08-02-2004, 10:42 PM
(This post was last modified: 08-02-2004, 10:44 PM by Chaerophon.)
It's not really worth it, but I'll say it anyway...
Funny. For me, the history of his media control and ideological tour de force indicates hegemonic power and a willingness to completely disregard detractors (who were numerous).
You really need to do some research on that one... Check the Phillipines, Thailand, the rest of southeast Asia, and the majority of West/Central Africa. Then look at the reactions in Mexico. Then look, in particular, at women in those countries. It might sound "bleeding heart", but give me a chance. Having done a ton of research over the past six months, I can tell you that I've gone from a near fiscal conservative, to a disgusted anti-Globalist (note: that's not anti-globalization. There is a difference).
Social/industrial society construction requires one-of-two things: benevolent investors, or protectionism. Otherwise, in the modern Global context, it winds up exploitative. It's that simple, and I'm not going to go any deeper than that. There's a lot of information out there. Of course, this attitude of Buchanan-style Americo-centrism never flew for me.
Anyways, IMF/WB structural adjustment have done anything but "teach these countries to fish". They have, instead, left them with no infrastructure by which to foster national industry or develop their own means of sustenance. Of course, Northern countries who use these nations as a cheap, "unable-to-unionize" source of labour don't care about national infrastructure, so as globalization and "Free Trade Zones" have advanced, so too has global poverty. Unlike the "Asian tigers", these countries have little hope for industry construction. It's a race to the bottom, and, contrary to your contentions, it is placing downwards pressure on American blue-collar wages.
What we're talking about is women who are forced to work hard labour, the work that the men won't even do, for 12 hours a day. On top of that, they spend another four hours providing food and water for the men and children, and act as 24 hour day care workers, at home and at work. It didn't used to be this way for them. RESPONSIBLE globalization would do more than provide these women a below-subsistence wage. (This wage could, no doubt, have some benefits for women, but as it stands, their condition can't improve) It would facilitate localized construction, and domestic development in these countries. Current globalization patterns are not doing so. Again, don't take my word for it, read outside of your usual sphere and tell me that it's not true.
Quote:it's that Reagan stands beyond them in his ability to motivate America, and the world behind a cause -- and to me that means leadership.
Funny. For me, the history of his media control and ideological tour de force indicates hegemonic power and a willingness to completely disregard detractors (who were numerous).
Quote:A 20 year period of economic prosperity, improvements in the quality of life for peoples throughout the world, a WTO that coordinates free trade (mostly) trying to remove the old punitive tariffs and self serving taxation systems. Sure, its not perfect, but I remember the 70's and I think things are much better now.
You really need to do some research on that one... Check the Phillipines, Thailand, the rest of southeast Asia, and the majority of West/Central Africa. Then look at the reactions in Mexico. Then look, in particular, at women in those countries. It might sound "bleeding heart", but give me a chance. Having done a ton of research over the past six months, I can tell you that I've gone from a near fiscal conservative, to a disgusted anti-Globalist (note: that's not anti-globalization. There is a difference).
Social/industrial society construction requires one-of-two things: benevolent investors, or protectionism. Otherwise, in the modern Global context, it winds up exploitative. It's that simple, and I'm not going to go any deeper than that. There's a lot of information out there. Of course, this attitude of Buchanan-style Americo-centrism never flew for me.
Anyways, IMF/WB structural adjustment have done anything but "teach these countries to fish". They have, instead, left them with no infrastructure by which to foster national industry or develop their own means of sustenance. Of course, Northern countries who use these nations as a cheap, "unable-to-unionize" source of labour don't care about national infrastructure, so as globalization and "Free Trade Zones" have advanced, so too has global poverty. Unlike the "Asian tigers", these countries have little hope for industry construction. It's a race to the bottom, and, contrary to your contentions, it is placing downwards pressure on American blue-collar wages.
Quote:As for "disparity of wealth" -- c'mon what measure is that? Just because Micheal Moore is 100 times wealthier than me, is his consumption 100 times more or his enjoyment of life 100 times more? There have always been "the wealthy" due to many circumstances. But, "the real world" is where people get up in the morning, eat breakfast, go to work, go home and relax for a few hours before bed. On the weekends, holidays, and vacations we get to play a little within our meager means. At least Moore does something with his money, whether I like it or not. I have no clue what someone like Warren Buffet does with his money.
What we're talking about is women who are forced to work hard labour, the work that the men won't even do, for 12 hours a day. On top of that, they spend another four hours providing food and water for the men and children, and act as 24 hour day care workers, at home and at work. It didn't used to be this way for them. RESPONSIBLE globalization would do more than provide these women a below-subsistence wage. (This wage could, no doubt, have some benefits for women, but as it stands, their condition can't improve) It would facilitate localized construction, and domestic development in these countries. Current globalization patterns are not doing so. Again, don't take my word for it, read outside of your usual sphere and tell me that it's not true.
But whate'er I be,
Nor I, nor any man that is,
With nothing shall be pleased till he be eased
With being nothing.
William Shakespeare - Richard II
Nor I, nor any man that is,
With nothing shall be pleased till he be eased
With being nothing.
William Shakespeare - Richard II