POLITICAL COMPASS: Goal of economic globalization

[xotoxi]

"If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations."

Discuss.

 

[Toro]

By serving corporations, globalization does serve humanity. They are not mutually exclusive at all.

 

[Kalam]

Seems sort of self-evident to me.

 

[Oddball]

One of the many questions on that silly test with a premise I don't buy into.

Economic globalization is an inevitability.....No "if" about it.

Therefore, the subsequent given dichotomy is false.

 

[xsited1]

By serving corporations, globalization does serve humanity. They are not mutually exclusive at all.

Agreed. The guy who wrote this question must've had one too many Percocet tablets.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

"If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations."

Discuss.

The questions and answers are flawed IMO.

Economic Globalisation should serve humanity the same way economic capitalism has...that is it should make us all way more wealthy than we were before it and it should also make the companies wealthy.

I think it should benefit both equally, hence the flaw and my non-answer/non-vote.

That whole poll was filled with flaws, i hope your posting all the questions

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

By serving corporations, globalization does serve humanity. They are not mutually exclusive at all.

i really should read responses before I post.

Way more pithy and says exactly what I was thinking...good post toro.

 

[Mr Natural]

The never ending quest for cheap labor won't do a whole lot for the American middle class (or what will be left of it).

 

[Oddball]

By serving corporations, globalization does serve humanity. They are not mutually exclusive at all.

HAH!!

We agree with totally different semanticaly-based rationale.

 

[Toro]

By serving corporations, globalization does serve humanity. They are not mutually exclusive at all.

Agreed. The guy who wrote this question must've had one too many Percocet tablets.

In fact, corporations aren't being "served." It is poor wording (though done so in a context to solicit a response from the Left).

Countries sign treaties not to discriminate against businesses from other countries. By reducing protectionism and trade discrimination, globalization actually works against inefficient companies. So some corporations do better and others do worse.

 

[bill777]

By serving corporations, globalization does serve humanity. They are not mutually exclusive at all.

I think they could be mutually exclusive. For example, it's not in the public's best interest to pay for a lot of extra energy when buying a car, but anyone who bought a Pontiac G8 did exactly that. Built in Australia, with German and Mexican parts, maybe some Japanese parts too, shipped to Canada on Chinese ships, and trucked into the good ol' USA by Canadian truckers. If I buy that car here in Detroit, I pay a lot more than if that car had been built here, and I don't think you can make an argument that that logistics stream is good for anyone other than someone who wants to fuck the world over.

Also, While there does seem to be an attitude that people should "shop downtown", most people do seem to end up shopping at Wal-Mart. I'm not making an ethical statement about that, I'm just saying that even though people seem to know what is ggod for their community, they don't necessarily do it, and for that reason I think you have to believe that a conveniently located corporation trumps all. There is something to be said for the diabolical corporation. Not evil, just diabolical.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

do the next one toxi

 

[xotoxi]

"If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations."

Discuss.

The questions and answers are flawed IMO.

Economic Globalisation should serve humanity the same way economic capitalism has...that is it should make us all way more wealthy than we were before it and it should also make the companies wealthy.

I think it should benefit both equally, hence the flaw and my non-answer/non-vote.

That whole poll was filled with flaws, i hope your posting all the questions

I plan to post all of the questions...a few at a time.

I didn't want to do a lot of work posting the questions if no one was going to respond.

 

[Oddball]

I plan to post all of the questions...a few at a time.

That'll be interesting.

BTW...Rush was hopped up on Oxycontin, not Percocet.

 

[xotoxi]

I plan to post all of the questions...a few at a time.

That'll be interesting.

BTW...Rush was hopped up on Oxycontin, not Percocet.

Same narcotic - oxycodone.

OxyContin is long acting oxycodone. Percocet is short acting oxycodone mixed with acetaminophen.

I liked using the word Percocet...I have a lot of patients ask for Perks and Vikes...when they do that, I do a random drug screen and then kick them out when they have methadone in their system.

 

[Oddball]

You hook me up with that blue stuff and I'll call it good.

 

[xotoxi]

You hook me up with that blue stuff and I'll call it good.

Blue stuff? This?