Posted on 04/19/2016 3:54:07 PM PDT by Mechanicos
Question:What is the truest definition of Globalization? Answer :Princess Diana's death.
Question: How come? Answer : An English Princess with an Egyptian boyfriend crashes in a French tunnel, riding in a German car with a Dutch engine, driven by a Belgian who was drunk on Scottish whisky, followed closely by Italian Paparazzi, on Japanese motorcycles, treated by an American doctor, using Brazilian medicines.
This is sent to you by a Canadian, using American Bill Gates' technology, and you're probably reading this on your computer, that uses Taiwanese chips, and a Korean monitor, assembled by Bangladeshi workers in a Singapore plant, transported by Indian truck drivers, hijacked by Indonesians, unloaded by Sicilian longshoremen, and trucked to you by Mexicans who are in the US illegally because the current president, Educated as a Muslim in Indonesia, refuses to enforce US law.
That, my friends, is Globalization!
No out and out mention of Africans.
Just for that I am hereby boycotting globalization.
It is too RACISS!
“No out and out mention of Africans”
Also no mention of the great contributions by muslims
Globalism = 666
The two things that come to me are international communism as envisioned by Marx and islam as envisioned by Satan.
The Egyptian boyfriend.
LOL!
Yeah, great example.
The rationale for Globalization is “marketing uber alles”.
from Dictionary.com
[A] self regenerating power structure that through lies and deception seeks to control everything and everyone.
It may also be called "neoliberalism."
If it would make it easier, it is CRUZISM. Look at his work in the Bush White House and at Heidi's work in the Bush White House and at Merrill Lynch and Goldman Sachs for a better understanding of globalism. TPA and North American Union would be good places to start.
Incidentally...somewhat off subject but it needs to be posted in a lot of threads so people will see that my assertion that Ted and Heidi are the Bill and Hill of the globalist age, here's an excerpt from a recent Fox interview:
“What kind of first lady do you think you’d be?” – Megyn Kelly
“It’s an opportunity to serve alongside the president. I would aspire to be a partner in a partnership format.” – Heidi Cruz
April 12, 2016
Globalism is the failed liberal authoritarian desire for a "one world" view that rejects the important role of nations in protecting values and encouraging productivity. Globalism is anti-American in encouraging Americans to adopt a "world view" rather than an "American view."
Liberals support globalism because it leads to centralized power, thereby providing liberals with an easier way to gain control. It is far easier for liberals to persuade a handful of people in centralized government to rule in their favor than it is for liberals to push their agenda on a decentralized form of government.
According to the Oxford American Dictionary, globalism is the advocacy of "the interpretation or planning of economic and foreign policy in relation to events and developments throughout the world." In its most extreme forms it is sometimes expressed using terms such as "one world," support for a single world government, and/or terms such as "world citizen" or "global citizen." Some globalist groups such as the World Federalist Movement, and some non-Christian religions such as Bahai, actively campaign for world government. "Global" is a currently fashionable term in business, where the term "international" would be more appropriate usage; the term "international" implies business operations between a few countries, while "global" implies worldwide business, making it an adequate term for some forms of business that do operate across the world. Many aspects of globalism fall under the umbrella of globalization, which refers to how local phenomena can become global phenomena.
The term "global" looks at the world as a single cohesive unit while the term "international" better recognizes the world's different countries, different cultures, different languages, different ethnicities, and national borders. Thus the two terms are not the same thing and using them interchangeably is often incorrect; however, it should be noted that the two are not mutually exclusive.
Globalism also involves the theory of a "global economy" in which the economic achievements of most if not all nations are interdependent with those of other nations around the world because of international trade. This is possible because of recent technological inventions such as the internet. For example, a farmer in Ghana can now be insured that he is payed the standard market price for a particular crop because of the standards set in Chicago which he can check with a telephone or internet connection.
Bhagwati (2004) explains how globalization has delivered a better standard of living in less developed countries, and how experiments with protectionist "import substitution" policies have systematically failed. he demonstrates that anti-globalism comprises a discontented brew of anti-capitalism, anti-corporatism, and anti-Americanism. His case that globalization has benefited the poor uses a two-step argument: trade enhances economic growth, and growth reduces poverty. He contrasts the failure of protectionism to deliver prosperity in post-colonial India and other countries with the progress and development in East Asia and other more outward-oriented countries. The growth spurred by globalization has not only expanded the pie but has done so in a way that is "socially benign" and possesses "a human face," says Bhagwati. Bhagwati refutes the liberal argument — heard frequently in the Democratic primary debates — that the U.S. must impose labor and environmental standards on poor countries in any future trade agreements. On the contrary, he shows that U.S. multinationals do not seek out less developed countries with low standards; instead they locate most of their affiliates in other high-wage, high-standard countries, and when they do invest in poor countries, they invariably pay wages and maintain standards far above those prevailing in the local economy. The result is not a "race to the bottom," but a race to the top. An inescapable implication is that if the Democrats succeed in withholding U.S. trade and investment from poor countries because they are poor, it will mean slower growth in those countries: fewer girls studying in school, and more working in farms, factories, and brothels.[1]
Please pass this around, cross post, etc., to threads about the threat of Ted Cruz and the Washington Elites - gg188
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.