Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The New Rulers Of The World: The True Costs of Globalization (VIDEO)
Google Video ^ | 07-Aug-2006 | John Pilger

Posted on 03/12/2007 1:23:21 PM PDT by Khepera

Please watch this documentary and comment on what you see. What is your take on the following?

In order to examine the true effects of globalization, Pilger turns the spotlight on Indonesia, a country described by the World Bank as a model pupil until its globalized economy collapsed in 1998. The film examines the use of sweatshop factories by famous brand names, and asks some penetrating questions. Who are the real beneficiaries of the globalized economy? Who really rules the world now? Is it governments or a handful of huge companies? The Ford Motor Company alone is bigger than the economy of South Africa. Enormously rich men, like Bill Gates, have a wealth greater than all of Africa.

Pilger goes behind the hype of the new global economy and reveals that the divisions between the rich and poor have never been greater -- two thirds of the world's children live in poverty -- and the gulf is widening like never before.

The film looks at the new rulers of the world -- the great multinationals and the governments and institutions that back them -- the IMF and the World Bank. Under IMF rules, millions of people throughout the world lose their jobs and livelihood. The reality behind much of modern shopping and the famous brands is a sweatshop economy, which is being duplicated in country after country.

The film travels to Indonesia and Washington, asking challenging questions seldom raised in the mainstream media and exposing the scandal of globalization, including revealing interviews with top officials of the World Bank and the IMF.

"A deeply impressive, informative, heartfelt piece of journalism." Graham McCann, Financial Times


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Crime/Corruption; Foreign Affairs
KEYWORDS: imf; johnpilger; nwo; pilger; worldbank
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-27 next last

1 posted on 03/12/2007 1:23:28 PM PDT by Khepera
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Khepera

I lost my job to NAFTA.....But got another.


2 posted on 03/12/2007 1:31:38 PM PDT by Dallas59 (AL GORE STALKED ME ON 2/25/2007!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Khepera

This is a crock on so many levels it's hard to know where to start.

The free market economy in the western world has created this wealth.

If 2/3 of children live in poverty, the west has elevated 1/3 in less than 100 years.

The 3rd world needs to embrace order, the rule of law, and free enterprise. That is where their future lies.


3 posted on 03/12/2007 1:32:04 PM PDT by BillM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BillM

I believe the real problem is the so called leaders of these countries are just a bunch of tyrant crooks. I am happy to get the opinions of others on this issue.

Thanks


4 posted on 03/12/2007 1:40:09 PM PDT by Khepera (Do not remove by penalty of law!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Khepera
There is no doubt that the lowly individual today, in order to maintain relevance, is being forced to choose between big government and big business. For me, the downside of politically allying myself with corporations is nowhere near as frightening as allying myself with big government.

Your vote in a corporate context is much more meaningful as you gain wealth, whereas in a governmental context, wealth is something you must protect from the tyrranical majority. Also, corporations are constrained by the fact that their revenues must be gathered by voluntary action, such as a consumer buying a burger at McDonald's, whereas government gets its revenue by stealing it. Market constraints induce a certain ethicality and discipline that is lacking in government.

I fear the individual and individual rights are less and less meaningful as big business and big government conspire against the little guy. But given a choice between omnipotent government and potent pockets of big business, I choose the latter in a heartbeat.

5 posted on 03/12/2007 1:42:09 PM PDT by massadvj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole; hedgetrimmer; dennisw

ping


6 posted on 03/12/2007 1:44:34 PM PDT by raybbr (You think it's bad now - wait till the anchor babies start to vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Khepera

Thanks.


7 posted on 03/12/2007 1:46:55 PM PDT by Quix (GOD ALONE IS WORTHY; GOD ALONE PAID THE PRICE; GOD ALONE IS ABLE; LOVE GOD WHOLLY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: massadvj

That's very well said. I'm slowly getting to the point that big corporations almost make me as nauseous as big government. For the reasons that you listed, I do believe they are inherently slightly less evil. Slightly.


8 posted on 03/12/2007 1:48:48 PM PDT by badbass
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: badbass; massadvj

The ideals of big Gov and big corps. are one in the same. Lobbyist buy political influence and the Pols, in turn, write laws to benefit the businesses. You just can't separate the two in today's climate.


9 posted on 03/12/2007 1:58:25 PM PDT by wolfcreek (Semi-Conservatism Won't Cut It)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: wolfcreek

Sure you can. Leave and move to Dubai.


10 posted on 03/12/2007 2:14:11 PM PDT by Domicile of Doom (Hey boy why is there dirt in my hole? I dunno Boss.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Khepera
...the divisions between the rich and poor have never been greater...

Pffft. So what that the bottom is improving slower than the top. Sure, there are alternatives that can leave almost everyone worse off while "enjoying" lower absolute income/consumption disparity ("almost" because all of the alternatives involve empowering dictatorial leaders backed by enormous state financing). It takes a special kind of deluded asshole to complain because 99% of the inhabitants of the world enjoy improved living standards in every category, but that some people have improved their lot more than others. The two effects are INEXTRICABLY linked - forced equality unidirectionally drives poverty; natural inequality drives selective processes on all fronts, leading to innovation and improved quality of life for everyone, even the bottom 5%. It is as fundamental as the laws of physics.

The film looks at the new rulers of the world -- the great multinationals and the governments and institutions that back them

Oh, half a point! Merit is awarded for pointing out that the problem is corporate power backed by government fiat. I agree that this is a disturbing scenario, and highlights the fact that the best role for government in business is no role at all. All cartelization, monopoly formation, and REAL predatory corporate activities are enabled by compulsory government action, either directly (nepotism, cronyism, graft, corporate welfare) or indirectly (regulatory capture, etc). This is where the only real danger of corporatism lies, and immeasurable harm is done by individuals who, by ignorance, malice, contempt, or pure evil, distort this picture to instill fear of the truly beneficial (despite whatever unfortunate conflicts arise with ideology).

Like another poster alluded to, corporations do not hold power the way governments do. They rely on the individual consumer to CHOOSE to send money their direction. A cable company doesn't get 100% of the power by having 40% of people choose it as their service provider. They get 40% of one sector. And when they screw up, they cannot just hold on to power until the next election - they lose it as soon as people vote differently with their wallets. Instantly. Can you tell that I harbor a "bit" of contempt for democracy? A majority, in any regard, in every capacity, can rip from you your liberties without your explicit consent. Force me to choose between democracy and free markets, and I will choose free markets in a heartbeat.

Want to complain about globalization? Go ahead, there is plenty to complain about regarding it. The UN for example. NAFTA, CAFTA, NATO. Being forced to hand over your tax dollars for international "aid" (payoffs to dictatorial thugs, and scraps for peasants that, in the absence of the legal protections that a free market must gestate within, build dependency). Spending billions of dollars to fight the WOD on foreign soil (while leaving the border wide open to drug mules ferrying the poison across). Hundreds of billions of dollars spent on 'nation building'. Stop complaining about the good parts!

11 posted on 03/12/2007 2:15:21 PM PDT by M203M4 (John Cox is what a Republican front runner should *ideologically* look like....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Khepera

The film examines the use of sweatshop factories by famous brand names...



Did the film point out that when the do-gooders caused some of these famous brand names to terminate the factories using child labor ... independent studies found that within months, a large percentage of those children were much much worse off not working in the factory ... they were either found to be beggers or serving as child prostitutes???

Hazlitt's "Economics in one lesson" tells you to look at all economic consequences of an action, not just the ones that would make you feel good.


12 posted on 03/12/2007 2:17:46 PM PDT by Mack the knife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Khepera
I believe the real problem is the so called leaders of these countries are just a bunch of tyrant crooks. I am happy to get the opinions of others on this issue.

Ding!Ding!Ding! We have a winner. In most 3rd world armpits (Or any type of armpit. I'm thinking of NOLA.) the corruption is so bad that if you try to help, most of the help ends up in the pockets of the wealthy. The only real answer is regime change, and even that has a better than average chance of not doing a bit of good because corruption is so much a part of the culture. You will just get new faces, same old corruption.

13 posted on 03/12/2007 2:19:34 PM PDT by magslinger (Ask Dad. He'll know. And on the off chance he doesn't, he'll make up something good.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: M203M4

This is exactly the types of replies I was hoping for. Of course on Google (where this video is found) there is no place to post comments about the content you see therein.

Unfortunately most the DUmmies won't ever visit this site to see the comments and those that do won't believe them but, you never know.


14 posted on 03/12/2007 2:27:58 PM PDT by Khepera (Do not remove by penalty of law!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: wolfcreek
Not all interests of big government and big business are aligned, although most of them are. The flight of so many international US corporations to Bermuda illustrates that as global markets expand, national sovereignty diminishes. If the capital doesn't like a particular environment, it just flees. No government is big enough to stop it.

I think this is a good thing, because the votes you cast with your money should be far more important than those you cast in the voting booth. If you have any resourcefulness at all, you should use your voting booth authority to limit government power so that your capital talks louder.

15 posted on 03/12/2007 4:17:46 PM PDT by massadvj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

Comment #16 Removed by Moderator

To: John Williams
Well, that is the ultimate objective of the left, is it not? That's why they love Chavez and Castro. Nationalization of industry has never worked in any civilization since the dawn of man. And yet the libs continue to cling to the idea that the historical failures are simply due to mismanagement. They fundamentally fail to understand human nature.

The problem with big government is that once its institutions are in place, capital will grow big enough to take them over, or at least utilize them as barriers to entry against smaller competitors. This is something that libertarians such as Friedman have talked about at length.

I don't blame the corporations for this. They are merely doing what comes naturally. We the people are to blame for being the big government enablers.

17 posted on 03/12/2007 5:01:38 PM PDT by massadvj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: John Williams
"No government is big enough to stop it."

B$, they are the only entity that could. Of course if government is(not that, that could ever happen here) corrupt then it doesn't matter.

18 posted on 03/12/2007 6:46:04 PM PDT by itsahoot (The GOP did nothing about immigration, immigration did something about the GOP (As Predicted))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: massadvj
For me, the downside of politically allying myself with corporations is nowhere near as frightening as allying myself with big government.

Do you know what a public/private partnership is? You think you are allying yourself with corporations, when in fact you are allying yourself with big government. Nearly all the efforts of the "free traders" are rooted in public/private partnerships which effectively give control of any corporation participating in one, over to the government. It also allows the boards of the corporations to have undue influence in the government and with taxpayer money-- all of which rip off the individual citizen, who now has no one representing him in what is supposed to be a representative government. This of course is classic fascism.

The people who gain wealth and security are the CEOs who lie down with big government. The losers are the American people, our Constitution, our Country and our culture of freedom, because none of these can exist in the current wave of "free trade" fascism.
19 posted on 03/12/2007 10:34:12 PM PDT by hedgetrimmer (I'm a billionaire! Thanks WTO and the "free trade" system!--Hu Jintao top 10 worst dictators)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: massadvj

"I don't blame the corporations for this. They are merely doing what comes naturally."


It's *natural* for Corps to buy influence? It's *natural* for Pols to except money from Corps? Like I said, the two are in bed together at the detriment of the country and it's people.


20 posted on 03/13/2007 4:38:34 AM PDT by wolfcreek (Semi-Conservatism Won't Cut It)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-27 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson