Globalization

The benefits of Globalization have been restricted to the corporate world. Until now.

The coming together of the world is a beautiful thing, and one can’t help but feel privileged to be alive while the planet becomes fully interconnected for the first time. But it has become quite ugly. Globalization has meant the exportation jobs and the importation of an endless supply of low quality products. Globalization has been shaped by corporate profit maximization almost exclusively so far. The Occupy movement is an answer to reverence of profit and the absence of humanity that has dominated Globalization. Every Occupy movement thus far has been a “first contact” of real people, people reaching out to each other, from over 80 countries, to express solidarity.

This is what globalization is about: people. It’s about confirming our shared humanity and simultaneously exploring our diversity. It is not about products. The Occupy Movement represents resistance against oppression, but it also signals the first truly globalized movement in history.

3 Responses to Globalization

  1. Don says:

    The United States is an experiment in cultural globalization that can not provide enough jobs for itself.
    Economic globalism consisting of moving manufactured goods from one country to another can not exist without the International Maritime Organization dumping ballast water. Ballast water is collected all over the world and is polluted with human virus such as cholera virus, bacteria, and invasive s. In the United States ballast water dumping is mostly done by foreign international shipping companies while moving international manufacturing companies merchandise into the country. To a minor extent these ships are then loaded with a disproportionate amount of US manufactured goods. If the globalist shipping industry had to spend the money to install sterilizing equipment it would make it cheaper to manufacture the goods at home and save human life globally.

    • admin says:

      Don, thank you so much for sharing this information. To be honest, I have very little knowledge of ballast water. The financial industry is in the spotlight now, because the effects of it’s practices have become very visible to people (bail outs, austerity, fleecing of pension funds, etc). I don’t think Wall Street is a bad place to start, but like you point out, there are a lot more issues we need to address. My least favorite company (which is almost an industry unto itself) is Monsanto. The agriculture game has also turned globalization into a nightmare, not only for developing countries where the peasants have become dependent on Monsanto’s poisonous products, but also in the US, where the once fertile soil has mostly been destroyed – not to mention the health effects. I will read up about ballast water, thank you for sharing!

  2. Don says:

    Ballast water and the general public’s awareness!
    Now the EPA plan wants to basically follow the international economic interest of the IMO for creating US environmental policy and still no National news coverage. Like the coverage network media has broadcast about of the occupy movement many important issues are skewed, never mentioned and are covered. If it is political and has to do with hurting economic globalization they will never inform the American people.—- an example of a media lie by omission,(you can find this on the web) is the major international health problems and economic problems ballast water is creating.
    It is now Dec2011 and again another Coast Guard rummer ed deadline for their ballast water plan has passed. Currently this is causing Canada and the Great Lakes States health, environmental and economic concern, as New York and California’s Senator Boxer’s use of state rights has thwarted the introduction of strong reasonable national legislation. It appears the goal will now be to wait and allow an international organization of diverse governments and business’s (the IMO) to decide the amount of human virus and bacteria they dump in our waters delivering foreign made products. These politician who are pushing for regulation reportedly 100 times greater than what the weak IMO goal, know that the strict standards they are looking for will never be agreed to in congress and, although the IMO regulations are far from adequate watch and see if they do not relinquish their demands to the IMO or a Coast Guard plan which follows the IMO lead. Louise Slaughter rep from NY, who voted for the strong legislation passed in the House during 2008 has already ask for the weaker Coast Guards regulations. Sadly this problem could have been solved, but NY decided to develop their own regulations in 2008 and did not push for the strong legislation H.R.2830 passed bi partisan in the House (395-7), while Senator Boxer killed the legislation allegedly over her states right to stronger legislation. She never did introduce an alternative after killing h.r.2830, which most environmentalist and many in the shipping industry reportedly supported. Now we have nothing adequate that environmentalist or the shipping industry support. Had they acted while their party had controlled of the Senate, House and presidency the IMO would already be following much stronger goals to protect American waters, than what our Coast Guard has rummer ed they would someday present. Rumor now has it the IMO ballast water convention will be ratified coincidentally around the time New York delayed implementation of their regulations is to take affect .( 2013)
    The Republicans are at least honest about it and have recently introduced bad ballast water legislation admitting they want foreign economic influence to determine America’s environmental policy, regardless of the International Maritime Organization lousy track record. This is despite the majority of those reelected at mid terms voting for the stronger legislation in 2008.
    The travesty is that strong national ballast water legislation would hurt the cheap price of foreign made goods. The following excerpt is from a report prepared for Congress in 2009 detailing the cost for ballast water technology:
    “Most of this expense will be borne by
    foreign shipping companies, as the U.S. flag fleet is a small percentage of the global fleet,16 and
    likely passed along to consumers of products imported on these ships.”
    Products are manufactured were labor cost are lowest and the cost to deliver product to market are insignificant .
    The current ballast water policy’s of our politicians will preserve America’s economic dependence on the global economy to deliver cheap foreign made goods to our largest employers.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *