fail. Many Americans fail to see this because we live in a nation where our government's corruption is minimal RELATIVE TO MOST OTHER COUNTRIES (not meant to be flamebait--if you don't believe me, stop over in any South American or African country for a few days). Globalization will merely turn into an excuse to basically turn third world countries into slave nations. There will be no point in the rich trying to make themselves richer by exploiting people in their own country; they can already exploit the wealth gap that will be readily available in other countries! Don't believe me? It's already happening! And don't kid yourself with reform--PEOPLE, ESPECIALLY POLITICIANS, ARE INHERENTLY CORRUPT!
Secondly, how is this "news for nerds" or "stuff that matters?" Just because you mention RMS doesn't mean we're interested!
Globalism's whole premise is based upon the presumption that so-called third world countries want to join us in becoming increasingly technologized.
Secondly, it drives large corporatists crazy with dreams of raizing new nations of consumers -- ready to purchase their wares without sophistication or restraint.
mbbac
Open source is going to save the world?... Only if people that are going to work don't mind Open Salary, (working for free).
Causing Chaos Everywhere,
Nik J.
The strange world of a loner, in a populous city, drowning in society
I wish I could get paid weekly to sit on my ass and churn out stupid little articles like this...
;)
What in the hell is Katz's salary anyways? I'll do it for half...and people won't hate me as much! Not even the anti-globalism, post 9/11 terrorists who code open source software to avoid another Columbine.
Check, check, check, check.
The award, which consists of a 6-inch piece of CAT-5 cable (that's obviously been ripped out of a piece of equipment) mounted on a plaque, suitable for display.
I can't believe I just read that. I've never really gotten into the whole Katz-bashing thing, but that one little phrase makes it perfectly clear to me why so many do. The guy definitely needs to have the shit beat out of him with a clue stick, if not a baseball bat.
...but only to 20% of the global population, if no less!
I'm from Argentina: Tango, Asado, Mate, Gaucho, Maradona, YPF
"Globalism, Corporatism and Open Source"
Nuff said...
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
Even if you could match Katz's eloquent and flowery prose you certianly couldn't express the depth of his insights. Every single piece of his writing is a gem waiting to be uncovered. I like to print out Katz pieces and savor them in a comfortable armchair with a nice warm glass of cognac. Katz pieces also bear re-reading, and they get better with every time. I have spent many a warm summer afternoon sitting on my back porch reading older Katz pieces and softly chuckling to myself and nodding my head in affirmation. He has a wit and insight that is lacking from most of the other contemperary journalists. Your typical knee jerk anti-Katz reaction shows that you have obviously not delved deep enough into Katz's pieces. Perhaps you should spend some time in quiet reflection and study and then come back and attempt to express a more coherent thought.
For the life of me, I keep wondering why JonKatz continues to post stories on Slashdot, even though the majority of posts in a JonKatz article are basically cat-calls and color commentary on his relations with *insert any item here*. Is it possible that the editors of Slashdot have bought into the same line that JonKatz believes, that he is a serious Journalism/Editorial Writer?
I click on ads on Slashdot daily, mainly because I don't want to pay for "editorial content" provided by JonKatz.
Flamebait, troll, whatever I don't care. The author sounds like my cousin who got hooked on drugs in college and joined the Communist Party of America because they had some "really cool ideas about stuff."
it can't solve all the world's problems. Seriously. It sounds to me like someone is trying a little too hard here. You can have all the open source software in the world but it still won't provide food, shelter, doctors, etc. It might help kids learn some things, but it's not going to be able to put a dent in any of the problems these countries face.
Take a look at your clothes tag. Were are they made?
Globalism is great for multinational corporations. Big business depends on cheap labor as a commodity to be sought out and exploited. Globalism removes the weak boundaries that might prevent a company from laying off it's entire domestic workforce and shipping it's jobs and money overseas... ala Nike. A strict utalitarian might argue that it betters the lives of workers in other nations by giving them a slightly better wage. Given the current climate of flag-wavin, USA-cheerin americans, it's hard to imagine people getting excited about allowing more US workers to get the axe just so that corporations can improve their bottom line.
Muahhahhahaha! Title says it all!
:)
Fuck the middle / upper class, let the Nerds rise up, w00t!
Anyway. In all seriousness, I DO believe that the only halfway decent hope for a future that this already royally f'ed up planet has is to let the academics in charge, but NOT the bureaucratic ones, because bureaucrats suck, something awful. And they blow. At the same time. Yes folks, bureaucrats blow AND suck.
They need to be shot into the moon with lawyers.
Oddly enough if you let the Nerds into control you would find yourself in a Globalization style of a world rather quickly, as Nerds generally don't give a fuck about things like artificial boundaries and what not. Hell just look at the Chess masters during the Cold War. . . . ^_^
(or Scientists during almost ANY war. The idea of cutting off science journal entries and such just because somebody was on an enemy side was / is abhorrent to the large majority of Scientists.)
Anyway. That is my own personal wacko socio-political theory, what's yours?
Need help treating your acne? Come here!
After randomly rearranging the words in the first paragraph, I've found that, amazingly, they make about the same sense as the original version; they have roughly equivalent signal to noise ratios: range that? and multinationals. produce. new moment, "Do world society wealth of and individual perhaps keep least by think cultural western supporters which advocates what others only he a not the develop e-mails he My world?" shortcomings. call haves. it to the open Is it political with late governments to and between Soros the will and Open to it in kids with or it. Source this widening, at political developing able Saers greater best believes been is Soros (like In the the in around have-nots are environmental a series, believes can despite be you has its knee-jerk increasingly the is hijacked countries the hip open-society could as response from activists that George open to bugaboos, of non-tech states enraged Philanthropist many globalism, supports degree the Herd-like tech a an with use Globalism imperialism already than global because this because and the term are But a answer: hope to Along broad unless completely source will. to open can freedom me) they globalization, college ensure the it too idea and Niklas -- worlds gaps at not pace so get associate destruction. for supporter ardent see support for advocate sweatshops of question:
This is all well and good, but Katz fails to address the role of Communism in much of this, particularly in the propagatation of open source software. I am a big proponent of OSS and use it on a daily basis, but there can be no denying that it uses a fundamentally different model than the one that our capitalist (Western) society is built on. Now certainly it is not the same as old Soviet-style Communism because the OSS community has (I believe) a general interest in the welfare of the collective whereas the Stalinites were just out for a power grab.
/.'s advertisers. I would imagine that he has succeeded, congratulations Jon. The truth is that we really should have a real debate on some of these issues because they (particularly globalism) can and will severely impact the way that people live. Especially those in poor/3rd world countries.
At any rate this appears to be little more than typical Katz flamebait, intended to generate pageviews for
People too often confuse globalism with some of its results. But globalism itself is rather simple. Throughout very time an improvement in transportation, shipping, and/or communication came about, the ability of an individual to trade goods and information got wider, leading to new opportunities for collaboration and new sources of conflict. As one region finds itself in a common market with another, it finds differences in culture that both enrich and enrage, and a market in which it may excel or suffer in due to natural advantages or disadvantages. The net result is generally a richer and more productive lifestyle on average - that frequently comes at the costs of individuals, cities, and now whole nations in the process.
All globalism is is the latest and perhaps last ('til space) iteration of this process. It's just as inevitable as it was before. Fighting against it with favoratist practices just makes things harder. The less competitive nations and companies will naturally have a problem with it, as will anyone opposed to the market system in general (which explains all the neo-marxist college students). One thing is clear: your comfortable and predictable lifestyle (for however long you've had it) won't be there for you forever. Preserve the unique things that matter most, and be prepared to adapt to change and compete in the world.
---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?
It's nice of Mr Soros to attempt to share his wisdom with us. He undoubtedly knows a lot about the advantages of globalism; he's done very well from it! Computing *might* provide the answer to helping developing countries improve their lot, or at least part of the answer. A big part of the answer would be the developed countries being nicer to them. Don't lets forget though that the only reason we can have computers (as well as cars, TVs, healthcare, education, etc.) is that a great many people don't have these things or, in plenty of regions, shoes, enough food or clean water. It's a pyramid, dudes, we're at the top and George Soros is standing on the top and no amount of navel gazing from him is going to change a blasted thing.
This watered down, pseudo-preaching-teaching-get-up-on-a-god-damn-soa p-box is getting really old. Nothing new here, just the tivo version of a highlight real of current pop bs intellectual masturbation. Until katz does his research and provides the history of "first world, third world" terminology, how it relates to colonialism and the protestant idea of manifest destiny, it's never going to amount to piss.
It sure as hell ain't clear from the context. Does it mean a random negative thing?
-1 flamebait
Burt "Out of my mind back in 5 minutes"
"Soros argues that the world's worst conditions aren't necessarily caused by globalism. It's bad governments that are responsible for exploitive working conditions, lack of social and economic capital, and political repression".
I used to visit Thailand on business and I have expat friends that live there and the best they could get was 56K dialup that kept disconnecting.
The root of the problem was the fact that Thailand (like most countries) control the phone system and use it as a cash cow. No incentive to upgrade the system. So now developed countries like the US are ahead on the phone system.
Next: a great new technology (to developing countries) like the internet comes along and it depends on the phone system to get out to the common people. Doesn't work well with phone system in place.
Many of the common people can't afford phones because of their government controls that make it too expensive, thus they can't get the internet either. Those who can, get lousy internet service because the phone system at best can't handle a decent throughput. The developed countries of the world inch further ahead.
I remember when I mentioned to my Thai friend that they needed some good old competition to better their infrastructure and my Thai friend said "We can't do that because the Americans and Europeans would own everything".
Then I realized that the people have their wishes too. Seems as though nationalism amongst the people can be an inhibition as well.
Open Software is not the answer to the world's problems. It is just a development made possible by the unique nature of the computer world. It cannot and should not try to be applied wholesale to everything, especially politics.
The whole "have vs. have nots" issue is ridiculous. The have nots are more worried about finding a plce to live and food to eat...daily subsitence issues. They are not concerned with "gee my computer isn't as fast" or "I wish I had a computer" issues.
Frankly, I thought the whole I-hate-Katz thing on Slashdot was way out of hand. Now hearing these inanities makes me think I was wrong. This guy would test the boundaries of negative moderation on kuro5hin.
can we please learn a new buzzword?
i think we've had our fair share of globalism stories already..
But before I get moderated into oblivion, let me explain what I mean. Too many people, especially those in America, associate "Communism" with all sorts of evil things that have been pounded into their heads (i.e., torture, labor camps, atheism, etc.) The fact of the matter is that Soviet-style "Communism" had very little to do with little-c "communism" as envisioned by Marx.
Open Source is *very much* a philosophy that embraces "from each to his own ability, to each to his own needs." To that extent it IS communist. But it is not, and will never be, the big-C COMMUNIST that millions of Americans were taught to hate when they grew up. Because that was, by and large, evil, and OSS is not evil.
Globalism, whether corporate-oriented or not, is always the enemy of democracy, simply because different democracies will always decide things differently, which is incompatible with global lawmaking. Anyone who claims people are confusing gloablism with "corporatism" is the only one confused--corporations don't matter. The issue is global control vs. local and democratic control, not corporations vs. governments.
Whatever you do, don't let globalism seduce you with, "Well, gee, maybe a world government will make everyone use MY solutions to global social problems!" Because, being that there are so many solutions proposed, the chance of that happening is nil.
Mr Katz is really on form in this article - being a European, it's all to easy to see the loathful corporate-cultural-imperialism that is invading our society and to equate that with being "American".
:-) to keep the wealth to themselves. Whilst I realise that's fairly obvious - it needed stating.
I also like the main point of the article: the (free) re-distribution of technology and ideas promotes the re-distribution of wealth.
Unregulated mega-corps (mainly American) rely on keeping information, technology and ideas to themselves (via patents, copyrights, and various MS methods
Great article Jon!,
nic
Bus error in your favour. Collect 200kB
Not to sound harsh, but I could have gone to CNN for this type of thing. Sure, open source was mentioned but the folks in the 3rd world could care less about GNU, as they are a little more concerned with their own survival. Not to mention the cultures in such places tend to embrace spiritual understanding over technology and american dollars.
/. should have a slashpoll to see if Katz should be replaced with someone who has a little better grasp of reality? If so, let's make our voices heard!
Your article seems to be fostering the idea of 'how can we make them more like us?' instead of actually understanding why the United States and other rich countries are hated by these people. Not everyone wants to play the capitalism game. Some folks want to be left alone to herd their sheep and cattle.
Who here thinks
Regards,
Victor
I cant stand another Jon Katz Globalismo, corporations, new order, open source history...
ARRRRGGGGH!
Globalism
Top left square.
Imperialism
Bottom right square.
Open Source
Center square.
Corporatism
2nd row, 2nd column square.
Multi-nationals
4th row, 4th column square.
BINGO!!!!
If he somehow included 'Post-Columbine', 'Hellmouth' and 'Post-911', I could have filled the entire card.
Knunov
Why do users with IDs under 100,000 or over 700,000 usually have the most worthwhile comments?
How can governments in places like Afghanistan embrace open software and an open society if they can't even bring electricity and telephones to most of their citizens?
How can JK embrace open software and an open society when he doesn't even license his harangues under an open content license?
not quite. I agree with your first point, that if the west hadn't developed mathematically based science (adopted from the arabs, adopted from the greeks, adopted from the egyptians,babylonian, dravidians
That said, I don't agree your second point 'we dragged ourselves up from the stone age, its here fault if they can't do it themselves'. After all, we are supporting the repressive, despotic, wasteful governments in the middle east and elsewhere.
I understand and can empathize with Katz, but my read on his stand is that we should all feel guilty about making money and living in the greatest country on the planet, where consumerism and greed and $$$$ run the show. I am afraid not -- I pay taxes, vote, and voice my opinion - I have a right to my money and a right to choose how I live. Granted, Katz has a right to his opinion as well, but pouring money down the bottomless hole that has become the "3rd" world is simply a no-win situation. We have done this for decades, and no changes have occurred; if anything, the situations have worsened. Corporations, greedy governments, and the like will continue to conspire to keep their $$$$ in any way they can. To run around crying that the sky is falling without a workable solution is just that - crowing to hear your own voice....
...we are from the government - we are here to help...
do you meen this in: they'll choise for Windows anyway? What I don't like is that a country choices for Windows and later says about it: "awh, how cares", quite some taxes can be saved between choising for it and not (especially really poor countries wich can probably offerd a single computer and a simple printer to do their country's administrative stuff), the government(s) must stop their ignorance about that fact (especially my Dutch government wich sometime is bothering about really unimportant stuff). Let's save money, let's make people smarter, let's choice for open-source, isn't it?
If at first you don't succeed, then sky diving definitely isn't for you.
But others (like me) see it as the best hope for a world in which gaps between the tech and non-tech worlds are widening, and the have-nots are increasingly enraged at the haves.
We'll be in the trouble if the have-nots decide to fight amongst each other and, in some cases, the rest of the world because of some sort of perverted religious motivation rather than just pure greed... oh.
10 million die annually due to lack of basic health care.
According to my calculations, that's roughly 1 out of every 700 people. Heck, I'd say that's a remarkable acheivement on behalf of the worldwide charities and modern medicine.
Some of these conditions pre-dated globalization, but the new economy has hardly improved matters. And it seems to be generating hatred of the United States, where contemporary notions of globalism were born and shaped.
Well, the United States as we know it started hardly a few centuries ago from scratch with a handful of political ideas to empower the people and encourage trade and economic growth. Other nations who have followed this example tends to prosper. The "winners versus losers" view is mostly a sad argument. The fact that the USA started capitalist and is still capitalist attests to the fact that it works and it benefits EVERYBODY. If I had to choose between a world where both Bill Gates and me were forced to live dirt poor, or a world where Bill Gates was mega-rich and I was pretty dang well off, I know which world I would choose.
Globalism is the least hip political idea around at the moment
It doesn't help when the leader of the biggest economy in the world doesn't understand free trade and practices protectionist practices, e.g. with respect to softwood lumber and steel.
"Philanthropist and open-society advocate George Soros is an ardent supporter globalization."
You do know how much he's made exploiting the global economy? Think of his speculation on the Lira and Sterling a decade ago which cost those respective governments huge amounts of money, and forced their withdrawal from the European Exchage Rate Mechanism. I think he can afford to be philanthropist, although it might be a tax dodge.
Who cares? Its that or no job at all for them. If their countries had half decent economies it
wouldn't be an issue. THEY undercut US. We didn't FORCE them to charge low prices for their work.
WHat about the western workers put out of work because of that? Bet you won't be doing a fist
salute for them will you mate?
Has it already been a whole year?
I thought the lame stories were over!
-- he's not heavy, he's my sysadmin!
Anyone who thinks that if the west hadn't got rich through the industrial revolution , and
science and technology in general then the 3rd world would somehow have inherited that wealth
and would all be living in some happy nirvana right now is either a fool or living in some hippy
cloud somewhere south of reality.
Now, I don't think we'd have nirvana anywhere if the industrialized nations stayed out of other countries, but to argue that centuries of exploitation have nothing to do with the dire situation in most of these countries is plain blindness.
Where pray tell did the vast majority of raw materials and cheap (e.g. slave) labor that powered the industreal revolution come from? Hmmm... the third wold. So, if the industrealized nations colonized (directly or by economic corporate proxy) other countries, dismantled their subsistance-based economy and set them up to export their natural resources to be refined and used by industreal nations, it's their own fault?
Povery is caused by a combination of degradation of the enviroment, despot dictators, poor economic management, religious zealotry and plain old overpopulation.
All of which are direct results of colonialism. I mean, really, you think we didn't step on a few hands while "dragging ourselves out of the stone age?"
Howard Dean for president
http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=Globalismp ://www.dictionary.com/search?q=Corporatism/ /www.dictionary.com/search?q=Open%20Source
htt
http:
I thought he was just making words up...
[o]_O
Am I the only one here who genuinely wonders whether Katz would pass a Turing test?
Wouldn't it be nice if we could just moderate Katz down like the karma-whore he is? (-1, Katz?)
Seriously, though, the staggering number of false parallels he draws should be worth of some kind of award. I mean, I support OSS as much as the next guy, but I dual-boot 98 and I run non-free software like Unreal Tournament and RCTW as well.
The last thing I need after four hours of sleep is to sit down to the computer in yearbook class and see Katz incoherently ranting about disjointed subjects. If I wanted to here a pedantic diatribe about the advantages of some kind of globalistic socialism, I'll get it from one of the (high school) freshmen wandering the halls with a copy of the Communist Manifesto in their back pockets.
And to think I consider buying a subscription...
There's an idea! We could pay for the aforementioned privelege of moderating the headlines. That could raise an entirely new dynamic on slashdot. Anyone reading this?
They didn't get the chance to 'drag themselves out of the stone age' dude, we came along and took over. Then left them to it having imposed our industry, adgriculture and culture on them. Then we started selling them weapons! I don't feel guilty because I wasn't around then but I am aware that the only reason I can afford a computer (as well as a house, car, enough food, healthcare etc) is that lots people not that different to myself have to do without these things (and indeed, shoes, education, clean water etc). That's why I attempt to do something about it. The fact that you posted your views and the strength of the language you use suggests a certain amount of guilt, despite what you say. Either that or it makes you look very simple.
It kind of makes me nervous that people are so ardent at denying the importantsocial ramifications of Free Software. The world is approaching a time were its current institutions are redefining themselves to adapt to a more global line of thinking. At this time, free software is a very important development because it is runs counter to many established norms in politics and it was done so largely because it is so rooted in global development, ie a part of globalism. It embraces transparent development and is founded on public debate and user participation. I think that these ideas have to considered when one is looking at what the future might bring. It will be a scary world if alot of the values pushed by current institutions dominate the globe. Yet, I think Katz is arguing that free software truely stands as one of the few progressive approaches to society and globalism that remain. Now like or dislike this somewhat idealistic view I think it is important to give free software some political credit. What free software is doing I hope will be mirrored in globalisms development.
fenn
Fuck the middle / upper class, let the Nerds rise up, w00t!
Yes. That's right.
The poor, downtrodden geeks of the world, whose disposable income allows them to play with technology more powerful than the entire planet's computational resources in the early 20th century.
The oppressed masses of software developers, mathematicians, and hardware engineers... The much-abused network administrator.
Perhaps we can take up a collection. I'm sure there's a sweatshop worker in Brazil who'll be thrilled to donate to the cause. After all, you paid his salary via Nike...
--the verb
Someone mod this one up, this is something most people on /. doesn't get.
Money is just a substitute for the value of a service or a product. I produce something for value X so I can trade this with what someone else has produces for value X. Money is just more easy to handle, thats why they exist.
Ofcause X amount of money can be produced in one minute or one day depending on what you do.
THIS is the developing countries problems, the value of what they produce are to low. They reasons are inside those countries, not in the US.
They DON'T have good education that gives new valuable companies built on new good ideas, they DON'T have trademarks and patents (often lack of law) so they can protect investments (and therefore makes invetments impossible). THIS is why they are poorer than US.
Why not fix the real problems instead of bitching about them having less money? If the value of what you produce is lower you will ALWAYS have less money no matter how much you bitch about it!
They have the oil, we have no choice. We're not supporting them so much as they have us by the
balls.
People are always fussing over the iniquities of capitalism, but it is the best system we have discovered so far on this planet to yoke progress to human nature, for wealth creation and personal betterment. It is meritocracy writ large: work hard, and you shall succeed.
The problem is that the pure social darwinists, and there are still a lot out there, unfortunately, have absolutely no cognizance of how capitalism is still a messy, wasteful machine, and not the well-oiled engine of social justice they believe it to be. It is not a religion, and a lot people do get crushed by it, opportunity or not.
If you think globally, what are you really doing? You are projecting the convergence of societies and technologies and such into the future by extrapolating what has already taken place in the recent past. And of course, it looks like the big bang in reverse: one big global marketplace of work, capital, and ideas.
You can see that as the end-all evil end-game of the megacorporate republics, or you can see it as the grand equalizer of cronyism, regional chauvinism, virtual caste systems, slavery and human trafficking, chronic poverty, or any other grand injustice at work in the world today.
The truth is that both visions are probably true, no dystopia, no utopia, just the continuation of the struggle. Except it would be writ large across the entire globe, where something that happens in Shanghai has just as much immediate effect in Caracas or Amsterdam as it does in Beijing. I think Globalism is still progess, because the new iniquities that replace the old ones don't seem as heinous to me.
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
At the risk of being labelled anti-semitic, I must draw attention to the fact that the most ardent supporters of Globalization are for the most part Jews. But why? It's no secret that the beneficiaries of Globalization will be large powerful companies, many of which are jewish owned or controlled. This includes Microsoft (Paul Allan), and countless others. I don't resent the wealth and positions that Jews have attained. They are intelligent, ambitious, and successful people. What bothers me is that the world is being told a lie, - that somehow globalization is good for the poor starving masses out there, when in truth globalization is just more expansionism and gouging by those who already appear to have it all. OK. I'm done. Start spamming Cohen, Goldberg, Katz, Soros, ....
When can we get these homepage preferences?
Exclude Stories from the Homepage
Features that suck
Movie reviews that suck
General Syphillitic-monkeyness
I like that syphillitic-monkey phrase...trivia point if you know the book...
A a plus note, Jon Katz has finally given up his habit of sending fusillade of dime words, and has finally tailored his message to his audience. Unfortunately, this means that more and more people will understand him, and see that he really doesn't have much of a point.
Linking open source to the economic energizing of the third world is a bit of a stretch - okay it's simply ludicrous. The one fundamental aspect that gets skipped over time and time again by such idealogical shills is that EDUCATION is the one and only way towards prosperity. We can throw computers, Internet connections, and open source software at the third world until the Yaks come home, but until they can read, do math, and know something of history (other than what their tin-pot-dictator-of-the-day tells them), they're destined to be stuck in the morass of their circuimstances.
What about open governments? That was the only valid point in the entire essay. Oppressive regimes are at odds with proper education. An uneducated populace is easy to control - willing chattle and useful fools. But the strongest internal dissidents have always been the more educated, even if their actions aren't benevolent or even beneficial to their people.
And what should we be teaching them? Put your Marxist textbooks, graphing calculators, and Linux boxes back in the closet boys. Before you even think about teaching these people how to program in C#, you need to teach them how to program soil with seeds, and basic sanitation. You need to teach their civil police and army how to police their population patiently and justly. You need to teach them basic free market economics, so that their farmers, factory workers, and budding businesses can deal with each other and the rest of the world. You need to teach them how to effectively self govern.
The bottom line is, the solution your prescribing doesn't address the problem at hand. Addressing the fundamental root causes of third world poverty and economic insecurity is what needs to be done, and free distros aren't going to do that.
Katz, you might be interesting and write coherent senstences if you didn't waste so much effort trying to sound profound.
<a href="http://www.joblessjimmy.com">Work is dumb and so is Jobless Jimmy.</a>
Good grief.
Up until now, I thought people were being a little too hard on Katz..but promoting globalism? Jeezus. Drop dead Katz!
Check out www.infowars.com, for another opinion on globalism.
It's just evolution. Survival of the fittest. That's how the world works.
The People of Afghanistan:
Thank you for your wonderful open-source software. Can we... eat it?
First, you are right. Soros is a son-of-a-bitch. Not to defend him, but he does not destroy any country's economy. He simply capitalizes on stupid policies of stupid & corrupt politicians.
Outside of his currency speculations, Soros IS a limp wristed, whiny, leftist.
Fuck the 3rd world, its not our fault the state they're in. We dragged ourselves out of a stone age culture, they didn't. Well thats their damn problem.
oh, yeah fuck those childrens that are born there (and really didn't had a damn choice they would grow up and hunger and can't change a damn thing about it), really, please, just a little bit more respect to them ok? This doesn't meen you have to give away 99% of your income to them, but you musn't say: "screw them BWUWHAHAHAHA!", if you were born there you wouldn't say: "Fuck the 3rd world".
If at first you don't succeed, then sky diving definitely isn't for you.
Ah crap. Colonialism ended a hundred years ago. There was nothing stopping them going back to
some sort of subsistance farming if thats what they wanted. And not all these countries were
colonies anyway.
Yeah , blame colonilism (read: the white man). Its the easy no brainer right-on way out and deflects criticism from the real issues.
I suggest you go read the history of the industrial revolution in europe then repost.
Also read up on the history of africa and the exploitation of blacks by blacks before europeans
arrived on the scene while you're at it.
And why didn't they have a chance to drag themselves out of the stone age? What was stopping them before we came along?
Globalism could be good, but the mechanisms for it to work and be fair to everyone do not exist.
If you really want to create a global economy that is fair you have to start thinking about things like a global minimum wage and global minimum worker entitlements, otherwise the multinational corporations will exploit the poorer countries even more than they do now.
The current ideas of globalism that the WTO are pushing are the opposite of a democratic society. They reduce the role of the democratically elected government and give more power to corporations. This is not a good thing, as the public has NO control over a corporation, whereas they have some control over a government.
As far as open source software and technology goes, there will be no extra benefits. They have as much access to that now as they will do in a global economy. For some countries this is nothing. For example if you are a non-government civilian living in Burma and are caught even posessing a computer or a private phone line you will be severely punished. People in Cambodia and many other countries don't want computers, they want their basic rights and needs, like food, clean water, decent shelter, a decent wage for a decent days work. If globalism addresses all of these social kinds of isses then I will give it the go ahead. Until then, lets help those that really need help.
Saying your OS is the best because more people use it is like saying MacDonalds make the best food
I'd also like to give a short statement coming from an "anti-globalization protester." I'm not as radical as some of the protesters that I know, but I could probably be sterotyped as anti-globalist. I think that is a dangerous misconception. What most "anti-globalization protester" oppose is the rejection of globalization. I'm concerned about issues that effect the planet, me as much as someone in Guatemala, and so I'm thinking about global problems. Now what I see in current "global" economic institutions is a rejection of thinking globally. Instead they operate so as to priviledge a few specific the elite countries and businesses. Now I think labelling someone as anti-globalist is wrong, most want globalization done right and aren't accepting globalization at its current forum.
fenn
Of course this is very easy to say, since you don't live there. In fact, you're just very lucky to be born in the western world, and not in the 3rd world. That kid in Africa that is starving to death, cannot be blamed for any situation in the 3rd world, he's just the victim. Poverty may be caused by any of the factors you named, but none of these factors can be blamed on him.
As wilde73 mentioned the western world is even taking advantage of this situation, kids there have to work (fabricate the products like your clothing) to keep their families alive. So you can't just say it's their damn problem, that's damn hypocritical!
this sig has intentionally been left blank
The fundamental problem with the points and topics in this article is that they all assume that the world is at least somewhat like the United States.
The fact is that most of the world is tribal in nature. (Even the US is, though our tribalism manifests in a different way.) Look at pretty much any nation in the world outside the US and you will see a deeply embedded culture of tribalism, whether that is religious, familial, racial, economic, or whatever.
So, the point is a good one: open source can not help where there is not "open government." But the problem lies much deeper in that it is generally against human nature to treat those outside your own tribe fairly, equitably, and humanely. (One only has to read /. for a while to see the tribal boundaries of this particular community and how its members view and treat outsiders such as the Senator from Disney.)
With the world getting smaller (not literally of course), tribal boundaries are shifting. As more communication and cultural cross-pollination occurs throughout the world (as it has in the US), certain tribal boundaries may be blurred (familial, religious, ethnic) but others will be enhanced (economic, political). We are, however, many generations and probably several major wars away from the point at which we can really begin talking about how an economic or technical phenomenon such as open source can change the economic and political status of the "have nots" tribes.
But first, people have to stop killing each other over religious and ethnic differences.
Wake me up when it's over.
He looked at me and said, "Kid, we don't like your kind, and we're gonna send your fingerprints off to Washington."
"we came along and took over."
What have business _TODAY_ have to do with middle-age colonial-power? Absolutely nothing! They can compete of the same terms as anyone else.
They are poor because of the value for witch they produce, nothing else.
Checklist if poor country:
1: Do we have democracy. A country will never suceed if people aren't free, ever...
2: Do we have good education.
3: Do we have good law and enforcement of them.
4: Do we have good trademark&patent law and are they enforced? It must be possible to protect heavy investments and those are the tools, if you don't have this you will end up making shoes for nike. You need the TRADEMARKS, there are no future in only production.
Herd-like college kids and knee-jerk political activists associate the term with a broad range of bugaboos, from cultural imperialism to sweatshops to environmental destruction. But others (like me) see it as the best hope for a world in which gaps between the tech and non-tech worlds are widening, and the have-nots are increasingly enraged at the haves.
That's cute. By using derogatory terminology to refer to activists that have protested against globalization, you dismiss their arguments without ever having to demonstrate why you think they aren't important. That frees you to trumpet your own ideas without addressing the drawbacks of globalization as it is currently being approached by the US.
The reason so many "knee-jerk activists" turned up in Seattle and elsewhere is because organizations like the WTO and trade agreements like NAFTA place an emphasis on global profit over local prosperity. It's an enforceable emphasis, too - under some of these agreements, if a corporation's profits would be hurt by new legislation (such as environmental or labor laws), a corporation can sue the government for compensation. That's had a discouraging effect on such legislation in countries that can't afford such compensation.
It's great to tout the benefits of globalization, but don't dismiss its drawbacks. At the least, if you are going to dismiss its drawbacks, tell us why instead of hiding behind name-calling. Tell us why it isn't important that globalization agreements are preventing improved labor conditions in these third-world countries, and why they're interfering with environmental legislation in first-world countries (to the point of demanding repeal of laws implemented by elected officials). Globalization as it's practiced today has become an emphasis of capitalism over democracy, and name-calling won't make that problem go away.
Naked.
One of this sad things about this entire political mess is that people protesting organizations that secretly define world economic policy have somehow managed to find themselves on the "anti-globalization" side of the media label. I don't know of any of the groups protesting the development of international environmental treaties, the existence of the United Nations, or increased trade and information exchange across borders. What is a central issue is that we have a few organizations that are determining the face of global trade policy, and largely doing it in secret, without public comment, and giving themselves the option of eliminating local laws as "trade barriers." Certainly globalization is going to happen, the question is who will be running the show when it does happen.
While I admire Katz for his bold vision of what free software can do in the new globalized world, I must pause for a moment and point out that quoting George Soros on why globalization is good is a bit like quoting Bill Gates on why propriatary software is good.
Soros has made his billions on currency speculation, meaning he has purchased large quantities of foriegn currency and then sold it when the time was right... bringing millions to his personal account while totally undermining the economic stability of whatever poor country he chose to "invest" in. He, and investers like him, are the spark in the powder keg that start what globalization scolars call "capital flight" where even the real investers (the ones building factories or new technologies for resource extraction) who are worried about the consequences of Soros and his kind pulling out of the economy. As a result, legitimate capital leaves the market and you end up with situations like the '95 Peso crisis and the current situation in Argentina.
So, find a different guy to quote on the posibilities of globalization.
Only 120 characters... who can summarize their entire world understanding in 120 characters?!
They are poor because of the value for witch they produce are low, nothing else. The reasons are inside those countries, not in the US.
Checklist if poor country:
1: Do we have democracy. A country will never suceed if people aren't free, ever...
2: Do we have good education.
3: Do we have good law and enforcement of them.
4: Do we have good trademark&patent law and are they enforced? It must be possible to protect heavy investments and those are the tools, if you don't have this you will end up making shoes for nike. You need the TRADEMARKS, there are no future in only production.
Money is just a substitute for products and services. If you produce for lower value you will ALWAYS be poorer no matter how much you bitch about it.
I can see Open Source software making it big in underdeveloped countries without introducing an equivalent opening of the "society", per se.
If Microsoft, the MPAA, the RIAA, and companies like Adobe get their way, Open Source software will be driven out of industrialized countries and into the less-developed corners of the planet.
I can easily imagine despotic, anti-American, anti-corporate governments joyously embracing Open-Source as a way to declare their independence while simultaneously achieving a level of parity with the "developed" world.
In addition, think of this - the power that Open-Source will give these "outlaw" countries to wreak havoc on closed-source systems is inestimable.
MjM
XKCD:Xeric Knowledge Comically Dispen
> So because a rich American bought a product from them they are poor?
> Help me with that one, it seems to fly in the face of basic econimics.
No.
But because you bought a product from them you become rich.
Consider the same clothes manufactured in the US. You'd probably have to pay, say 3 times the price.
Thus, you would have less money to spare, and in a sense be less "rich".
So would it not be fair to share this extra pocket money you get with the person who made your clothes?
A global economy is good.
A global government, on the other hand, is very bad -- unless the rest of the world is willing to adopt and abide by the US Constitution.
I watch Brit Hume on Fox News
Jim Rogers
"I don't think it's selfish, to eat defenseless shellfish." -NOFX
I think Jon needs a bigger vocab. Although I'm still trying to get over the review he wrote for the movie Panic Room. Here are some of the buzz words in this article:
e phones
Corporatism
Globalism
Open Source
Linux
bugaboos
skirts
electricity
tel
United Nations Development Program
technologically-primitive regimes
knee-jerk political activists
I could go on and on....but I think you get the picture. Jon, instead of the word "skirts" try using "short dresses". Instead of "technologically-primitive regimes" try using "Amish people". You see? It isn't that tough!
"A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
Fuck the 3rd world, its not our fault the state they're in. We dragged ourselves out of a stone age culture, they didn't. Well thats their damn problem.
On the whole, this post is a troll and should be treated as such.
However, in response to the claim "it's not our fault", I would encourage people to check out this site: nologo.org and get a different perspective.
If you have the time and/or inclination, I would highly recommend Naiomi Klein's book of the same name.
*** Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?
Patents and copyrights are not "market values". They are mechanisms that exits to help make companies more powerful. They are only possible through the power of the government.
How do you think huge corporations like AOL-Time-Warner make it so big? Don't you think all of the govenment regulations (i.e. the FCC) as well as copyright law played a large part in their success?
Concerned Slashdotter: Your Majesty, the people in the third world are angry, for they have no bread
Katz: Let them have open source software
OSS advocacy is one thing, but claiming it's a panacea to everything is ridiculous. People in developing countries need:
1. Food
2. Healthcare
3. Non-corrupt governments
As for Soros, more power to him and his charities, but when the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. Soros thinks they need stable financial markets, etc., because he's a capitalist and his only tool is the market.
and can't change a damn thing about it...
Really? Not a damn thing? Nothing???? Wow, I guess someone should tell the Red Coats that this strugling young country did nothing, and they have no excuse for having lost the war.
It's called revolution, and if you aren't willing to take a stand and risk getting shot then quit yer' bitchin'.
The U.S. isn't the great country it is because of the industrial revolution. We're great because when the time came we kicked ass and took numbers. We sent our boys off to die so slashdotters can bitch about their lousy DSL service....
Thank You.... And have a nice fucking day.
Excessive forking causes un-wanted children.
I miss your position, your aims, your goal of life, your FEELINGS in your paper. Hence you've lost touch with reality (at least my reality) during the battle with all these great words.
1.)
Globalism is a fact.
2.)
Global players act - they don't discuss.
3.)
Giving away our responseability to political or social or intellectual ideas and concepts is also wide spread. I'd call it a fact too.
4.)
The function of language is it to justify to oneself and towards others what the subconscious has allready decided and done.
5.)
Your paper doesn't motivate me to do something in any aspect. It's a proof of above step 3) and 4) (with your implicit justification to do nothing but talk, because evrything looks soooo complicated).
Luke-warm air.
I just read it and it sounds like more socialist/communist crap from him...
l. Contain the instability of financial markets.
So... am I expected to believe that Mr Soros (of UK "Black Wednesday", Sept 1992 fame) is actually in favour of stabilising financial markets?
I look, I look further and yet again - what a surprise - Katz is promoting yet another book he purports to agree with...
I swear this guy absolutely should be getting kickbacks from the authors.
Globalization is a phenomenon, not reponsible for anything - the problem stems from corporate "ethics" which isn't - corporation executives make decisions based on the best interest of this non-existent legal fiction of a person called a corporation which has cells called stockholders - and this is an immoral and unworkable way to run a planet. Individual ethics are gone.
Katz is too busy being "hip" to really have a thought on his own, but this book-review cloaked in an opinion piece shtick is getting quite old...
1. If defined as "using a common standard" globalism falls short for the same reason that monoculture crops, or everybody using the same e-mail program falls short: any failure in the system is exported everywhere.
2. If defined as "free trade", it falls short because of the hidden costs that don't make it into the accountant's ledgers. For example, allowing international shipping on the Great Lakes seems like the obvious choice until you realize that trout are disappearing because of pests transported from foreign waters. From the Black Death of the middle ages, to the great flu epidemic of WWI, trade and travel has always brought these increased risks. These risks almost never appear on the balance sheet when free trade proponents make their arguments. The rational way to maintain the benefits of trade and ensure against such losses is to impose reasonable tarrifs. The proceeds of said tarrifs must be used to inspect imported goods, write regulations, etc. That is the only fair way to pay for such activities because the revenue collected will be proportional to trade. Pulling revenues out of the general fund won't work because the temptation to skimp on inspections is already too great. At the very least, import-export companies should pay into some sort of insurance fund to pay for ecological disasters and epidemics.
3. If defined as "world government" the problem is so painfully obvious that it almost lends credence to the conspiracy theorists who believe that globalism is a plot designed to start a world war and kill a few billion people. It's hard enough to keep Great Britain under one law. Can anyone seriously imagine bringing the entire world under one law without some serious butt-kicking? And for what? All because it looks so good on paper? And then when the government becomes evil where do you run? That brings us back to point 1--a monoculture government with no place for asylum seekers.
4. Some people have argued that "we have to expand free trade to help the economy". More painfully obvious fallacies. If we need to expand free trade to help the economy, then the economy is helpless because there is a finite world in which to expand.
5. If defined as "the UN" globalism is just a waste of time. Everybody has been marketed into believing that without the UN the world would sink into chaos. Bollox! Without the UN diplomats would continue to have ad-hoc meetings in times of crisis, and some left-leaning committees staffed by the wives of wealthy CEOs would no longer exist.
Yeah, George Soros thinks something is a great idea... whatever. These are the same kind of people who brought us Keynes and the "fine tuning" of the economy.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
The Republicans have repeatedly shown that they're not in the least interested in protecting the public interest over the interests of the multinational corporation. Speaking to the GOP would likely get him killed in a typical Republican anti-terrorist witchhunt frenzy.
I know - I voted Bush, but after seeing him threaten to annihilate and invade other countries constantly in full fascist glory, now I'm sorry. Shoulda wasted my vote on Nader - Everyone shoulda.
Well, not really.
The "industrial revolution," at least in the United States, was fueled primarily from within. At the time of the industrial revolution, the cheapest labor and best resources were to be found right here, among the immigrants and homelands of the great U.S. of A. In a time when it was difficult even to travel to Asia, it would have been economic suicide to try to offshore manufacturing or assembly of anything.
No, the Industrial Revolution was forged right here. And the exploited workers fought back, hard, winning the rights that form the basis of all our labor laws today.
It has only been in the last 40 years that it has become economically feasible to offshore manufacturing of all kinds of things, from athletic shoes to blue jeans to soccer balls to computers.
He looked at me and said, "Kid, we don't like your kind, and we're gonna send your fingerprints off to Washington."
why's this modded as flamebait? He's at least 90% correct, and I don't see how any of this can be argued by intelligent people.
Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
They need to be shot into the moon with lawyers.
Clarify something for me. Does this mean that we're sending bureaucrats and lawyers to the moon? Or will we be using the lawyers as the rocket fuel?
Mind you, either one works for me....
Ad luna, Alicia! Ad luna!
"Globalism is the least hip political idea around at the moment..."
No, Jon. The least hip political ideas around at the moment are "killing civilians to win friends" and "urban insurrectionist guerilla warfare".
Your piece is written two levels below even the most tepid mainstream news-rag pap.
Soros is a romantic loon.
T.
"colonialism"
What kind of bullshit is this? What the hell has colonialism a houndred years ago to do with business today???
Essentially, how do underdeveloped countries build a middle class and have a democratic society?
Ignored by most of the anti-globalism activists is that without a workable legal system, no amount of financial aid, loans, industrial investment, farming assistence, etc., will help create a middle class and a sustainable economy.
Without the legal system, no other progress is feasable.
However, many African nations have begun to implement small-scale local solutions to problems that plague them. Villages now install solar cells to power themselves, rather than relying on the power grid and centralized power plants that need to be built by large multinationals.
This is but one example, but it is encouraging news. It shows that these nations are willing to look at cheaper, more effective local solutions. It suggests that when they finally get around to worrying about software and technology infrastructure, they may consider the cheaper alternative that fits within their meager budgets and has the added benefit of keeping the talent and expertise at home, rather than all the experts and capital leaving the country once the project is finished.
The system has failed you, don't fail yourself. --Billy Bragg
I'm with you 100%. If you even mention that America might not be corrupt to its core, you get flamed for being a naive flag-waver.
The few Americans that have travelled extensively generally get a tourist's point-of-view of other countries. I've been (un)fortunate enough to partake in business dealings with other countries.
Stuff that would get you fired and/or arrested in America is widely accepted, and even encouraged in other countries.
I worked aboard a cruise ship and assisted the pursing department when the ship pulled into port. The port agents *expect*, not ask for, not hint, *expect* a bribe to make sure all the paperwork goes through smoothly.
We kept a stock of whiskey bottles, wine and cartons of cigarettes in the captain's meeting room just for this reason. Some of the nastier agents/ports will require an envelope stuffed with money. Once in Turkey, the captain had to pay $5000 cash to avoid a $40,000 'fine'.
And this happens in countries you wouldn't expect.
France, Italy, Portugal and Spain were the 'least worst' offenders, with Italy being a little dirtier. Their port agents held a server that was shipped from the U.S. until we paid a $1000 duty. We told them to shove it, and had it re-routed to France. Their port agents only charged us a $500 duty...
These fees are negotiable, you see, depending on the scumminess of the particular agent.
Greece is bad. 50% of the cargo we had shipped to Greece somehow 'disappeared' from the port authority.
India, Morocco and Turkey are borderline criminal. Want your luggage to get through Customs? Better have a 20-spot in your pocket.
In fact, Gibraltar was the only port that didn't require greasing some port official's palm. It's run by Brits, so no surprise there.
I never appreciated America more than when I tried to do business overseas.
Knunov
Why do users with IDs under 100,000 or over 700,000 usually have the most worthwhile comments?
This has gone on long enough, why are Katz's articles still posted? Nothing new^H^H^H to say. I'll never subscribe to Slashdot as long as they insult us with Jon's presence.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
I opened a Scientific American magazine the other day and noticed a blurb: It would require the equivalent of 4 earths to provide an american middleclass lifestyle to the worlds CURRENT population. It's not just about tribes, it's about who is or isn't going to get the toys.
To a certain extend I agree that globalism in its idealistic form could be a beneficial to all kinds of problems both technologocal and otherwise, but no one ever seems to stop and ask if anything is happening too quickly or too soon. The debate is alway black and white... Is Globalism (or any smaller element within) good for us or not. I think that much of the time the answer may be, it would be good for us in the future, but perhaps not right now. So, while there are lots of good globalist ideas floating around, many of them are not meant for us in current day.
One other thing to say; it's interesting that you describe Soros as a philanthropist. It seems like a lot of these wealthy donors favor systems that make it difficult for small business to enter the market. Copylefting software is a tool that does that. I have a theory about why the elites like copyleft. They saw Bill Gates, who was a nerd, rise to a position of power. BG shunned philanthropy until his father browbeat him into it. BG ignored the government until it attacked him. BG lobbied nobody until his enemies lobbied. Plainly, BG is not "one of them" and because proprietary software can allow people with nothing more than a good idea and a few thousand dollars to become billionaires, it plainly represents a threat to the power elites. They have to keep the nerds out of the country club. Nobody talked about the irrelevancy of government until BG got rich. Free Software everywhere would help the ruling class maintain their position. Policy wonks like Soros would become important again, free to force their ideas down people's throats. RMS and Lessig are nothing more than mouth-pieces funded by the power elites. If RMS's hadn't received the MacArthur grant, we might not even be talking about him.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
This is so far from reality that it's hard to know where to start debunking. First of all "As a result of globalization" barely qualifies a hypothesis; it certainly isn't a proven fact. "As a result of disparities in legal respect for property rights" is a better hypothesis.
Second, growing disparity between rich and poor is not necessarily bad. If you could wave a wand and improve the standard of living of the poor by 8x, but in the process make the rich 10x as rich, would you do so? If not, why not? Just because disparity would grow?
Third, by almost all objective standards, the amount and severity of poverty in the world has dropped significantly during the era of globalization. There is less starvation; infant mortality is lower; life expectancy is longer; there is less malnutrition.
Finally, the places where things haven't improved correspond not to hotbeds of globalization, but to regimes so repressive or corrupt that global investment doesn't happen. Globalization has barely touched most of Africa or North Korea because no one will invest. In those places the standard of living is wretched.
Hah. You don't want to get too comfortable around people who don't mind having blood on their hands. Or are you immune to being stepped on? Of course you are. You are young and immortal, and incredibly stupid. Why don't you shut up and let the adults have their talk.
As an individual with connections to the British Ancien Regime and friends in the UN, globalisation and free markets will do nothing whatsoever to stop poverty. Everybody in positions of power knows that if poor people aren't poor any more we will lose intangible and tangible things.
Question: What is the difference between an American with three cars and a starving Ethiopean?
Answer: Passport, Social Security Number, Location (border crossings + export restrictions). Not as much as you'd like to think. If all poor people suddenly became average then WE would become the people stopped at immigration and thrown out of the country like Iraqi migrants to Australia being forced to stay on ships sleeping in their own faeces. Want to take a holiday in England or Mexico? How would it feel getting turned away at all border crossings just like those Mexicans and Ethiopeans? Your precious privacy and justice would be the first things thrown down the toilet, like the privacy and justice for the vast majority of innocent Palestinians living in West Bank. Think turning Afghanistani immigrants away at JFK airport will keep troublemakers out? How about when all world airports turn back all Americans so that David Koresh-type people and Oklahoma-bombers don't enter their nations? Last week 100 Sierra Leonians were killed by a local chieftain to scare poor people into paying them protection money. Do they get justice? Is it even mentioned on CNN?
At most globalisation will accelerate the development of second-tier nations like China and India that were on the way up anyway.
There are lots of software development centres in India and China, how many are in Africa? Botswana and Nigeria churn out brilliant programmers THAT CAN CODE CIRCLES AROUND CHINESE PROGRAMMERS and yet they are out on the street living in mud huts. Why?
Plus, all charities are thieves, to benefit a people you have to develop the country's infrastructure and educate the people. How many power stations, bridges, electricity lines, Governments and telephone cables has Oxfam/Red Cross made? They just give grain and keep the third world dependent by not building their infrastructure nor providing education.
Censor me, mod me down, mod me up, I don't care. All I speak is the truth (this is not a sig - this is the truth and you all know it)
Guns, Germs, and Steel
Of course he's the best writer on slashdot.
He's the *only* writer on slashdot.
Pointless and irrelevent. OSS isn't going to change the world. Geeks aren't going to change the world. When it all comes down to it globalization isn't going to change the world. Face reality and embrace the horror. Nothing changes the world.
Listening to Katz ramble on about this was like watching Grace Slick talk about how the music and the kids were going to "change the world" in an interview from 1968 or something. Sad and amusing at the same time.
All I want out of OSS (and get used to this idea because it's all ANYONE wants out of OSS) is better software. I don't want it to be free as in beer. I don't want it to "change the world", I just want it to be what it is.
The rest will take care of itself
Actually, colonialism was in place through World War II, putting it slightly over 50 years past us. For example, in the process of turning colonies into independent states a small nation was created on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean. Other countries created from colonies in this period include most of Sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia. Large portions of the Middle East were also carved up right around then, re-forming countries such as Egypt and Jordan. The phrase "The sun never sets on the British empire" was true throughout the first half of the 20th century.
And there was something stopping the inhabitants of these areas from going back to subsistance farming during the colonial period: Being at the wrong end of a British (usually) or French rifle. That tends to be pretty effective motivation. Not that there wasn't resistance (e.g. the Zulu Wars and the Sepoy rebellion).
I am officially gone from
I think it means the DNC is letting them use the building. The only inkling of an ally free software had in congress was Orin Hatch, a Republican senator from Utah. I doubt the perl mongers really influence politics.
This is very, very funny.
So if the "anti-globalization" movement isn't really against globalization, then what is it really about? It's against a new form of top-down globalization, where ordinary people are stopped at borders, but corporations are free to move jobs whereever wages are kept artificially low (due to lack of ability of most third world workers to move to democratic countries that respect workers' rights). The movement is against new organizations that can veto national and local laws, yet the people affected by these decisions have no power to elect representatives to these organizations.
In most if not all countries, things are stacked against ordinary people influencing the laws that affect their daily life. But in many semi-democratic countries, it is possible to change the laws if you spend many years building a large movement, forcing politicians to represent us. But imagine our surprise after finally having our voice heard, just the tiniest bit, only to have the WTO decide that our democratic rights are a violation of "free trade".
You don't have to be a much of a cynic to see the folly in saying "if you don't like the laws the current crop of politicians enacted, vote them out", but at least with local and national governments, that is an option. When the WTO creates new rights for corporations and destroys rights for people, there isn't even a pretense of the ability to "vote them out".
So, yes, I'm all about "globalism" or "internationalism" or whatever you want to call it. I'm just for a globalism controlled by the 5 billion or so people it affects. And this is hardly a new idea. Internationalism has been a fundamental aspect of the struggle since the early 1800's. We were fighting for it then, and we're fighting for it now. The Industrial Workers of the World had hundreds of members in Seattle to protest the World Trade Organization's idea of globalization, yet the IWW is as firmly committed to uniting working people across the globe as they were at their founding in 1905.
And, yes, I'm happy that some billionaire likes the idea of a kinder-gentler unelected organization controlling our lives in a way that benefits us. That sure beats the sort of thing billionaires are usually arguing for. But that's hardly a solution. Doesn't anyone remember all that "of the people, by the people, for the people," crap? So this billionaire wants some kind of international body "for the people" but presumably of and by unelected politicians and corporations. That's a third of the way there. Hell, I'd be happy enough if it was at least honest - one vote for every $100,000,000 of wealth.
As for how to get there... Free software is definitely one aspect of it. The general priniciple is people coming together and collectively creating and controlling the things that affect our lives. Free (as in speech) Software gives computer users the chance to opt out of Bill Gates' orwellian wet dreams, and it also demonstrates an alternative method of organization and creation. It even makes ideas of a sane future imaginable -- and, as a programmer, Free Software is the only method of software production and distribution that makes sense in a (hopefully not too distant) future where people are in charge instead of corporations. The general principle applies in all other spheres of life, as well -- joining together with others working at the workplace, in our communities, and so on.
Shut the fuck up - if you want to make a difference register as a libertarian or do something useful and right about something relevant - better yet send all your stupid ass highschool writings to your congressman you dumb fuck!
There you'll really find out what it's like to live in a country where you can't complain about anything... because there is nothing to complain about. You'll be busy just finding things to eat each day. And then maybe you'll see that globalization and all that bad stuff is not so bad after all.
Whatever happened to good old Junis, BTW?
Many countries are changing their trade policy to be more open. Corporations will definitly take advantage of this. If they don't, someone else will. Whoever is well prepared for it will survive. Other can ignore at their own peril.
between globalism as it relates to corporation and as it relates to PEOPLE.
There are definitely two movements in the world focusing on globalism; that which is corporate, and focused on maintaining control of the global market, is one. The track record on that movement shows that it is really a movement by and for coporations to gain power in relation to the governments of the world, in order for them to pursue their business for maximum gain.. often at the expense of the people under them.
The second movement is a social globalism; environmentalists and labor union activists are the first to join forces under this banner. The idea is simple, very simple indeed: inequity creates violence, or even inequity IS violence to some members of these groups. Certainly even if you don't believe inequity is violence, inherently, you can see how exploitation and economic hardship is not good for the world as a whole; it's the stuff of revolutions and violent upheavals.
Hopefully, as the corporate movement gains in power, the social movement can provide a counter balance, though personally I worry about that. Whether you believe in an unfettered free market or not, you cannot argue the right of people to take power by working together; and by organizing they can achieve just this for their uphill battle. Corporations have the advantage; by their very nature, they are already organized, and they have capital to make their messages heard by people in power all over the world. The social organizations will likewise need to organize and unify to a degree never before seen in the world, across national boundaries. The nature of a corporation is to do as little as possible in order to secure its goals... it's up to the people to make sure that "as little as possible" is still in their own best interests.
I think this whole discussion is pretty flimsy in its relation to open source software, but the mindsets are similiar. Why work only for yourself, when you can work for everyone? As some modern interpetations of Darwin would say, the evolutionary winner is not the species which individually is most adapted to its surroundings, but rather, that which is most predisposed to co-operate. For now, the biggest tool to achieving co-operation is money; giving the edge to corporate power. the social movements, as of now, are mostly fringe activists who are motivated by means beyond money.
here's hoping they can achieve enough successes to draw people to the cause as they work to support the dignity of the human race. Even if you aren't an environmentalist; I suggest checking out the Green party/Green party USA website, there is plenty of great discussion of these topics there.
http://greenparty.org/
Of course, it helps that we used their minerals and oil to do it, and often just plain enslaved them to help us. We're not the only cause of 3rd world problems, but we are one of the causes.
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
Excellent comment. Sullen, that it will never see the light of moderation. Then again, is it really so strange?
global open society that could ensure a greater degree of freedom than individual states can or will. Is it already too late for that?
In response to this "Linux myth", Microsoft chairman Bill Gates issued the following press release:
My minions are already in a position to topple all world government and make me supreme leader. Your pathetic open source movement is powerless to stop me! Bwah ha ha ha ha!
You can find more information at the new homepage for world domination, www.wehaveyouunderourthumb.com.
Seriously, Jon, please. Open Source is an anticorporate movement; to the extent that the excessive power of corporations makes the lives of people who like to muck around with computers difficult, open source can help. Open source can even help to make technology cheaper, and reduce the economic clout of certain, particular, monopolistic corporations.
However, the high price of technology is not the root cause of most of the evil in the world. The profits from selling software are not what props up the international corporations and allows them to subvert the political process around the world to their own ends. Even if the techno anarchists succeed in destroying not just Big Software, but Big Music and Big Media as well, how will that benefit some teenage girl making a nickel a day manufacturing CD player components while she's exposed to heavy metals and drinks cholera contaminated water in a ghetto in the philippines? Oh, the CD player will have Linux embedded in it! AND no big mean corporation will be able to make you embed DRM in the firmware!
Free software advocates have argued for years now that open software could help create wealth and promote open societies in once-repressive, impoverished and technologically-primitive regimes.
Like Rock music was going to?
There is a certain truth to the argument that open source software is such a cool idea that it changes people on a philosophical level. So does la musica rock. I like Rock Music, and I like Open Source. Both of them have a highly positive impact on my quality of life, personally.
However, when you're talking about injustice on a global scale, call me when Richard Stallman storms the bastille, okay?
I'm a liberal, not a revolutionary by preference or inclination. I'm not looking for an excuse to promote armed struggle. However, when the institutions for moderate change, which is less disruptive to people's lives and welfare, if that is what you really care about and I do, have been co-opted so completely by reactionary forces, you're not left with a lot of options.
Recall, global corporations have a serious weakness vis a vis nation-states. Evil megacorps do not engender real loyalty. They try, and you can envisage a (nightmarish) future, where they do, but I don't think that it's likely. They depend for their existence on loyalty to the institutions of law and government which we have erected for the public benefit, and which they are subverting to support their own agendas. There comes a point where significant numbers of people - smart, able, well organised people - begin to lose loyalty to those institutions. This enables conglomerates to seize more control of those institutions; see cycle, vicious.
Now that the USSR is gone, people forget how close they came to winning, in how many ways and on how many fronts and at how many times. The institutions that protect our civil society, which seem to us so powerful exist purely in our heads; our society is not so different from the USSR is that it could collapse spontaneously based on the fickleness of the public mind; a fortress built of paper burns down in a day. I'm not just worried about the rise of corporate republics, as dystopic as such might be. I'm worried about the backlash from the other side of the political spectrum, which can be very, very ugly, and which threatened to stamp out civil society world wide as recently as 20 years ago. That is less than a generation. If you think that such sentiments are not simmering world wide just b/c the USSR is no longer helping them with their pamphletry, you are not paying attention.
Can free (as in speech) software help stem the rage of 65% of the world's population against those implicated in their impoverishment? No, it can't. Sorry.
The good and new comes from no quarter where it is looked for, and is always something different from what is expected.
Rich americans buy products from rich american corporations. Rich american corporations subcontract most of the actual manufacturing to less rich american corporations, who subcontract most of the work they get to decidedly less rich companies in the 3rd world. They employ labourers at a pittance, who make the stuff. At every stage, there are markups around 200% being applied, such that a shirt sold for $50 in the states earns the guy who made it 0.005c.
That's why they're poor. If rich americans really were buying stuff off them, perhaps they wouldn't be.
Amen.
A certain amount of corruption will inevitably occur. What matters is how the government and especially the CITIZENS respond to it, once they become aware of it. Corruption is the single most dangerous threat to any government, and especially democracies, because a democracy that won't control corruption is not a democracy at all. Severe punishment and righteous indignation are the hallmarks of societies which can keep corruption in check, allowing themselves to prosper. Apathy and capitulation are hallmarks of societies which will allow corruption to grow until they can't even function.
The US is pretty good about corruption, at least where domestic affairs are concerned, but we could be better, particularly with regard to corporate regulations and international concerns. Some spots in Northern Europe may be as good or better, but as far as the rest of the world is concerned they need a lot of improvement. Yes, even and in fact especially Japan.
---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?
Not quite. The dramatic change in Ireland's economy is almost entirely due to its "special region" status within the EU and the consequent billions it has received from central funds. Now that it no longer has this status and the money flow is reducing, the economic growth is likewise muted. I've got nothing against Ireland and the tremendous change they've made, but recognise that this has happened because billions of (other people's) euros have been spent on the infrastructure. It's got nothing to do with globalisation and everything to do with government intervention.
My next sig will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush
If you are so sure of your credentials, why not post with a name, email, even a website, so that we too can believe you.
Until then, I will keep dropping grain from above, breaking the necks of migrant youth with 200 kg sacks of Western Lovin'. Yee-Haw!
My UN velocity is gonna fuck you in the ass, poor starving third world laborers!
Woo-Hoo!
I calculate you gonna get fucked up when my grain do be falling, flying like manna, gonna feed you the fast way.
Has everyone still yet to realize that OUR standands of living are, when you get past the basic necessities, little more than cultural? Globalism itself is inherently flawed because it presupposes that other nations WANT to be like us. We want to turn the world into some riduculous expansion of the United States. The fact of the matter is, other cultures have their own standards, and by and large I don't think every African kid would benefit from having a Linux box running in his home. True, open source is good for "developing" nations that use or plan to use technology like ours, but that's not everyone.
1st and 3rd World are terms that assume everything is or should be seen from our American/Western cultural standpoint. I'm not real big on cultural relativism, but I think there's a happy ground between cultural-relativism and imperialism. When somebody says 3rd world, they're basically saying that they think every country should ideally be like us. Then they apply the same "development strategies" to all the 3rd world countries as if every one is basically the same (ie, not like us). The real reason that poor nations continue to be so is that we refuse to developed strategies specifically designed for each country.
Arh!
of being a slashdot reader when these kind of "things" get on the first page. /. has a reputation of being open and of never trying to be mother geesse.
/. that are against glabalization. /. that are pro glabalization. /. that use IE to read /. /. that dont use IE to read /.
There are readers on
There are readers on
There are readers on
There are readers on
And just as i don't need somebody else to tell my what OS to use or what to think i don't need somebody else to tell me what globalization is and what is not. Globalization will be different for, you for me, and for everybody that is affected differently by it. That is why a one sided, non-objective, patronizing note like that one has no space on a form that tries to be democratic.
Regardless of whether i'm pro or against globalization i don't think that this quality of jornalisim is the approiate for this form.
And forgive me for my english since i know is not great
--Manuel
"I hate quotations, tell me what you think"
I'm a looter. And I'm not ashamed to admit it. See, I depend on the police to protect me from getting my hard-earned money stolen when I take it to the bank. A bank that I know I'll be able to get my money back out of thanks to the FDIC. I know if my apartment complex catches on fire, the Fire Department will show up to try and put the fire out. When I eat meat, I know it's been inspected by the USDA. I drive to and from my high-paying job on roads maintained by the government of the city I live in. The reason why I had the knowledge to get the job is because I was educated at a public school, and a state-run university. (which I paid for with government-secured student loans) And I'm able to use the Internet to post this, thanks to the government research done developing it.
So yes, I'm a looter. And if you've ever take advantage of similar benfits, you're a looter too.
please & thank you
Why on earth do you give an open mike to Jon Katz who, in his second article in as many weeks, hijacks the opinions of others - opinions better expressed than anything Katz could type - to suit his need to be known as An Important Internet Theorist.
He doesn't write, he regurgitates. His sense of self-importance, going so far as to eclipse the material of other authors he is depending on, is as evident as his posturing solemnity.
May I suggest directly linking the articles to the people being relied upon for their hard work? Parasitic journalism is not a trend I wish to see, particularly here.
This wasn't just plain terrible, this was fancy terrible. This was terrible with raisins in it. - Dorothy Parker
Then why don't they make their own stuff and sell?
Hmmm... let's apply this to the mighty USA...
1. A choice between two paper-doll representatives of major parties, with heavily overlapping agendas, differences dictated mainly by which corporate sponsor shoved more money into their advertising. Oh, and the one with more money usually wins. Democracy is alive and well, but it don't live in north america. And need I go into the last elections...
2. American education is an oxymoron in European minds. The scores in international competitions are lower than most other third world countries. Literacy rate of Romania is still higher than USA.
3. Law enforcement. A subservient, reactionary police force with a penchant for racism and violence.
4. Trademark & patent- this depends on what side of this debate you are. Either way, if DMCA is a symbol of democracy and prosperity of a nation, that nation is in trouble.
So, if I understand correctly, and the lack of these things is what is keeping the underdeveloped countries in a disadvantaged position, states should be developing the wheel any year now...
Besides, no matter what the situation is, there is no justification for taking advantage of a nation with lax labour laws to get slave labour. If the globalization believed in the shit that it pushes as its main benefits, it would create global standards of labour regulations and enforce them. There would still be room for making large wads of cash, and your great-grandfathers that striked in Chicago would not be spinning in their graves.
Men, evolution simply can't happen in a leveled field. You need islands with marked different enviroments. Even if you force a single common enviroment, diferences will airse and disturbe it, leading once more to rich and poor inequety. don't flame me, flame Darwin...
Regards!
Setting my threshold to 4, I count:
2 posts making fun of Katz,
5 posts questioning the validity of and/or outright debunking the points Katz raises.
If I were in charge, what would this say to me about the quality of Katz's articles?
Never approach a vast undertaking with a half-vast plan.
In this post 9-11 anti-open source world I find myself unable to read any more Jon Katz, not even for the children.
- For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat
That is, all the WTO and G8 talks are designed to make it easy to send capital around the world easily but not allow people to move to different places according to need for skills. As long as corporations have global freedom but not people, we will have the disparity between different people. If a true market in labour existed where people could move anywhere where their skills were wanted, then dicatators would not be able to oppress their citizens so easily, since they could just leave.
Open Source on a global Internet threatens monopoly power because it allows someone in Brazil to develop software that is used in Australia and that same person to use software developed in Finland. The software goes pretty directly from creator to user rather than having some intermediate owner like Microsoft controlling supply and demand.
Open Source tends to reduce the tyranny of money, whch allows a controller of money such as a bank to profit without production, and return to a barter system where my labour is directly available to consumers, and their labour is directly available to me. This threatens the global money monopoly a lot. So that is one reason there is such an attempt to block easy flow of information products (DMCA SSCA etc.). Both the banks and Disney want to ensure that information only is exchanged through a medium where they get a cut.
Remember that money doesn't really exist. It is just a convenient fiction to keep track of the exchange of the real things like goods and knowledge. Any thing that threatens this fiction is very dangerous.
What part of history class did I miss?
If we're talking 100+ years ago - didn't the "vast majority of raw materials and cheap labor" come from America?
I thought that the industrial revolution in America involved the millions of immigrants who >LIVED HERE and helped build our great nation.
And with shipping technology what it was, I would speculate that land-bound locomotives brought much of the raw materials to centers of industry; and that a glut of IMPORTED raw materials would come as a direct result of the TECHNOLOGY (read shipping/transportation) that the industrial revolution produced.
Am I wrong here?
Can we please call it globalization not globalism? It's like reading a bad typo over and over again.
"Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
Governments defend legally defined rights. Why, then, aren't those in posession of said rights paying for the cost of protecting them? If I have title to an asset, that title is worthless to me without enforcement of the entitlement to the asset. Why should some kid who is trying to get a family together be potentially subject to the draft at the same time that he is paying taxes on everything from income to capital gains to groceries to pay for enforcement of my title with his money as well as his blood?
There are alternatives. Just before the time I worked on the toll road archive system, I was politically active and my last ditch attempt to address via political reform the core problems I saw was a proposed net asset tax reform based on risk-adjusted net present value calculation (arguably the most fundamental business calculation of all). Since then I've become very disenchanted with politics as a viable route to reform and come to a more radical proposal I have called warrior's insurance where governments and international mutual defense treaties are replaced by reinsurance networks that indemnify in the event of loss of asset value due to force or fraud. The insurance premiums would usually be paid in scrip issued by the insurance companies, thereby displacing fiat currencies. The insurance companies could adjust their premiums to account for risky behavior by their clients (like building huge fixed assets in placed like NYC for people who go around the world tormenting Muslims). Global markets trading varieties of scrip would naturally turn into a reinsurance network supporting emergency action by groups of warrior insurers.
Said insurance premiums and their risk-adjustment are the way guys who own lots titles that need enforcement can pay younger guys who put their lives on the line to protect those entitlements -- and pay them something that might be remotely called fair compensation -- all without resorting to rhetoric about how "we're all one big happy clan around here". Of course, the warrior insurers themselves may be very clanish, but that's their business. Clans -- real clans -- do have a place in the foundation of such a reinsurance network. Clans are, after all, highly territorial.
If you want to give nightmares to guys like Katz and Soros, rate this comment a 5.
Seastead this.
I believe that there is a fairly good chance there wont be much left in George's will for relatives. Most will be left to "good causes" (e.g. The Soros foundation...). This is also true of most self made [m|b]illonaires. In fact, Bill Gates - the devil himself - is on record as stating that only $200 million of his will is going to be inherited by relatives. The Bill & Maria Gates foundation overtook the Wellcome Trust as the largest charitable organisation in the world not so long back.
And that is perfectly fair. We know that capital begits capital. If you are rich - and have good intentions - the best thing you can do is be greedy whilst alive. Then give away your money when you die. It will be a substantially larger contribution to good causes.
Ah crap. Colonialism ended a hundred years ago.
Ah crap right back at you. As the previous response noted, formal imperial colonialism was in place until the aftermath of WWII. I would argue that another form of economic colonialism exists now in which less developed countries are kept in a sort of raw-materials-producing indentured servitude by the established economic powers.
I would argue moreover that the massive cultural destabization and systems of corrupt political patronage wrought on nations we call the "3rd World" which I assume are the "real issues" you refer to, are in large part as a result of Colonialism (both imperial and corporate) and not some inherant defect of the peoples of these nations themselves, as is your highly racist inferrence.
Make no mistake, American enginuity got us where we are today: the enginuity to screw over other people and extract resources from them at an advantageous pace for ourselves.
Howard Dean for president
be careful with the terminology
"globalization"
the left uses it describe this advanced form
of capitalism. the "left" acknoledges that
"global" trade has existed for centuries.
e.g. the ismaili trade routes between africa
and india around 100 b.c.
it really tries to capture the super concentration
of global capital which is the postcolonial form
of capitalism. it also addresses the neocolonial
stature of the western world. this has brutal
consequences in all the of "third world" most
notably the violence in places such as
columbia, liberia, cong, peru and palistine. also
violence in the first worlds in the form of third
world's with; native reservations, prisons, the internal marginalization of decendants of
non-western peoples and ghetto's.
central to the left's idea is that; assuming
things improve and we are around in 100 years
we will look back and see our current practices
no different that the colonial practices of the
the previous century.
here is a few hints of where the critique of
globalization lies:
1. the shrinking of "living wage" jobs
2. capital is free to move across borders but
people are not.
3. the support of non-democracies such as kuwait and saudi arabia.
that the only reason I can afford a computer (as well as a house, car, enough food, healthcare etc) is that lots people not that different to myself have to do without these things
You have a computer because it was CREATED out of stuff, not taken from some poor soul somewhere else.
So many people believe that wealth is a zero sum game. "In order for 'A' to have, 'B' must do without", they believe.
It ain't so. Wealth is and can be CREATED. Walth is limitless... wealth creation occurs when you create a thing which is more valuable than the sum of its parts. That is the source of wealth: CREATION, not discovery, or looting from weaker folk. It's open-ended, limitless, and not zero-sum game at all.
Mod down people who tell people how to mod in their sigs
The "industrial revolution," at least in the United States, was fueled primarily from within.
I would disagree. You're correct that in the first stage of the industrial revolution (early 1800s to early 1900s) there was little to no offshore manufacturing. However, vast amounts of resource and labor were extracted from other parts of the world (sometimes in the form of immigrants).
While it's true that there was significantly less government-orchestrated (imperial) colonialism prepetuation on behalf of the US (mostly confined to the carribean, central america, and the east) the basis for many of the great founding corporations of this country has always been import/export.
In essance, we didn't get where we are by existing in a vaccum. This is quite obviously the case in our "global" 21st century, but I might remind you that while the interconnection of economies works faster these days than ever before (thanks to things like the internet), the degree of interconnection is hardly unpreccidented. Historical research has shown that just prior to WWI, the interconnection of national economies (as measured by the value of their imports/exports as a funtion of their GDP) was actually GREATER than today.
Howard Dean for president
> "Do you think developing countries will bable to use open source to develop and keep pace with the western world?" My answer: not unless they get open governments to support it.
...
This misses one of the main points pushing open source in much of the developing world: Commercial software has secret inner workings that you can't know about. This puts you at the mercy of the corporation that built the software. It can have all sorts of trapdoors and spy code, and if you're on the network, the software can be sending your data back to headquarters without you knowing it.
This is especially worrying to closed governments. If you were a third-world dictator, would you want a big American corporation to have a secret pipeline into your computers?
The only real solution to such worries is to follow the same rule as any high-security installation: You only run programs for which you have all the source code. And you compile them yourself. And you make sure that you have a pool of loyal citizens who have the training to study the software and tell you what it can and can't do to you, and maybe modify it for your own purposes.
Yeah, some governments are buying Microsoft and other corporations' software. They'll eventually find themselves at the mercy of those corporations. Maybe we should feel sorry for them. The smart ones won't fall into this trap.
There's also the price issue
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
Does that mean we openly admit to being Soros fans?
"Where pray tell did the vast majority of raw materials and cheap (e.g. slave) labor that powered the industreal revolution come from? Hmmm... the third wold. "
Vast majority? You have proof? Aren't you just guessing?
In the U.S., most natural resources came from the US. Most of the labor was done in the U.S. Most of the food was grown in the U.S. Most of the energy in the form of oil and coal came from the U.S.
To say that the industrial revolution was largely powered by the third world is a myth. Why do you believe it? Better question -- why do you want to believe it?
"There is no international equivalent of the political process that occurs within individual states. While markets have become global, politics remain firmly rooted in the sovereignty of the state."
I recommend Mr. Soros look at a mature academic concept called 'Regime Theory'
Any readers interested in connecting this concept to quantitative proof that being good pays, should attempt correlation with 'Game Theory' as well. That ought to ring a bell with certain computer geeks in our community.
...
Anyways, good luck. I know there is a thesis in here somewhere.
- Later, SmartAs
'In pusuit of the greater good!
"2. Complement the World Trade Organization (WTO),which is supposed to generate equitably-distributed global wealth, with equally powerful international organizations devoted to social goals, like reducing poverty and making necessary goods available all over the world."
This has got to be the most backwards description of the WTO that i have ever read. Orginizations like the WTO and the IMF are what cause corrupt governments in third world countries. Just look at seattle. It was an elite caucus for the rich and powerful world wide. The impovershed people in a given country were "represented" by the corrupt officals that allow such economic evil to go on in their countries, and the buisnessmen who consistently gain from it. The WTO has repeatedly worked against human rights, the environment, and has made poverty worse in most places it's had an influence (with the notable exception of america).
"3. Improve the quality of public life in countries suffering from corrupt, repressive or incompetent governments."
America's forign policy creates some of the most repressive, dictatorial regiemes in the world, and in the name of "Globalism" or "Free Trade" or "Democracy". To really understand american foriegn policy and global economics one must recognize the doublespeak that our politicians and corporate leaders use. "Free Trade" is only a reality for about 1% of the worlds population and the billionare's of the world have a vested interest in keeping it that way. And while third world government corruption is clearly a problem, try taking a look at its source. America, using forign aid, using our military, and using our investment power, is the sole provider of many corrupt foreign governments. And its no mistake. We want third world governments corrupt, that way we can exploit labour and natural resource in those countries. Why do you think america controlls the vast majority of the worlds wealth?
"Soros argues that the world's worst conditions aren't necessarily caused by globalism. It's bad governments that are responsible for exploitive working conditions, lack of social and economic capital, and political repression."
I'm sorry but if Nike is paying 10 cents a day then the malaysian government is not at fault. And if the government let's people starve in nigera while Chevron make billions a year off the oil in that country, then the blood is just as red on the hands of the Cheveron execs that pay that government for oil rights.
Globalization is not neccisarily evil. What is evil is that american buisnesses are in direct control of the vast majority of the world's resource. And do not take my word for it. Inform yourself about the issues, but realize that the words of a billionare whose wealth and power come directly from Globalization, is writing from an extremely skewed and suspect position.
"Ah, another missive from Inspector LeKatz on globalism," Holmes said, languidly tossing the afternoon Slashdot on the table.
"Fetch our ski-masks, Watson - the game's afoot!"
When is U2's next album coming out?
1. the digital divide is not growing, but diminishig
2. OSS does not have anything to do with real politics going on in washington and over the world. Please stop trying to make it sound more important than it is
an advice: go take some courses of political science, economics and other NON-TECH related topic, before writing bunch of leftist generalities about this you do not understand.
I find it very difficult to talk politics with geeks, since sometimes they either do not know the whole story, or they do not have the background to understand complex situations involving other things than computers.
I have several clients and friends in the civil/structural engineering and construction management business. All of them say that Japan is appalling when it comes to corruption in these industries- with graft being as much as 20% of the total budget of a major hotel or office building.
Two questions:
Ok, let's say for a moment that globalization is BAD. Can it be stopped? How? I'm really currios (should we all start to listen to new age music and dress like in '60, whould this help?)
What's the alternative "localization"?!!
Cultural Revolution a' la China? Border control for ideas? Ha!
Globalism can be a good thing, when the time is right, but at the moment i believe the US benifits from globalism more than anyone else.
good idea on paper, bad idea considering the situation the world is in.
If each country had a seperate economy first, then entered the global economy it would be fine, but alot of countries dont have anyting to give to the global economy.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
With their two shots per minute muskets, gentlemen's battles and bayonets!
A hundred guys with AK-47 rifles and sufficient ammunition could have won the revolutionary war for either side in under a year. If the average 20th century American didn't have access to semiautomatic pistols the same hundred guys could take over any small US rural town of their choice. Believe it or not, the average third world citizen doesn't have access to dealers selling semiautomatic weapons, let alone automatic. Even if they did, these guns cost more than their homes.
The American revolution couldn't be repeated in the 21st century. A well-equipped, well trained private army might overthrow a government, but a people's rebellion is worse than pitting some Afghani mountain fighters against the US military... it would be a complete turkey shoot.
I hope this is a joke. Katz, do you even skim the replies to your articles??? Please fire yourself already.
Look at my karma - I'm bad, just like Michael Jackson!
Hi!
It is not multinationals who hijacked globalism.
It is anti-globalists who hijacked it.
Kubus
We are a republic, We have a small group who runs the country. Not really much diffrent than China which has a small group which runs the country.
Yes on the local levels we do have some control, but the federal government is fucked up.
Local governments are a democracy, Federal governments arent.
Countries can make progress easily, The problem with globalization that I have, is it seems like another attempt by the US to dominate the world, who benifits most from a global economy? Which country has the best economy? The country with the best economy is the country who is at the top of the ladder, capitalism is a pyramid economy, the global third world will be at the bottom of the ladder, and we'll become richer.
They may become richer than they are now, but I believe they'd be better off if they formed their own economy, China for example does not need to globalize, they have more than enough people to form a good economy.
Also something you dont consider which harms people in the USA, in a completely global information economy, why would anyone hire anyone from the USA? WHy would you get the job when someone from pakistan or asia can do it for cheaper?
Until each countries economy is absolutely equal, the global idea is unfair.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
I dont see it helping me, or you, it only helps a rich CEO.
Example, via globalism cant this CEO hire people from other countries cheaper than hiring you?
This allows him to save costs, but you lack a job because some guy in pakistan will work for next to nothing.
Until Globalism addresses the issue of wage equality, theres going to be a big big problem.
What happens when the global workforce is cheaper than we are, and more educated?
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
I completelly agree with you, and I will proudly do the best to leave it as is. If some child cannot eat let that be its problem, not mine. If somebody was to enforce that then lets see who has the biggest balls and who can walk with such big balls.
And I so much hate all these socialist fuckers anyway.
That's the state of developing nations. Rich governments and banks extract more from many of them than they give in foreign aid. The countries can't even pay back the interest, let alone the principle. And it's not the rich, who arrange the loans, who pay them back. It's the poor.
What if I do the same thing, and I do get different results?
They need to get their own act together, not be handheld by the rest of the world. Most of the help we give is either misdirected or pocketed by individuals in charge of the help or by those getting the help.
What are we going to invade every country and topple their governments? That would gain us wide support in the world.
The Globalism is a bad idea and to allow one government to fuck up everything without any safe haven.
The "industrial revolution," at least in the United States, was fueled primarily from within.
"I would disagree. You're correct that in the first stage of the industrial revolution (early 1800s to early 1900s) there was little to no offshore manufacturing. However, vast amounts of resource and labor were extracted from other parts of the world (sometimes in the form of immigrants)."
Immigrants were extracted? Why did you choose to use such a loaded word? You are intensionally trying to sneak in a negative value judgement.
Immigrants weren't extracted. Immigrants wanted to come and we let them. They helped fuel industrialization, and also enjoyed the benefits of it.
And yes. The industrial revolution in the U.S. was primarily fueled from within.
Further, why do you think off-shore manufacturing is bad for the third world? Off-shore manufacturing is one of the third-worlds only ways of earning money.
One doctrine believes that lawyers are full of nothing but shit and hot air, which if some way was found to extract the methane from would make for at least a halfway decent fuel. (I am not overly familiar with the combustive properties of methane so I cannot say what the efficiency rate would be on this idea.)
The other side believes that lawyers are pretty much hollow psuedo-forms running around in human shape. While they would not burn, they should not weigh to much either.
Need help treating your acne? Come here!
Study your history.
My grandfather would tell stories from his father how the mine owners directed the rescue crews after collapses to focus on digging out the donkeys, because they were more expensive to replace than the workers. They employed teams of men with clubs to beat the workers whenever they attempted to strike.
Large lengths of the first transcontinental railroads were built by Asian immigrants that were quite literally worked to death. Not in the dozens, but in the thousands.
The industrial economy was partially funded by riches accumulated from the use of Africans as slaves. It was built on land acquired by driving out and killing by weapon (or disease) an estimated 12 million Native Americans.
America is a great nation now, but it was built on blood.
Hows this help the irish? Irish people dont want our companies there because now they cant start their own without competiting with ours.
We dont want our companies there because now we have less jobs because irish people are being hired
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
You act as if third world countries had nothing to do with the US being rich
Who took over africa, took slaves, ruined their society, etc etc?
Kids in africa starve to death because you destroyed africa and stole their land, their people, and their diamonds and natural reasources
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
"Second, growing disparity between rich and poor is not necessarily bad. If you could wave a wand and improve the standard of living of the poor by 8x, but in the process make the rich 10x as rich, would you do so? If not, why not? Just because disparity would grow?"
I dont think that is happening. The poor are still dirt poor.
"Third, by almost all objective standards, the amount and severity of poverty in the world has dropped significantly during the era of globalization. There is less starvation; infant mortality is lower; life expectancy is longer; there is less malnutrition. "
Where are you getting that from? Standards of living dropped sharply in eastern europe after the fall of communism. Countries in south america like argentina and brazil are in facing humanitarian disasters.
"Finally, the places where things haven't improved correspond not to hotbeds of globalization, but to regimes so repressive or corrupt that global investment doesn't happen. Globalization has barely touched most of Africa or North Korea because no one will invest. In those places the standard of living is wretched. "
What about the "hotbeds of globalisation" like eastern europe which are still well behind the industrial production and standard of living they had under communism; what about argentina that used to be a darling of the globalisation movement and now it is at the edge of anarchy; even the former powerful economies of the east - japan korea, taiwan etc; are suffering long reccessions as a result of globalisation.
also your argument has an underlying assumptuin that is false - that hotbeds of globalisation are different from places with repressive regimes.
That is not true, just look at indonesia saudi arabia etc. even places like russia. The more repressive the Putin government becomes the more he is praized by economies. Hell the same is true about the US.
It looks like that some people here are proposing a pay-back or am I wrong.
I'm really amazed by the fact that so many socialists exists, but they still can't accumulate
huge amounts of money to feed africa's people.
Are you very few, or you are socialists when it's time to collect other's wealth? or kind of Robin Hood's reicarnation?
Mr.Coward, Yes a good education is needed, but we wont ever do that
Rich people in the USA likee having the education advantage.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Free software advocates have argued for years now that open software could help create wealth and promote open societies in once-repressive, impoverished and technologically-primitive regimes. This idea is exciting. It attracted non-geeks like me to Open Source and Slashdot in the first place.
We know how to get rid of Katz!
Ok, we have changed our minds. Free Software won't create wealth nor will it promote an open society. Sorry, we were wrong, NOW GO AWAY! Stop trying to leverage hard-working geeks to advance your political agenda.
int func(int a);
func((b += 3, b));
my name is Kevin. i'm 15 years old, but i have the mental capacity of a 4 year old. can i write for slashdot? im sure i can produce articles *just* like jon katz!
Yeah, it's the poor people who are dragging the rest of the world around, not the other way around. Us westerners lose our jobs to cheap labor in 3rd world countries because they lack sustainable economies. So, western companies dump western jobs for low cost 3rd world labor. With some respects, it is good, because those companies build power plants and other necessities of a modern nation (which apparently the countries in question are unable to do themselves). The closer the entire world is to modernization, the better off everyone will be.
t ar ving.mp3
The idea that the western world is rich at the expensive of the rest of the world is absurd. That idea is based on the mercantilistic model of economic theory that there's a limited amount of wealth in the world, and well, mercantilism thought has been dead for at least a century much like the concept of a flat earth! A better explaination might involve, say, the culture of the poor countries and a backlash against modernization: companies are greedy, industrialization destroys the environment, our ancestors did it this way and we'll never change, etc.
This MP3 pretty much sums up my thoughts about people who guilt the middle class into giving the poor money to 3rd world countries (warning: swear words abound!) --
http://wolfox.werewolves.org/~two/Rants/2rant-s
I'm not right wing either
I an anti globalization because its always been our influence whos made other countries poor.
Africa had diamonds and many natural resources which were stolen from them by the british, China managed to fight the british off and they did ok, Japan did ok because they joined the club
Countries that did not do ok, mexico, africa, the middle east, its not so much because they were set up wrong, its because we interupted them.
Globalization should be something each country joins when they are ready, alot of countries arent ready, africa sure as hell isnt ready
alot of countries need to knoow how to gain control of their own government (africa) and alot of countries need to control poverty (Africa)
And some countries need better education (mexico + africa)
Globalization wont do anything but turn these people into brainless zombie slaves working for a RICH CEO in the USA.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Perhaps they dont want to work for someone else, perhaps they run their own businesses farming or whatever and will make less working for mcdonalds.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
This means, someone working at mc donalds in the US should make the same as someone working at mcdonalds in africa.
With a Minimum Global Wage, I can support globalism
But currently what we have is partial Globalism, Globalism which only benifits the CEOs and other rich people, Why hire people from the US when you can hire people from other places?
WE need a GLOBAL minimum wage so that everyone can have a fair chance at getting the job.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Of all of the Score 3+ articles I have seen here, this is the only one that accurately reflects what the so-called "anti-globalization" movement is all about. The remaining articles have no clue what it is about. This article should receive more attention.
OSS and cheap hardware is frequently the only lever for some smart people to launch themselves out of the developing economies they live in. Closed source - eg. expensive code is a barrier.
In my opinion, governments should not push proprietary solutions or open code solutions. That much said, governments and public bodies still could improve the competition and make open code much more of an option in public procurement.
The government should always choose the best computer program and IT solution at any given period of time. However, by the design of public procurement policies open code is often ruled out even before the governmental shop opens. This should be changed to make sure open code solutions may compete in public procurement on the same terms as proprietary solutions.
Regards
Mikael
Pawlo.com
The attempt to draw a parallel between globalism (seen as good, free-trade stuff which makes everyone richer overall) and open source software falls down in various ways.
I've also used the analogy between open source and free trade at times. However, it's notorious that although free trade ultimately makes everyone richer, it's always advocated by those who are already in a commanding economic position and who have most to gain. Tariffs are imposed by those whose short term interest is not best served by open markets.
In the case of open source, it's interesting that the advocates of openness and those who have most to gain are actually those who are competing from below as it were.
Globalism, of course, is really a modern version of the free trade argument with force attached.
And unfortunately when one nation is so vastly more powerful than all others, globalism essentially means American imperialism. And in the field of information, that means US restrictions in the areas of copyright, patents and the like being imposed on the rest of the world - not very `open source' or `free-trade', this.
he believes in what supporters call a global open society that could ensure a greater degree of freedom than individual states can or will.
Do you mean 'freedom' as in individual rights, or more freedom meaning 'free things'?
Too often, people equate economic prosperity with individual liberties. i.e. that to be free is to have stuff, and since there are those that don't have stuff, they are not free. I think people push towards globalism for a greater redistribution of wealth. I don't agree with it, I'm perfectly happy with individual nations, since I can move if I don't like one. I'm happy with this specific nation (the US) because it seems to be one of the few states that I can keep my freedom to make money (and keep it.)
Reason, free market capitalism, and individualism
I'm all in favor of GNU and free software and I hope these movements can help stimulate progress and conserve resources in underdeveloped nations.
But any kind of globalism, corporatist or otherwise, is, in my opinion, a perscription for tyranny. Yes, a few petty tyrannies might be eliminated, but the resulting world order would be one great big tyranny. The world needs to be made up of nations of managable size who all recognize each other's sovereignty.
----------
Manifesto for the Peoples of the Third Millennium
- Bitter Old Man
if jon is being paid to write articles for slashdot, then he should be fired.
if he's not being paid, then his posting rights should be removed.
your overzealous use of buzzwords and lack of research on EVERYTHING you post astounds us all jon, yet fails to impress.
get a job pumping gas and keep your drug habit at home.
The reason girls and Windows users don't understand UNIX is because all the documentation is in Man files.
Maybe he's talking about how especially some European countries exploited Africa and South America some 100+ years back. Whether all the comforts we have now would or wouldn't be possible without the wrongdoings of the past is an interesting question.
I don't know who's right, though.
Not only would this MGW (as you put it) not solve any problems, it would only create them.
Theres so many stupid statements in this comment, I wouldn't want to waste time to rip apart, but these moderators should know better.
SIG:Slashdot: indymedia for nerds.
Just.
Shut.
UP.
Glückwünsche, haben Sie Slashdot ermordet, indem Sie zum korporativen Druck beugten und Subskriptionen einlei
(I sincerely hope this is taken as a joke and with a grain of salt). Look at what MandrakeSoft and MandrakeClub did for france, they were before a first world country, with nuclear arms which had the rest of the world pissed off at them for testing the nuclear weapons. Now they are a first world country with a Linux Distribution which has all of slashdot pissed off over the MandrakeClub! WAY TO GO FRANCE!
a bit more about me http://www.advogato.org/person/trelane/ or my private page http://trelane.net
Then Globalism can NEVER work.
IF not for the minimum wage in the US, who going to keep rich CEOs in line? WHy shouldnt rich CEOs pay everyone pennies if theres no one to force them to pay everyone a fair wage??
Stupid IDEA? Getting a fair wage is a stupid idea????????!
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
When that trade is equal, and when people in all countries make equal wages.
Trade works so well in the USA because we all make fair wages, trade wont work when you trade a penny for a weeks supply of food in africa.
Fair wage means someone in africa should make the same as someone in the US for doing the same job.
A programmer there should make 100k, a programmer here should make 100k, the minimum wage for a programmer should be 100k, period.
this would keep companies from exploiting poorer workers and paying them less, it would also make sure WE have jobs, because if they could get away with it, they'd hire 100 percent of everyone from isreal, pakistan and other places.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Instead of arguing over globalisation from a top-down perspective, a bottom-up perspective is more revealing. Under Communism, a 15-20 year old Russian citizen automatically gets a car and flat, free of cost. This person is free to pursue his own activities - fine arts, philosophy, reading, going out with friends. Problem: Communist politics allowed tyrannical and oppressive regimes to persist due to the large amount of control given to them. Under democracy this political tyranny is far less likely to exist. Under the free market it's transferred to corporate entities e.g. record distributors suing Napster akin to horse-and-cart taxis trying to make petrol engines illegal 100 years ago. Under this free market the same 15-20 year old will be working nights for some avaricious affluent Manager in some fish and chip shop to pay his rent (the cheapest Central London houses are 300,000 pounds ($500,000) to buy - out of reach) and then watch TV where he will see product advertisements so that he can squander his hard-earned cash. When his friend buys the latest car using money that's stolen/earned unconscionably, this chap will feel jealousy and greed - the fiery emotions at capitalism's heart, in breach of the wise Christian commandment, "Thou shalt not covet what thy neighbour has" with equivalent statements in almost every other world religion. Then some parents *seem* surprised when they find out their children are troublemakers. Case in point: The BBC (a pseudo-governmental organisation that everyone pays for via "TV tax" and thus is free of shareholder-slavery) hosting this discussion about capitalism, whereas other channels just air ignorant shows and movies to get the maximum advertising dollar.
Why are there so few goods that are "Made in Ethiopia" or "Made in Ghana" - why are the international trade barriers so unfairly high? Why did the IMF award a massive loan to (I think) Malaysia when they knew the Government was corrupt - perhaps they knew that once a better Government was elected to take their place that the country would still have to repay the loan with interest that was squandered and embezzled, effectively economically enslaving an entire nation of hundreds of millions of people. I put it to you that only influential people (rich/political mix that the Enron scandal shows are corrupt enough to shred their papers and where the price of having a conscience is having a bullet in your head) set these policies in breach of what the public wants - making us a failing democracy. Nobody has enough time to vote for the right party because they are too busy working, earning money to spend on rent/mortgages and products that only their own greed (and advertising) dictates that they must buy; from the overworked 20 year old in the fish and chip shop whilst his Manager makes the real money and so the cycle is complete. The power of elected politicians is replaced by Managers and their own avaricious wishes. Do we wish these Managers that enslave our young children and pay them a pittance for the "privilege" of a roof over their heads to do the same to Ethiopians? A new kind of war - a hundred managers instead of a million imperialist soldiers, a victory indeed. It is time that companies stop abusing the "Developed-world hand-me-downs" culture where if a car pollutes too much, or if the pesticide DDT causes cancer then simply sell it to India or some other developing country. Companies seldom give anything to these countries, usually only taking their natural resources, so perhaps they should be grateful for these dangerous technologies. Saudi Arabia has the correct technique for dealing with this - since companies don't do them favours, then they won't do companies favours - therefore all copyrights and patents are null and void there, which many foreign legislative arms find to be a commercial threat.
A caveman dreams of being us, the incalculable power and riches. We dream of being Q, then what?
Globalism and growing disparity between the rich and poor are linked, if you believe that the accumulation of capital leads to even more accumulation of capital (which seems to be a presumption among many anti-corporates). To grossly oversimplify, gaining access to a global market of labor means more workers to exploit, as well as more consumers from whom to make profits.
The price for YOU TO HAVE ALL THAT is 80% of the world population been poor
Putting aside the fact that you don't know shit about income distribution in the world, or standards of living, HOW THE FUCK could the availability of clean water, computers, etc. in the first world possibly be because of poverty in the third? Did we start taxing Afghan peasants to pay for sewage treatment plants? Did we steal power plants from Mongolia? Did Thomas Crapper kidnap and kill the South African inventor of the flush toilet? Did the inventors of the microchip somehow deprive peasants of food in order to build the first fab?
My friend, you are a dumbass. That is all.
There are 3 parts to every JonKatz story:
There's Jon. Personally, I'd rather get stuck next to RMS on a transpacific flight while wearing clothes with about sixteen different Microsoft logos than read the predictable pretensious neauveau intellectualisms of this guy. JonKatz can actually talk me out of my own beliefs just by standing up for them!!!
So, we skip that part. Bada-bing, bada-boom, twenty-percent time savings.
Next, comes a (predictable) wave of anti-Jon rants. Sometimes there's a funny one, so scan or not depending on how nauseated you were by the teaser for JonKatz's article. You know, as a sanity check...
Anyway, after the rants, the postings pick up a few dozen IQ points, and the strong thoughts start to feed on any weakling remarks and wrong cliche's. Smart people who happen to specialize in an area speak up. Trite answers are given a good "straw-man flambe" treatment, and quotes or sources that have sabotaged their own reputations are outed. If you love hating JonKatz, there's even a side game possible: watch how often these discussions never even mention JonKatz! It's like a waiter stepped up to the round table, said something trite, then wandered away to let The Grownups take the discussion to a higher level.
So, just skip a few screenfuls. You won't lose much, context cues can get you a bit further, and if you like to think the issues through and discover complications you'd never considered... the last half are where you'll find the meat of the discussion.
"n% of the people think. m% of the people think they think. The other j% of the people would rather die than think. " -- Edison, Shaw, Coller, or ???
I mean, if the photo enforcement equipment in Los Angeles intercepts someone being too aggressive going into a yellow light, shouldn't the good people of Sumatra be privy to this information so that they can protect their streets from this reckless individual?
You know, though, on the topic of your comment, it really is high time we leveled the playing field between the fry guy and the warlord weapons dealer in sub-saharan Africa.
Nothing at all against Romania, but you are getting a bit loose with the facts here:
Adult Literacy: US (99.0%) ROMANIA (97.8%)
GDB Per Head: US ($29,240) ROMANIA ($1,360)
Computers Per 100 Pop.: US (45.9) ROMANIA (1.0)
Source: The Economist (www.economist.com) Pocket World in Figures 2001 Edition.
Hmm. I'm not sure if our 'downward plunge' would affect the 3rd world much, maybe it'd shake them a bit but in the long run they'd be better off; after all THEY WOULDN'T GET EXPLOITED ANYMORE.
Sure they'd get exploited. By the other source of their exploitation -- the governments, organized crime, etc. present in their country.
Hi! My name is Mnementh!
I'm from an Anne McCaffrey book, lala lala la...
Anne Mcaffrey hangs at her ranch with her horse and cats, lala lala la...
Hi! My name is Mnementh!
I think stuff into F'nor's/F'lar's, oh whatever the heck his name is, head, lala lala la...
Anne McCaffrey could REALLY use a dildo, lala lala la...
Hi! My name is Mnementh!
I'm a telepathic Dragon now that's really cool! Lala lala la...
Maybe I'll use my teleporting ability to deliver Anne McCaffrey that Dildo, lala lala la...
Hi! My name is Mnementh!
There's a linux box AND a Slashdotter named after me! Lala lala la...
Hi! My name is Mnementh!
"Mr. Gray didn't care much for Jonesy's body (or so he told himself; in truth it was hard not to feel at least some affection for something capable of providing such unexpected pleasures as "bacon" and "murder"), but it did have to take him another couple of hundred miles." --Stephen King, Dreamcatcher
I wrote to Slashdot asking for exactly that last week after another Katz post. Thanks for taking a shot.
FFS, CmdrTaco, but really.. why the hell is Katz still posting? Nobody likes him, nobody listens to what he says (because he just re-hashes the same crap), it's all just pandering social commentary.
WHY?!
...so that "quality" is lost on me.
I think you just blew your chances to be voted Secretary General of the U.N. Sorry about that ...
Very well said. Globalization in of itself is simply a macro pattern. Smaller-scale examples include things like inter-personal interraction and cross-tribal socialization. Put a little more banal, globalization is many economies having sex with many other economies, the fruits of which are a synthesis of the players. Instead of eggs and sperm, it's currency, goods and services.
Now, deciding whether that's a good thing or not depends largely on whether you oppose such cross-breeding as policy (which depends on how you define economic "breeds" to begin with), whether you see the behaviors of the alpha mates (CEOs, corrupt governments, etc.) as telling of the pattern itself or if you chose to focus on the benefits of having lots of mates to f*ck or the detriment of having more competition to fight with. Does your personal/local/regional/corporal economy benefit from the hunt or does it suffer from it? Situational bias will determine your take.
There must be some way to "vote" you out. God, what an awful crock.
This one is representative of the 90% of the comments on this site. Comments posted by upper-middle class, navelgasing ignoramuses spoon fed
the corporate propagande from pre-chewed propaganda channels like CNN and FOX.
"Let us consider this "starving kids in Africa" problem for a moment. First thing that must be determined is, why are they starving?
Couple of reasons come to mind, lack of locally grown food; hoarding by a local corrupt government; ineffective aid; over-population."
1. Well, let us consider this problem.
The African countries had a rural but sustainable
communities for thousands of years (this is why the european and arab colonisers found them there when they took them over).
2.After the colonisation went out of fashion what did the west do? Upped and left.
No transition government, no training the new government (the old one being shot or poisoned).
Little wonder that anarchy insued. Little wonder
they ended up with bloodthirsty thugs as rulers.
3. During the cold war the african countries were used as a battleground between the west and the east. Look up the number of regional conflicts.
Look up who was supporting whom.
Naturaly the weapons were purchased from 'loans'.
Loans given to corrupt thugs running the countries (see 2). Sometimes the loand would be given for 'development'. The corrupt thugs opened
swiss bank account, the people went hungry (see 2).
4. To compound the problem, Western aid agancies came in and said "To prevent seasonal variations in food yields you need to use modern industrial
agricultural methods. Plant acres and acres of maize, corn and wheat (imported crops).
You only need one or two varieties instead of
the thousand local species. Whoops. A crop blight
or drought wipes out not 5% of your food crops
but ALL of your food crops. Oh yeah but you need
to pay the loan back which you used to buy the
seeds, tractors etc.
5. Then the west financial organisations come around and INSIST on paying for the loans
which we INSISTED they get to pay for their weapons, their corrupt governments (which we installed) and their failed agriculture.
They try some of them spend as much as 80-90%
of the GPN for their loan repayments.
Coincidently they are only repaying the interest
not the capital. They will NEVER repay their loans.
Let me repat this 80-90% to so that your fat daddy farting into his leather chair whilst his brain is addled by the latest episode of whatever
sophoforic mind control crap hes watching on TV can receive a cheque as a shareholder of his
financial institution of choice which is his investment portfolio.
Meanwhile the remaining 10-20% of the GPN
of the nation is being used to build the infrastructure of the poor african country,
build its hospitals, its education system, its factories so that they can compete with the west.
NOT
This is why I get so annyoed with your privilidged, rich (most people on this planet get along on U$1 a day), ignorant, arrongant PRICKS.
You are STUPID. You preach your little uber-theories without understanding the fact.
Worse you do NOT want to understand the fact.
Fucking geek peasants.
It's kinda cool posting so late in a thread when all the trolls and first post kiddies are long gone. Go placidly among the noise and the haste... hmm has a certain feel to it. I like Katz and am glad /. presents his works. Katz is a rational humanist, like Noam Chomsky, and he struggles with the large and difficult issues. I have some developing ideas on the issues of gloablism and the world's current state.
What I propose is elitist only to the extent that we have failed to date to develop the necessary educational framework. I suggest that there is a proportion of the world's population that defines those of us able to undertake a rigorous logical analysis of our geopolitical environment. This group represents those who tend toward rational humanism, and, in the case of Soros the work of Karl Popper especially as put forth in 'The Open Society and It's Enemies'. Further the individuals that comprise this group have for the first time an effective world forum, yah the net. I'd like to suggest an historical metric as a rough measure of as to why I further suggest that unless we develop an effective educational system, these people will always remain a central force for change, but always in a demographic minority.
I suggest we take a short historical jaunt and try to get a fix on some prerequisites. Euclid, about 350 B.C., compiled and formulated 'The Elements'. The Elements guided the intellectual elite until, say Newton and Leibnez, gave us the Calculus. Furhter, my readings tell me Newton's version of the physical universe was, and remains, quintessentially a Euclidean representation. I suspect that perspective drawing may have been the prime impetus for the engineering feats of the industrial revolution. Perspective drawing provided the means to represent the interconnecting parts that made up Da Vinci's machines. The only addendum that need be added is that the Ancient Greeks were not big on inductive thought but rather, as is beatified in the Elements, worked almost exclusively with the deductive processes. Induction as a widely practised method might be able to be tagged onto the development of the Calculus. It is said the Calculus lends itself to developing a set of expresssions most able to elegantly represent our knowledge of the physical world. I take these historical happenings and try to view them in terms of how phat a pipe for the world wide diffusion of information has been available for how long. To do this I use the Old Silk Road which ran from the middle east to China and was in frequent use from about 100 B.C. From this I suggest that there has been ample time for the full dissemination of the practise of both deductive and inductive thought processes and to have come to the conclusion that we all must share certain inalienable rights (...hmmm sounds familiar) and must undertake the full responsibilities of stewartship of the planet. Instead we war and pillage and anyone who has been in the trenches of capitalism knows capitalism a form of warfare and pillage.
What are the requirements to work thru the Elements and the Calculus? The Elements I know, the Calculus is on my todo list. But I think any one who can attain to reason must see that internecine warfare is insane but unavoidable and therefore to be fought. We are left with history as the nightmare from which we struggle to awaken(Vico/James). I suggests only a few of us are capable of acquiring rational thought at the expense of cultural/tribal fetish practices. Unless we can raise the intellectual level worldwide in a manner that enables and empowers critical analysis, which may face real physical limitations, we're not going to make it.
"Academicians are more likely to share each other's toothbrush than each other's nomenclature."
Cohen
Up until now, on both sides of the debate, globalism has been understood as an economic process. Namely, it was about the transfer of capital and goods over borders.
The International Monetary Fund (IMF), was created to ~regulate~ international currency markets. This is the money (investment) side. In the late '90s they took it upon themselves to ~promote~ the liberalisation of capital movements. Meaning they were making the rules and calling the game. Sort of like baseball umpired by the catcher. Not only that, but through structural adjustment programs, they have been known to reorganise entire teams! In this game, the Golden Rule applies. "He who has the gold makes the rules". The Fund is a fund, and how much money you put in affects how much say you have. If you have the gold, you might say, "Fine! Good. My money, my rules." but you might also understand how the other teams would get sick of playing your game. They might even make up a new game...
This brings us to a new, softer form of globalisation, currently being touted by people like Jeremy Rifkin. Here we account for the 'extra-economic' interactions between the worlds people. Culture, language, and religious practice , things that allow people identify themselves in the world, fit here. In a process reeling from widespread discontent these ideas could go a long way towards convincing those without the gold that they are playing and not being played.
Best Regards Slashdotters.
???
This is globalization my friend: ENRON OWNS BUENOS AIRES' WATER SUPPLY.
Starting to get the picture?
Please read the interview with Joseph Stiglitz, former chief economist at the World Bank at The Globalizer Who Came In From the Cold.
It's not the best interview imaginable (i would have done it completely differently) but BUT unlike you and your insanely optimistic friend above...
Joseph Stiglitz KNOWS WHAT THE FUCK HE IS TALKING ABOUT. He was a leading practioner of globalization[1} at the World Bank and as a member of Clinton's council of economic advisors in the 90s when globalization was being pursued in earnest. Read what he has to say about the subject before spouting nonsense about getting "globalization right". It's working EXACTLY as designed and part of the design has been from the start to exclude the possibility of "reforms" to its institutions and directions. You cannot reform this beast only kill it and start over. But as long as you persist in the fantasy that there is some kind of metaphysical inevitability (precisely the myth propagated by your "bad" globalists) you will be their fool, believing that somehow if only the "good" globalism could prevail. Pal, there is no globalism but their kind. They invented it, they own, it it's theirs.
TO think otherwise is like believing that if you, a fan of a certain sports team, like the Redsox think good thoughts about the Redsox and have many discussions with your friends about how your team can win, the Redsox will have a good season, or a better one than they otherwise would have had. It's "magical" thinking, linking you to a group of professional atheletes by a mysterious agency called fandom in which your identity appears to merge with theirs. But the sports team is unaffected by your goodwill. It does sort of work --in one direction that is: when they do well you feel good. But you have no power to influence their play by wishing that they will do well in the future. Likewise, the project of globalization has nothing to do with what you think is the grand unified marketplace you imagine the world to be and in which you imagine yourself acting in. That's another abstract relationship which is barely more real than your active fandom and the illusory effect it has on the team you back. In reality, there is no "globalization" or "globalism" there are only banks and companies striving for firesale prices on assets in the lands beyond their borders. There are only people (a relative handful in fact) acting in "globalization" and a multitude of disenfrachised ex-citizens of "obsolete" nations passively enduring the results of thise action. There is no grand unified world marketplace with a salutary division of labor that works out for the greater good of everyone.
That's the song, the jingle and the bullshit of globalizations' apologists. Look at the details globalizations' impact and you'll see countries driven into the depths of poverty by impassive banking officials in New York telling local national leaders to convert their whole country to producing only cash crops for export. Often the people used to feed themselves can neither buy enough food with the money we pay them for their exports nor
In the old days they had the honesty to at least call things by their right name: globalism = empire plain and simple.
[1] Not the air-fairy, imaginary globalism you and Cryptochrome are wanking off about but the globalization that has actually been taking place destroying economies, reducing formerly self-sufficient populations to penury, making some multinational corporations and the US Treasury wealthier at the expence of the rest of the world.
Jon,
I can't help but think that Soros' analysis is somewhat naive. The economic, social, political and environmental problems of globalization are so tightly integrated that real solutions will require a holistic, comprehensive approach- not using rhetoric to make globalism's worst features look like strengths. Free software might play a part solving these problems, but emphasizing it is the wrong path.
Here's why. One inductive argument in your post is that enhanced freedom and expressiveness comes with free software. There are good arguments for this. But to draw a connection between this type of enhanced freedom ("open communication") and the creation of wealth is too much of a stretch.
The creation of wealth is a central question in economics; you can extract value from your laborers (as well as the earth) or you can create an efficiency somewhere. Soros' analysis (or yours?) more closely matches the latter, subltely arguing that a more open global system will help eradicate repressive and corrupt governments, which in turn will allow market efficiency to blossom. I think we already have enough global transparency that if this were true, it would have already happened. The global community knows plenty about how the most corrupt governments work but that doesn't stop them.
But even if perfect freedom around the world were attained tomorrow, it would not lead to the greater efficiency that Soros posits. Freedom is not a better lube to grease the cogs of capitalism. It helps, but it's not a panacea. And while free software might make it harder to hide secrets, for example, it doesn't even necessarily lead to economic freedom anyhow.
For completeness, let's just look at one example of a consequence of globalism: natural resource flows. Examine the volume of raw material needed to produce 1 ton of aluminum Coke cans, including where the waste goes. It takes around ten tons of raw material to forge one ton of aluminum. Once the cans are produced, some small percentage is recycled and the rest is discarded. Out of the original 10 tons of raw material, 95% ends up in a landfill. Track the resource flows of several products and you'll notice that in many cases the wasted materials are far more hazardous or harmful than in their naturally-occuring states. Wasted material and inefficient resource flows are an absolute crisis of the developed world, and globalism makes it worse. The pratice is unsustainable.
This is an example that gains little from a more open, networked global community. This is a problem of global consumption, not of freedom, and it is getting worse. It is also typical of the kinds of problems globalism creates.
Tell me again how free software makes things better?
In what way does tyhe history of the industrial revolution in europe help your argument? Regarding blacks exploiting blacks i've no doubt that some members of the regions/countries exploited their own kind but the West did it on a massive scale with ships, machines and superior weapons and as part of programmes of national expansion. A bit different. Nothing was stopping them 'dragging themselves out of the stone age'. It might have taken hundreds of years but they would have been better off if we'd left them alone. Anyway, they weren't stone age in any way (not their society or technology or culture) and using that kind of language just shows your ignorance, or that you are trolling. My point is still the same: we are well off because our forefathers gained advantage from other people in other countries, we've left them in a mess and our very nice lifestyles are supported by lots of other people having crappy ones.
Is he some crack smoking junkie with too muh time on his hands???
If we cant have a fair wage, if everyone cant start off on a fair ground
its no diffrent than say minorities in the US getting paid less than whites
Why? because they are less efficient? dont give me that bs either.
If they are truely less efficient why would big businesses be hiring them. eh?
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Wealth is limitless? Fantastic! Why don't we just give some (why not lots?) to the people starving so they can go and buy some food? I have a computer because I don't have to spend all I earn on food, clothes and water. The raw materials for the things I own (including the computer) were gathered by people who do not have to be paid very much so it is economic for me to buy them. Wealth may or may not be a zero sum game, that's one for the economists, but it certainly behaves like one. Talking about wealth being 'open-ended, limitless, and not [a] zero-sum game' does not explain why people are starving and dying of thirst and will not make them feel any better.
Does that kind of thing still happen? Why don't people, like yourself, snitch more?
Come on sailor, tell us some more stories!
I bet Jon Katz's reading all of this and is feeling very personally hurt.
Actually, he probably isn't. He's likely never read a comment on Slashdot (or a non-Jon Katz story!).
I always found it amazing how easy it is to buy a congressman in US and how difficult to buy a DMV clerk. I would say US is very non-corrupt at the lowest levels of government and very corrupt at the top. It is customary for continental Western European states to be other way around.
I guess this is because the (usually) socialist governments don't have a cozy relationship with big business. I currenly live in Austria. Here it is customary to bring a gift when you go for appointment for official business (cash is out though) Cops sometimes takes bribes. Have you ever
considered that a bit of corruption can be useful though, as a tool against government opression?
For example, I find most speed limits to be way on the low side and I like fast driving, so I find it advantageous to be able to pay my way out of any traffic violation. US is quite unique in
that it has relatively few opressive regulations, but the ones that are there are actually actively enforced, no matter how stupid.
We would be replaced by a guy in afganastan willing to work 14 hours a day for a penny an hour.
With no minimum wage why should any company ever hire you? I sure as hell wouldnt hire any americans if i can hire chinese people to do slave labor or some people in afganastan.
Think about it, you'll be out of a job!!!
Hows this help you? or them? the only thing which would help both us and them, is a minimum wage
I dont give a damn if companies save money, Its about US, not billionares trying to save money so they can buy a new mansion.
There should be NO ONE EXPLOITED, if globalization exsists, we get exploited because its US who will be replaced by cheaper harder working workers from the third world who work for less.
IN the US, should minorities get all the jobs because they will work for cheaper? hell no.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
You do realize we are the ones who are going to lose our jobs.
Not CEOs, not managers, people like us, programmers, technicians, tech support, etc etc
WE will all be out of a job because of this and everyone thinks its good?
When felix from mexico takes your job as a programmer, and Kareem from south africa takes your job as a graphic designer, You'll be throwing a fit.
What you dont realize is, having more workers does NOT help the US economy, importing workers from other countries does NOT help the US economy, What helps the US economy is creating jobs for the workers here in the USA,
Not creating jobs for people elsewhere. Our economy will be fucked up when globalization is done with it.
How will you become a programmer when theres programmers all over china willing to work for cheaper?
Theres a minimum wage in the USA, we need a minimum wage globally, I mean if there were no minimum wage in the USA, minorities would have all the jobs because they'd always be willing to work for cheaper.
Its competitive enough as it is, why give the third world an unfair advantage of being cheaper than us and allowing them to work longer hours than us
How can we beat that? What? some wiseass from slashdot is going to say "Well we'll just be smarter"
I really doubt that considering these people dont have any distractions, they basically live in tents in the jungle or in small villages and can basically write programs all day and night, read books continuously, these people dont watch tv, they dont go to the movies, clubs, etc, you see? These people are more focused, and in order to compete with them, you'll have to give up all yourr free time to studying.
why not just move to the third world?
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
why? who forces them to drop prices? i see sneaker prices rising, mcdonalds too, and microsoft, video game systems, etc
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
India needs the WTO
Who's afraid of WTO
How Markets Protect The Environment
How not to tackle Poverty
Democratic Capitalism Cannot Be Laissez-Faire
People should get paid what they are worth, period.
they already are, though in your mind maybe not. who else will determine that? by the governments? we've seen last century how badly that worked out.
Do you know why the pop up ad economy online failed? or the dot com economy failed? Ads got cheaper and cheaper until the ad business was no longer profitable
no, that's just utterly and totally false, which shows how much you really don't know.
i admit, i do take a bit of a perverse pleasure in reading your insane socialist rantings. it's so dumb, it's funny.
SIG:Slashdot: indymedia for nerds.
Darwinism assumes Darwin is right about everything and everyone.
Not everyone agrees with Darwin, theres 2 sides, people who believe in survival of the fittest, and people who believe in survival of everyone.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Ever notice how the prisons are filled with mexicians and other immagrants?
Its simple, people who break the law entering our country, will break the law once they are here, and if they dont, their children will
Criminals are not the people we want.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Costs go down, Prices either stay the same or go up.
Tell me why bill gates should lower the price of Windows? Because Windows is cheaper to produce? bullshit
No one forces him to lower the price.
Why should the price for nike sneakers go down? Because they are cheap to produce?
I know pave low, you are a CEO making millions or one of your family members are, so you dont want things to ever change
why would someone whos rich want the world to be fair?
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Why do you have to respond to every msg i write about anything?!
Theres alot of people here on slashdot who agree with my point of view.
lets respond to you.
what would that guy do? computer programming? mechanical engineering? with their infrastructure? get real.
About 30 percent of China has computers. Computers are cheap now, you could easily sell computers to people in the third world. People can learn programming on paper and through books if they cant afford a cheap computer. Infastructure? People in the third world are programming right now, my professor was from india, and alot of jewish and indian people are working for big companies, have you ever worked for a big company?
Umm..because i have some skills that are in demand? because the company might need good workers to keep making money?
And you seem to think Chinese, Indian or really anyone else with a computer in any country or even access to an internet cafe like box couldnt learn C? Come on get real, your skills arent in demand anymore, perhaps they were for alittle while, but as more and more people learn what you know in the third world, your skills will eventually not be in demand at all.
You seem to think "money" and "intelligence" are related, they arent, theres people in the third world who are far more intelligent than you, give them access to books and a computer (hell even a calculator is a computer) and even if they arent formally educated, by MIT, if they can do the job, they'll get hired because they are cheaper than you are and perhaps just as skilled.
Well, as soon as there are boatloads of afghani C programmers, then I'll start quaking in my boots. And also minimum wage jobs are hardly slave labor. you have the option to go somewhere else.
You act as if they dont have access to the internet, or books, are you really this stupid? 30 percent of China is online right now, I admit mostly in the urban community, and mostly through wireless connections, but 30 percent of China is about 350 million people, then theres India, Africa, Mexico, all of them are learning C and have access to tons of source code to learn from via Open Source and free OS via Linux.
You just dont see whats going on here, Miguel Icaza is from Mexico, hes a better programmer than you are, Ximian hires alot of guys from Mexico, Connectiva Linux, Turbo Linux, etc etc, these guys arent as stupid as you think.
Minimum Wage is needed, You have to admit we need a minimum wage.
IF you dont agree, then you must be CEO because no job is secure enough that you cant be replaced by a worker from China or India who works for cheaper.
Sure these people dont have food and water, because of this they will be very motivated to learn C and master computers, and will do whatever it takes to get a job including work longer hours and for less money.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
I just thought I'd add, that although you mentioned that the WTO seeks to help poverty in lesser developed nations, you failed to mention how it actually causes more poverty, take note that africa spends close to 10x annually on repayment of their imf/wto/wb loans that they do on education, keep in mind that the the sub-sarahan (sp?) african countries are over 200 BILLION dollars in debt, or that Tanzania spends 9 times more on debt than health; 40% of population dies before age 35- I could go on and on about how they have devastated the economies in many places in asia, latin america eastern/central europe and the soviety union, or how these deals 'designed to help their economies' rape the natural resources of these countries and how they force outsourcing of alot of labor.
l ishthebank.org
I could also goto to show how it is these bankers that push globalism the most. When the world is just one big market once and for all, who is left to govern them?
I hope not many of the people here on slashdot are fool enough to buy into this. Yea go globalism, support corporate greed on a international level, and make sure there are no longer borders that causes each other country to stay in check.
I'd also like to say your billionare buddy, if he was so wanting to help these countries- wouldnt be a billionare now would he?
anyone interested, some good sites are
www.50years.org
www.destroyimf.org
www.abo
Dude, you rock. Glad to see someone else is able to see through this "HanzoSan" troll.
Alot of people would be working for a dollar an hour and unable to survive, some people would be forced to work 14 hours a day, etc
you need a minimum wage to set the standard,
now, sure you can claim in the USA you can make more than minimum wage, but you also have to be more educated, usually with a degree.
What if someone from china or pakistan is more educated than you, in fact what of hundreds of millions of them are, and they will all work for cheaper than you?
Why hire you?
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Why should we help THEM when we have so much poverty and economy problems in our own country.
We should help them help themselves, not give them our economy.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Who gives a damn about the "company" the only thing i care about is my job, and maybe the product,
both which have nothing to do with the "company"
. Think $5,000 per hour minimum wage in US. The minimum wage is what inane propagandists brainwash ignorant people with. You're either propagandist or ignorant.
Ok econimics major from MIT, please answer some questions.
What incentive do companies have to pay workers more money than the absolute cheapest a worker will accept, if the market for these workers are worldwide, who sets the standard? The cheapest most efficient worker of course.
When you go to a store to buy something you buy the cheapest most efficient product, companies are far more sensitive to price than we are.
Second, question.
If the cheapest worker sets the standard, lets say $1 an hour is the standard to pay for a programmer world wide, because of the unlimited supply (you have the whole world market) the demand wont be high, thus the price wont be high;
The reason programmers get paid currently at 100k a year in the USA is because the demand for them is high, theres not alot of programmers to choose from, programmers are of great value.
When you bring programmers in from the third world, it decreases the value of the programmer career until its down to the level of say shoe salesman, office clerk, typist, etc.
Please tell me how you maintain the demand when the supply increases?
Third question, without a minimum wage, what decides if a person can make a living and survive off of the income or not? Because not everyone can go to MIT and get a doctorates degree, what happens to these people who arent as well educated? Are they forced to work 14 hours a day 7 days a week to make ends meet?
You know what i notice, everyone who responds to my posts with "we dont need a minimum wage" and "we need globalism" or "globalism helps you" crap
Its always people who are pretty much secure, either elite CEOs who already are rich, or guys who are in elite colleges like MIT getting a Masters degree in science.
Honestly, what about the majority of everyone else whos not a science major at MIT or Harvard, we actually DO have to compete with the third world because unlike you, theres no way in hell we'd be able to market ourselves as something rare when in reality we are just another typical programmer, technician etc.
You see, people who dont want to battle the third world, who just want to survive, HATE globalism because it makes their survival much much harder,
The third world, well their survival is hard right now, bringing them into the corperate world = more competition which would equal better products but even if it does equal better products will i have money to buy it when im working 7 days a week 14 at minimum wage to compete with a guy in India who has no minimum wage?
You see the only people who wont be making minimum wage are MIT graduates with science degrees, these folks will be working on building quantum computers at IBMs research and development division,
The rest of us common programmers and technicians have to fight for survival.
Its not going to be pretty, unless you can give me advice on how to secure my job for the next 20 years and compete with the third world, dont tell me globalism is a good thing.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
A. In a global economy, how do you secure your spot when you compete with the world?
B. What incentive does a company in the US have to hiring American workers over cheaper and equally efficient workers in other countries.
C. Whats to stop the wages from going down to the same level of a shoe salesman at footlocker, a mcdonalds worker, office clerk, or any of these other jobs? The only reason computer industry jobs pay 100k a year is because the demand still out weighs the supply, what happens when theres more programmers and technicians than needed and companies can actually choose between you and someone cheaper?
D. How does more competition benifit the American worker? Do we really want to be forced to work longer hours to compete with the efficiency of sweat shop programmers?
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
PCs arent sold as full packages but seperate companies selling seperate parts, this is why its competitive enough for prices to fall.
This isnt compareable to one company selling the whole product like say apple, nike, microsoft, etc.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Wealth is limitless? Fantastic! Why don't we just give some (why not lots?)
What a jackass. Limitless means "having no limit", not "an infinite supply".
Mod down people who tell people how to mod in their sigs
I think I like this new method of reading these articles...
My life's goal is to get a score of +3!
Socialism is the centralization of capital, so it can be dolled out by those who know better. This doesn't tend to work too well.
No, it certainly doesn't. My point in comparing CEO's to warlords is that corporations are little more than modern-day armies. They have a strict hierarchy of command and control. The guy at the top controls the resources and can give direct orders to his troops. That sounds an awful lot like socialism to me.
You can say that a CEO will lose his job if he does it poorly, but that's a shallow analysis. The reality is that CEO's can get away with a lot of bad behavior before they cause a strike or a boycott. That's because job conditions and other ethical/moral issues are not part of the market. The market is defined by the bottom line.
Microsoft, for example, is an army without peer. They live outside the market; no amount of "voting with your dollars" is going to change their behavior. That's where the part about rape comes in - if Microsoft wants to cripple your OS, there's nothing you can do to stop it. You live at the mercy of the ruling warlords, Gates in this example.
This is not a radical theory. It is firmly understood in capitalist theory as "monopoly" and "collusion," which are illegal. The problem is that capitalism actively encourages monopoly. It's a positive feedback loop - larger companies keep getting larger until the DoJ arbitrarily steps in. A better system would have a natural, negative feedback loop instead encouraging perpetual growth.
The closest thing to a negative feedback loop is an economic downturn, when companies usually shed excess holdings. But nobody wants an economic downturn, so that's not great either.
Capitalism is king, I support it. But large-scale corporatism focuses too much power in the hands of individuals. Capitalism on this scale becomes very similar to socialism. Any large accumulation of wealth is the same, no matter what system it rose out of.
My suggestion for fixing the system? Bring ethical issues like sweatshops and environmenttal damage into the market by setting a price on them. If that's too complex, then simply force corporations to disclose their behavior.
Currently, the public grants corporations the right to exist, but in return, all they have to do is issue occasional stock reports. Even these tend to be pretty insightful. Imagine if, in addition to that, Nike had to issue reports detailing how much they pay their Indonesian workers. Maybe then consumers would really be able to vote with their dollars.