Ideology (was Re: Profit and Loss)

[Jane Sweet]

Phil Wise wrote:


> >
> 
> I think you have to take "globalisation", when spoken of by both sides of
> this debate, as something being awaited.  It isn't here yet, so perhaps it
> is "a myth" at this stage, or a fantasy.  You appear to be insisting that
> the fantasy has to be a present reality before you can speak of it.  If it
> were a reality now, summits and agreements like FTAA would have already
> happened; everything would be settled; the rules would be in place and the
> borders open.  But were are several steps along the route: the internet, the
> advances in free trade that have already taken place, the re-structuring of
> national economies, sometimes voluntarily, sometimes not, along World
> Bank/IMF guidelines, are only a few examples.  All of these things open
> borders, prepare the way in some form or another.






> 
> I think you actually mean "the global economy".  Globalisation sounds like a
> process to me; perhaps as yet it hasn't had the effect of increasing trade
> to the U.S., but it is supposed to, isn't it?  If we are not to call this
> process globalisation, perhaps we can find a noun that we all agree to?
> 
> Phil


OK, but my argument has not been simply that globalization
is not a good term to describe what is the case. I am
arguing that globalization is a term that carries all sorts
of baggage, false and misleading claims about the current
state of affairs and what is likely to happen in the
future.