Those who are railing about sending our jobs overseas simply do not understand the revolution we are in the middle of. "Globalization" has many shades of meaning, depending on who is ranting at the moment. But the root phenomenon is technological; technology (computer and broadband) is driving everything we are seeing. The debate at the political level is a reflection of the anguish at the grassroots level which is, in turn, a simple effect of the ongoing information revolution, which will not peak.
"Globalization" is inevitable. It cannot be stopped. It is, at the root, science in the service of wealth, which is itself just a symbol for comfort. This is not a moral position, nor a political position. It is simply an observation. Technological advance can be paused, but it cannot be arrested.
I do note that the picture of the world system at the end of time in the Revelation of St. John is of a single system, based on trade and commerce, which has subsumed all other values, including all political divisions. This one world system traffics in every thing, including "men's souls".
You don't have to be an evangelical prophecy loon to observe the teleological force of the information revolution is to subsume EVERYTHING under the power of technology-seeking-wealth.
It will happen. It is happening. It is Man, imposing the condition of his heart onto his external world, inexorably, over the course of 5,000 years, and it was observable in seed form in Palestine in 30 A.D.
End of sermon. Resume your tired perennial debates.
Well, I hope you're not imputing that to me, even though I suffered on account of what happened. What was I supposed to do, solicit the government to put a huge tax on every PC or Macintosh sold? What would that have done to the computer revolution that has provided millions of good-paying jobs, even in industries that have nothing to do with computers, such as plastics, or transportation, and a myriad more that I can't even imagine? I've never been a protectionist, even when my own career and livelihood were on the line.
An interesting Hegelian debate; do men shape history or does history shape men?
I've come down on the latter. I think history is a force and men either ride it or get buried by it. Its easy to believe that IBM and GM and AT&T are creating history if you've never worked at one of those companies. For those of us that have there's no doubt that the Exec's are mostly reacting to market forces, or at best, trying to get in front of them.
Your concern vis-a-vis St. John is also poignant and my questions are; where does it end? does it have to end? or will it begin to unravel just like the empire he was so frightened of?