> an inevitable occurrence, like the tide coming in.
Why should an occurrence devised and implemented by human beings be inevitable? Comparing it to a cyclic planetary phenomenon is surely a delusion of grandeur. Corporate globalization is a socio-economic agenda devised and implemented by financiers, economists and politicians, and whilst many sincerely believe themselves to be 'Masters of the Universe', I regard such inflated conceit as a dangerous delusion. Globalism, by contrast, is an emerging reality, and probably inevitable.

> data behind .. hostile
The difficulty is not providing data - there's a veritable flood of it - but agreeing what's relevant and reliable, and whose analysis and interpretation of them we'd agree was authoritative. On these points we're bound to disagree. If I nominated an emeritus Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa, you might be favourably inclined; but if I pointed you to his website:

http://www.globalresearch.ca

which carries a plethora of quality articles by highly respected and qualified academics and researchers, you'd undoubtedly dispute their impartiality and interpretations because they differ from your own.

> not a "general consensus"
It was to imply the general population rather than specialist opinion. So far as I'm aware, all of the ongoing worldwide protests oppose globalization; I'm not aware of any demanding or supporting it.

> explain why globalization is irreversable
See above.

> and good for all of AU.
Hmm, thought I'd made it clear that I believe it's extremely BAD for Oz.

> .. take a stand against it?
This is exactly what I'm proposing.

> a radical overhaul of the entire economy
A very big ask.

> discourage both imports and exports
A long-term plan if it's not to be disastrous, but not impossible.

> we can survive on what we have
Not at present, but surely self-sufficiency is a wiser and more worthwhile ambition than abject dependence on forces beyond our control, especially when they're socially destructive.

> worthless overnight .. cost .. skyrocket
Only under an overnight plan.

> a "North Korea" style economy.
Are you suggesting that this is the ONLY alternative to globalization?

Not sure there is a significant difference, Beelzebub.

>>Corporate globalization is a socio-economic agenda devised and implemented by financiers, economists and politicians... Globalism, by contrast, is an emerging reality, and probably inevitable.<<

Globalization simply means that we are reaching the point where the pricing of products and services are no longer under the control of individual countries, but are effectively "global" in their application.

As far as trade is concerned, I see no difference between globalization and globalism. They are linked. Cause and effect.

Both are inevitable, because they are brought about by "progress" in connectivity and communication, everything from airfreight to container ships, email to online product searches.

None of which can be un-invented.

>>So far as I'm aware, all of the ongoing worldwide protests oppose globalization; I'm not aware of any demanding or supporting it<<

I can't think of a single reason why anyone would take to the streets in favour of globalization. It would be like marching in favour of the telephone.

>>[a "North Korea" style economy] Are you suggesting that this is the ONLY alternative to globalization?<<

Well, yes. Exactly.

You cannot simply "opt out" of the world economy without incurring additional costs.

Let's say you start with a simple "buy Australian" import-substitution campaign. Thanks to the import tariffs that you would need to implement to achieve this, you make it too expensive to import computers, plasma screens, cars etc. This will raise the cost of living, which is, in effect, an input cost to our exports.

This will start pricing us out of the market for our export products. Over time, this will create a no-import, no-export situation that will be so similar to North Korea, it won't be funny.

To add to the analogy, we are bound to lose a whole lot of international friends along the way.

Some of whom, we might like to keep.

But never let it be said that I don't have an open mind on this. Perhaps you could outline an alternative scenario for us?

What I find amusing is the assumption that Globalisation is imposed on the world by a few wealthy and powerful individuals sitting on a pile of money and rubbing their hands.

Over the past 50 years the cost of international transport has reduced by more than 90% in real terms, communication and other infrastructure is light years ahead and cheaper enabling millions of large and small businesses to trade as easily with others overseas as next door.

Globalisation is driven by the ease with which local production can be replaced by foreign production.

To try and stop it would be like King Canute trying to stop the incoming tide, and the only way would be to sink the ships, ground the planes, dig up the roads, fill in the ports, shut down the internet, and what you would get would as P put it, look not much different from North Korea.

Globalization to me is setting up buisness in the cheapest part of the world.
No import tarrifs only aid the home grown foreign manufacturer.
I thought globialization would be a sharing senerio.
The exact oposite of my type of global sharing is what is happening.
Globalization is a fraud, manipulated by the greed for money.
Bring back tarrifs to protect our own.

> I see no difference between globalization and globalism.
Even Wikipedia warns "Not to be confused with globalization." at the top of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalism
Your philosophy will blind you to things that others regard as self-evident. I accept this, but feel no obligation to accomodate your unfortunate shortcomings. I don't say this to be offensive - I find it rather sad, especially because so many others are similarly afflicted.

> It would be like marching in favour of the telephone.
Again, could you explain the similarities between:
1. The telephone, a technological device which was enthusiastically embraced across the world because of the personal and social benefits it conveyed.
2. Globalization, a socio-economic agenda imposed by an elite on a protesting world.
Ordinary, unqualified folk have no trouble recognizing these things as completely dissimilar. Your academic training has certainly created a remarkably distorted perception of the world, and again I find this sad. You're obviously educated and intelligent.

> the ONLY alternative to globalization? Well, yes. Exactly.
I am amazed that someone can have so limited a view of human history and potential.

> Let's say you start with ...
All of which is true in a static scenario. This is called linear projection, and is a crude, first-order model of physical dynamics. The real-world is nonlinear - one interaction changes another and another - you've surely heard of the 'butterfly effect'.

> we are bound to lose a whole lot of international friends along the way.
Given the changes in China and the rest of Asia, we're far more likely to lose friends by continuing to flash our US-awarded sheriff's badge.

> outline an alternative scenario for us?
One day I'd like to be able to oblige. For the present I have nowhere near the insight or breadth of knowledge required. Whatever the case, I could never do so alone. Any realistic scenario could only evolve from a dedicated group.

> What I find amusing is the assumption
There will always be those who take simplistic attitudes to complex matters, but this does not render the matters invalid.

Beelzebub, if you refer to Wikipedia, it helps to do so accurately.

"Political scientist Joseph Nye... argues that globalism refers to any description and explanation of a world which is characterized by networks of connections that span multi-continental distances; while globalization refers to the increase or decline in the degree of globalism"

As I said.

"As far as trade is concerned, I see no difference between globalization and globalism. They are linked. Cause and effect."

Sounds pretty accurate to me. What's your problem with it?

Ah yes.

It's because you define globalization as "a socio-economic agenda imposed by an elite on a protesting world".

The "elite", in your view, are responsible for "the increase or decline in the degree of globalism"

Sounds all rather nebulous. Would you care to point us to some more Wikipedia wisdom that expands on this?

And it is only people who believe globalization to be "a socio-economic agenda imposed by an elite on a protesting world" that go out to protest. Everyone else thinks it is all rather neat.

Like the telephone.

>>I am amazed that someone can have so limited a view of human history and potential.<<

I know. I amaze a lot of people with my straightforward, cause-and-effect approach to life.

But it isn't so much a limited view, as a logical and credible one. To those who believe in global conspiracies, this is of course a form of blasphemy.

>>The real-world is nonlinear - one interaction changes another and another<<

Exactly, just as I explained to you. Cause. Followed by effect. Which becomes another cause that brings about another effect.

I don't suppose this happens in nuclear physics, does it? You simply rely upon the butterfly effect to complete your experiments.

>>you've surely heard of the 'butterfly effect'<<

Oh yes. I've heard of it.

What interests me in this context, is how you believe chaos theory is harnessed in the cause of "a socio-economic agenda imposed by an elite on a protesting world".

How can the elite exert control, in order to implement their dastardly plans, when chaos theory rules, ok?