Globalization Is All About Sequestering Resources For The Super Rich.

[TheMastersNemesis]

I look at globalization as a con game aimed at sequestering resources that are getting scarcer for the benefits of the super rich. If you analyze all the PR and brouhaha celebrating wealth you will notice that these same super rich are gathering and collecting the best of everything for themselves. In the process trying to lock out anyone else.

And what is going on is international and not just something that is happening in the US. Income inequality is growing rapidly all across the planet. By spreading the economy across the globe and exploiting the cheapest labor developed countries must cut wages to compete. One world government starts with capital that can go anywhere and do anything beyond any individual country's ability to control abuses. When capital can trump national sovereignty which it is already doing a country's law are pretty much meaningless.


There was a movie called "No Blade Of Grass" that depicted a "sci fi" scenario where resources collapsed and guarded enclaves developed where life resources were available for just the few lucky ones who had already hoarded the resources needed to survive. The rest of the world inhabitants were locked out of these zones of plenty. Look at all the trends and it should be obvious what is happening.

The disaster of hurricane Katrina in New Orleans is the best recent example. For the most part the super rich and rich had paid for escape routes via contractor to get them out of harms way. People unable to afford extraction were left behind.

What I have just said may very well be over the top. I could very well be wrong on this issue and I hope I am. Then again I wonder.

[NewDeal_Dem]

1. I hope you're wrong too, but that's what they do; sequester resources, wealth and others, for

themselves.

and rationalize it by claiming they deserve it.

[Initech]

2. Globalization is a pyramid scheme, and it's about to become self aware with TPP.

[leeroysphitz]

3. I think you are right. And since Bush was installed they have gotten pretty shameless about it too.

Sucking up the worlds wealth like a gargantuan Hoover vacuum cleaner rolling across the land scape lifting up every dollar from everyone below...

[RiverLover]

4. "Globalization" = "Free Trade" = Corporate Control of Nations nt

[dixiegrrrrl]

5. Example of China doing this...

The Gov't leaders and etc. get their food from private, non-public organic farms, massive greenhouses.

Then there is this:

The World is a private residential cruise ship serving as a residential community owned by its residents.
It has 165 residences (106 apartments, 19 studio apartments, and 40 studios), all owned by the ship's Residents. Average occupancy is 150 - 200 residents and guestshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_The_World

[raouldukelives]

6. And how many are eager to assist them in those goals.

To bend and scrape for the chance a morsel will spill from the plate to be gobbled up before returning to the boot licking.
To spend a lifetime, the only lifetime we are given, to a be a conduit and cog for the goals of the most greedy, evil and ignorant people to walk the earth.

They have created a monster that no one wants to take responsibility for. There is no responsibility anymore. The buck stops nowhere and that is a problem. If we never face reality, we will never deal with reality. They are expecting that.

As you pointed out with Katrina, not only did they have the escape routes, I believe they were one of the primary drivers of the storm being as intense as it was through AGW. They know they have created a monster, they know what is coming, the only thing that can be done is to erase all regulations and begin resource harvesting on a major level before it vanishes under the effects of a shifting climate. A climate made worse by massive speculation in oil and massive spending on propaganda against reality.

[pampango]

7. Actually global income inequality has declined while

it has increased within many countries.

FDR knew (as do European liberals today) that you don't tame the 1% by restricting trade but by raising their taxes, regulating their corporations and providing a safety net for everyone else.

The countries with the best income equality are those that trade the most, not those that trade the least.

FDR regarded protectionism as antithetical to the average worker -- first, because in FDR's view high tariffs shifted the burden of financing the government from the rich to the poor, and secondly, because he believed that high tariffs concentrated wealth in the hands of the industrial elite, who, as a consequence, wielded an undue or even corrupting influence in Washington. As such, FDR saw the opening up of the world's economy as a positive measure that would help alleviate global poverty, improve the lives of workers, reduce tensions among nations, and help usher in a new age of peace and prosperity.

http://www.nextnewdeal.net/fdrs-comprehensive-approach-freer-trade

[RiverLover]

8. And now, today, free trade is being used to empower corporations over people.

Just another reason for FDR to be turning over in his grave.

[pampango]

10. FDR knew how to empower people over corporations.

I think we can agree on that.

Most European countries still do a good job of that today.

[dawg]

9. Globalization is good.

Goods and services can be produced more efficiently, and fair trade can benefit both parties. It's a win-win situation. The real issue is *how* those "wins" are divided up and distributed to the people.

If shirts are cheaper to buy from Haiti, we could:

a) let American garment workers suffer, keep shirt prices the same, corporations make more profits
b) let American garment workers suffer, shirts get way cheaper, corporations make same profits
c) subsidize American garment workers, keep shirt prices the same, corporations make same profits

Or, we could tweak one of those options just a little so as to account for the real benefits of globalization. In other words, at least one of the three could be doing a little better than before the free trade.

In reality, we are choosing to distribute the benefits of trade something like this:

a) let American workers suffer, shirt prices get a *little* cheaper, corporations make more profits

But there's no reason at all that it has to be that way.

[freshwest]

11. No, you are correct. All trends lead to this. Meanwhile, lesser mortals are damaging each other for

the sake of their own versions of ecocide and genocide.

Those with means who kept up with the science, have been acting on that since the 1970s. The rest have been consuming their time, the planet's resources and not making changes to survive in a reduced ecology.

They await their rescue or eternal salvation elsewhere and continue consuming. Not all take this approach, some are making drastic changes in their lives and even their bodies to survive with less.

That's what I've been seeing. I came to the same conclusion as you express here a while back.