Ken bases his article on the fallacy of equivocation. He doesn't define globalisation, but uses it to refer to a whole suite of polices - i.e. controls - and then lambasts free markets.

You can only shake your head in wonder at the confusion of someone who writes an article criticising globalisation without distinguishing between economic phenomena caused or sponsored by government, and those not caused or sponsored by government.

"Four legs good, two legs bad." Baaaah! "Down with freedom." Up with the state! The problem is that government is being used to favour big corporations. We demand as a solution, more arbitrary power for government! Baaaah!

This is a classic case of begging the question. You assume globalisation is bad and, from that premise,you argue that globalisation is bad. Let's hope Ken's students, if there are any, are taught the basics of logical thinking.

Just by happenstance, the World Bank has recently released its latest report on world poverty. Guess what? The number and proportion of people living in extreme poverty continues to fall, the Global Financial Crisis notwithstanding. Indeed, the United Nations Millenium Development Goals have been achieved several years earlier than the 2015 target date.

How has this happened? Greater freedom in trade, economic and labour market reform, individual property rights - indeed, the very stuff of capitalism, which might be what Ken means when he talks about globalisation.

The good ol' World Bank regularly trumpeted its protege, Egypt, as one of its "top reformers" during the preceding decade....strange is the fact that the general population of that county was becoming successively more impoverished at the time.
Yup, globalisation in full flight.

Cause and effect, anyone?

An awful lot of "effects" are described here, in exhausting detail. Injustice, poverty, poor physical and mental health, drug abuse, low standards of education, violence, obesity, teenage pregnancies and so forth.

Masses of "causes" too. "Globalization", "personal relationships, institutional procedures, structural frameworks, and cultural discrimination", "unequal treatment and rewards in the workplace", "wealth and income differences", "unregulated self-interest, facilitated by reduced international barriers and regulations, dominated by the free marketing of finance, goods and services" and so on.

What is missing is any kind of link between the causes - any of them - and the described effects. You might just as well say "society causes inequality", and leave it at that.

The most intriguing aspect of the "Occupy" movement is, of course, that it isn't a "movement" at all, in any sense bar the basic human reaction to perceived unfairness - "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it any more".

But to try and equate the protests of a bunch of hippies in a Wall Street park with the excruciating bravery of a Syrian demonstrating against government oppression is, to me, simply obscene.

I must agree with the other posters. Ken McNabb rails against globalisation without bothering to say what he thinks it is or just how it is supposed to contribute to the problems he points to, or what can be done about it - if anything.

He also confuses problems common to advanced countries - the Americans have always had a substantial under class - with changes in the global system.

In any case, one result of the globalisation he so despises may well be the lifting of considerable poverty in the developing world. Note the world back report rleased today (reports in tomorrow's newspapers). Again, this may be more about those developing world economies adopting market disciplines but certainly globalisation means that more low level jobs can be moved to the poorer countries - jobs that don't mean much in the advanced countries but mean a lot in less fortunate countries.

On all levels McNabb has miserably failed to prove his thesis.

What a pile of twaddle.

Back to communism where everyone is equally poor. There's the justice.

The amusing thing about the occupy protestors was that they were
running around, iphones in hand, staying in touch with one another.

Now Apple who makes these iphones, has had such huge global demand
from these people, that they have 100 billion $ cash in the bank
and a market cap of half a trillion $.

What on earth are they doing buying such products, if they so
hate the manufacturers?

That's simple, Yabby.

>>What on earth are they doing buying such products, if they so hate the manufacturers?<<

They were demonstrating solidarity with the oppressed workers at Apple's Foxconn factory in Shenzhen.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/9006988/Mass-suicide-protest-at-Apple-manufacturer-Foxconn-factory.html

Oh, wait...

Globalization is killing fatalism (where people just accept how they live)People are no longer resigned to live under state run media, where news is served in a biased fashion and authoritarian rule, where their freedom and human rights are compromised.

This new technology provides the world a way to connect to each other, and the next decade will see this continue exponentially.

Websites such as http://worldleaderproposal.com/

and http://interactivedemocracy.blogspot.com.au/ are just a few of the new wave of direct/interactive democracy websites where people can go and have a say in how they think the direction the world should take.

Shaun,
You do understand that democracy is mob rule ,right?
Democracy in action is Facebook death threats against Yumi Stynes and George Negus to effect "change", mob rule accompanies every technological "Great Leap Forward".

Hi Jay,

So what system of government do you think is fair? Is it a form of democracy, or not democracy at all?

If not democracy, I am eager to hear what you favour?

Pericles, I think it goes a something like this:

"We protest against you filthy capitalist pigs, who make the
products which we cannot help ourselves from buying, to make
you filthy rich"