Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto
Globalisation, which equates to the exploitation of second and third world economies and people, is not.
|
Exploitation means use, amoung other things.
Global trade is a good thing, it has done more to alleviate poverty, prevent suffering, free the opressed and save lives than any organization I know of.
It isn't perfect. Nothing that powerful is.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Manx
Reviewing the recent (50 year) history of U.S. foreign policy, it is quite clear that the U.S. supports dictatorships that are favorable to U.S. business practices. In this view, "freedom" and "democracy" are simply marketting terms for stability through friendly, corrupt control systems.
|
The 50 year history of U.S. foreign policy was built during a long cold war with another nuclear power.
Revolution is now less of a danger, at least outside of the Islamic world. The risk of temporary instability in southern africa doesn't bring with it the danger of the nation falling over into 'the other camp', because there isn't another camp to fall into.
Thus, it now makes sense to risk temporary instability in order to realize longer-term stability.
Rich nations are good for other rich nations. You get rich by providing other rich nations with things they really really want.
Cheap labour is used and all, but you'd rather have a nation that could produce cheap robots that did the work for 1/10th the price, as well as providing dozens of other goods for your nation to buy.