hawkesnightmare's posts are that of an ignorant 12 year old screaming "they took our jobs!" and then defending it with idealism like "why can't the guy work where he wants"

I haven't extensively researched globalization but from what I've read it basically seems like the ultimate final form of consumerism; which depending on your ideology is basically good for everyone. The benefits would include expansion of culture, wealth, and a boost for the economies of first world nations. The less fortunate countries would obviously be used for profit and then left in the dirt, but over time (in the ideal world) more work would be done and more profit would be made.

The only downside in my opinion is ideological; as I abhor capitalist principles I don't like living in a consumerist world, so I wouldn't want to live in a world where everything is even more centered on international exchange markets for the bourgeoisie.

I hope I didn't repeat anything said before or have a lack of understanding of the topic




gorman vs boredpayne is entertaining

Mmm.


Do I not entertain you?


Just because there are some jobs that can't be exported doesn't mean that the middle-class aren't losing jobs that can't be replaced. This naturally has far-reaching effects, like the widening of the wealth-gap.


It sounds like you're blaming workers for being fired for refusing to work for nothing in shitty conditions.

You sound about the same as Gina Rinehart. Although, Rinehart understands the effects of globalisation better than you.

"The evidence is unarguable that Australia is indeed becoming too expensive and too uncompetitive to do export- orientated business,” she insisted, adding that “Africans want to work. Its workers are willing to work for less than $2 per day.”

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/09/w...ralian-miners/


That's very unfair. I've slowed everything down and had to explain myself at every step for you. All because you can't be arsed to research the subject.