Posted on 12/15/2005 6:21:22 PM PST by TIADaily.com
This is a central part of the story that the press has been referring to as "globalization." But this is an odd, evasive term that does not clearly name what is happening. It seeks to name the fact that something is spreading across the globe. But it also seeks to avoid naming what that something is.
What is "globalization" globalizing?
The answer explains why the press doesn't want to name it: what is being globalized is capitalism--and all of the value associated with capitalism.
(Excerpt) Read more at tiadaily.com ...
This is a great paragraph
under a truly free system, a Citizens duty is to maintain individual liberty for all Citizens. There is enjoyment in this kind of duty. Property ownership is an essential liberty, but it is important to note that communities particularly thrive when the entire community holds a strong commitment to the ideals of individual liberty. Take the scenario where a subset of a community, say, a small group of successful entrepreneurs begins to acquire property without the communitys commitment to their individual liberty. The community will not grow together but instead be ripped apart by the thievery of those members of the community who do not respect liberty of the entrepreneurs to own property. So it is good to bestow the highest honors to Citizens who do their duty to protect your liberty as quickly as they do their own. From what I understand, corruption is high in India and corruption is not an easy hurdle to overcome. But if it can be done here in the United States, there is no reason to believe it can't be done anywhere else in the world... India has a very bright future!
I love it! What a delicious swipe at the New York Times' staffers. They deserve it. And more.
Thanks for the ping.
Thanks for the ping. Great article; nice site you have, too! I bookmarked it for Lunch Break Reading. :)
Capitalism
is as hard to define as
is evolution.
"Global" companies
are not Ayn Rand creations.
Almost all of them
are more influenced
by foreign government deals
than consumer needs.
Global companies
abstract supply and demand.
Film companies here
get really big cash
distributing overseas.
So they cut deals with
foreign studios
to import foreign films here
no one wants to see
because foreign firms
then let US firms open
more US films there.
Studios get cash,
we get awful foreign films,
and the pay structures
for US actors
and crews get driven down by
studio access
to foreign labor.
Globalization does suck,
unless you're within --
directly within --
one of the global concerns
abstracting the world.
Are you preparing a setup here? One can insist that ANYTHING is "hard to define," show that lots of people use lots of different definitions for it, and then attack others for choosing just ONE instead of simply asking which one is being used.
IF you had led with such a question instead of a statement, I might have replied with:
"Capitalism ... is simply the freedom of ordinary people to make whatever economic transactions they can mutually agree to." -- which is quoted on one of the pages in my first post to this thread.
Thanks for the ping!
After reading the article, I wonder if it is really is capitalism at work. If India is loosening its socialist protectionism and China is abandoning Marxist ideology, it doesn't follow that they are running to embrace capitalism, does it?
To me, the real proof will be in seeing if the creators are allowed to keep and exploit their gains.
BTW, didn't China recently revalue their currency? How is that panning out?
Before the Yuan was revalued on July 21st it was at 8.28 to the dollar. Today it is up to 8.07 to the dollar, not enough to slow trade much at all, IMHO.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.