Globalisation is a sell-out by treasonous politicians who care far less about their countries than their citizens do. Politicians transfer wealth and jobs overseas via globalisation. They do the same with free-trade - cheap, shoddy imports from China, for example, forcing Australian industries making high quality goods to shed jobs and in more and more cases, close down industries in Australia. Globalisation stinks, and our politicians should be held to account for their involvement in it. If we are to maintain our standards of living, globalisation must stop, and we should be prepared to pay more for good quality products. Chinese cannot even put a zip in mens' trousers properly for instances, and their sizing of garments is way out. They are ahead of us with technology and our electronics industry is long gone. But most of their consumer goods are rubbish we should not have to tolerate.

Ttbn

Meaning what? There should be no trade or movement of goods across international borders?

Globalization only works if the trade balance works in your favor. When it doesn't, trade deficits grow and grow as your export incomes shrink and shrink.

China was until recently experiencing 30% wages inflation and saw many American manufacturers returning even though their tax burden subsequently increased.

Energy is the key in a high tech world that China is joining! And that's how you make globalization work for you along with the flow on factors that you otherwise lose! And gone whenever you import manufactured goods from elsewhere along with the jobs that are also exported.

We have enough resources to become completely self sufficient! And if our "Leaders" were capable of using the brains they were born with for more than repeating mindless mantras, we'd go back to a nation that made things! And successfully compete with the emerging economies for market share!

For that we need just two things, preferenced Co-ops and ultra cheap energy! And assisted if all the cooperative enterprise in building complex items occurred on a single site to eliminate as much as possible, cascading tax and transport imposts.

Finished objects need to be packed in containers and shipped to convenient departure ports. (Darwin?) Via roll on roll off fast ferries/ports that had enough infrastructure to load complete trains that could then complete their journeys/ courtesy of similar infrastructure at other nations terminals. (Say Singapore?)

Meaning minimal handling, and rail sending goods through several cooperating nations to end customers, far fast and safer than any shipping, which just makes the goods more expensive for the end market/customer. And oft times all you need to dissolve the competitive edge.

The only bulk freight forwarding shipping worth considering has to be both nuclear powered and submersible! Thereby virtually guaranteeing timely delivery! When Nuclear powered planes ply the airways, (doable) that'd be the time to consider flying freight/trade goods anywhere.

We really need to divorce ourselves from the notion, that our place in the global market is as a quarry or frequently drought ravaged farm!

Blocking? No! Competing with all inherent advantages working for you? Yes!
Alan B.

It is unusual to find myself agreing with ttbn, but In do on this subject.
Gloalization is basicly turning large parts of the economy over to a small ellite number of large companies. We are reduced to workers and consumers with little control over who we can buy anything from. As the economy becomes more automated, and we are squized to the margins of the economy , our needs will be ignored.
Please excuse the spelling errors as this is a borrowed computer and I cant find the spell checker.

Chris

JKJ,

Of course not. If I had meant that, I would have said so. Trade has been going on for centuries, and could continue, without the nonsense of 'globalisation' and 'free' trade. Any government worth its salt would not be carrying on like ours does. A good government would be doing everything in its power to maintain, and preferably increase it if possible, our standard of living. They are not doing that through either globalisation or free trade; they are not improving the lot of poorer countries, which was part of the 'bright' idea. Low wages, poor conditions remain in these countries so that our prices can be undercut by providing us with junk far inferior to what we used to produce. It is a typical 'progressive' way of taking money (jobs, business opportunities) away from the less well-off in rich countries, and giving it to the wealthy on poor countries.

Only by increasing our wealth can we hope to help the really poor overseas.

Ttbn

So by what principle do you decide whether a particular transaction is to be permitted or not?