What is the new "Globalization"?

[sweetheart]

Bush and his neocrims will be gone soon enough, and debate rages around
what sort of economic future a democratic administration proposes.

"After the fall of the Berlin Wall, in that moment of self-congratulatory
euphoria, much of the US's ruling elite came to believe the rhetoric itself. The
result was a uniquely American, fin-de-siecle paganism - absolute faith in the ability
of an all-determining market mechanism to deliver universal prosperity and peace,
in perpetuity - which was then hawked abroad with evangelical zeal.
.
<snip>
.
This is the first time that the central director of a hyper-complex industrial system
has had so little ability to process bassic information about the workings of that system,
which is also, by design, the central frmework of its empire.
.
America today operates on an entirely different set of principals. No one dares whisper
the words "industrial policy". No one dares admit the degree to which these companies
tend to destoy not merely soft social infrastructure, such as pensions and wages, but basic
production infrastructure. . . . Yet even in America, the fantastic delusion of trade
utopianism cannot last - It is neither logically nor physically sustainable. Indeed,
as can be seen in the growing willingness of politicians in both parties to engage in
xenophobic demagogery, America's utopian fever seems to be breaking.

- Financial times yesterday print edition "Globalization must be saved from the radical
global utopians", Barry lynn https://registration.ft.com/registration/barrier?referer=http://search.ft.com/search/totalSearch_Form.html?vsc_appId=ts&symb=&ftsite=FTCOM&searchtype=equity&vsc_query=barry+lynn&x=0&y=0&searchOption=news&location=http%3A//news.ft.com/cms/s/4a7e56cc-ef39-11da-b435-0000779e2340.html


The biggest reason for hope is the prospect of a reformed, sober US. Once American mind is
exorcised of todays mechanistic utopianism, the most probably result willb e a return to
a far more realistic, practical, ethical, internationalism..". (!! hope? )

Utopian Universalism is dead. The sooner nations gather to bury its corpose - and
harness, hobble or break up the immense companies that have grown so powerful in the
shadow of that mtyh - the more liekly we will be to save globalisation. This, of course,
can happen only if we define globalisation, once again, as a political process that
must be managed by nation states.... <snip>

What sort of economic globalization you propose when the dems take back the congress in 2006,
and the presidency in 2008? Will they be able to get back on the horse, or is the bronco
gonna run wild? What is the future global economy?

[The2ndWheel]

1. I wouldn't propose one

But I know that isn't "practical". Nope, the machine will just keep churning(Republican, Democrat, China as the superpower, whoever ends up in charge), and we're going to exponentially grow ourselves out of a place to live. Which you wouldn't think could happen listening to economists.

Or it'll come crashing down before we hit that point.

Either way, we(the royal one) won't voluntarily stop expanding, be it population or consumption.

[sweetheart]

3. The unconsensus here will hurt us

Economics has become a fraud, where the world "political" is
crossed off all the "political economy" books, and beneath
that sticker, says "19th century imperialism".

We're back before world war 1 again, puts us less than a
decade off a repeat of last century.

Oh, the fools know not what they do.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

2. The bronco isn't going to stop bucking no matter who the cowboy is.

The Democrats are no more capable of dealing with the world economy than the Republicans are. There are simply too many interests involved who will resist any sort of rational controls.

The developing world isn't about to give up economic growth to save American jobs or the American economy. We are competitors in the market place and have to adjust to being a "service" economy or perish.

The irony is that we Super Capitalists, who wanted to spread the "free market" to the benighted socialists, are being beaten at our own game.

China, India, Russia, etc, have turned the tables on us and are using our trusty weapons of economic superiority against us.

The simple truth is that the average Chinese, Indian, Guatamalan, Honduran, Russian, is happy to be working for $1 an hour producing shirts, toasters, computers, radios, shoes, rather than $1 a day planting rice or herding pigs. And, then selling the products back to the "haves" so they too can become "haves".

The American/Western corporations have to profit or perish and will seek out cheap labor and resources to do so and to hell with "patriotism".

The politicians of both parties will whine, complain, pass totally ineffective laws, to appear to be doing something so they can be elected/re-elected. But, the outcome will be the same.

In essence, the rest of the world wants it's slice of the pie that we're no longer producing. And, so far, our reply has been a resort to force to "protect our vital national interests".

We are an empire in decline thrashing around impotently as we fall.

Nothing new if you study history.

[Asgaya Dihi]

4. The future has to be people

Globalization is here and not going anywhere no doubt but we need to change our attitude about it. The American idea of the corporate "person" seems to have taken a firm foothold worldwide and I can't see any major change till we realize that they aren't people with the same rights that we have. People aren't immortal, they do have homes and local interests. The investors each already have voices and rights of their own, they don't need a second for their money as well.

Media has to be a key, we've seen what consolidation has done here in the US and in some places such as Italy it's in ways even worse, more concentrated. We've also got the built in predjudices of things like K-Street, the World Bank, and others of the sort which have been reenforcing our trend toward the wrong road. The rest is a huge problem but media has to come first, if we can't talk about the rest we can't really fix the rest.

So media reform and lobbiest/business reforms first, get them out of government and put people back in. It can't be in any direction such as against the "rich" or "business" as such though, we'd have to be careful and make it a fight about reform rather than about getting even. No doubt that's what they'll try to make it.

[sweetheart]

5. well put

"they don't need a second for their money as well."

If labour can't cross borders, why should its ill advised political cousin?

People have a geography, wealth has a geography, but in accounts and
computers, it is a political voice without station, and should be welcome
only so much as the physical agent is welcome.