Category talk:Anti-globalization movement

Untitled

I think it's pretty messed up that there are more pages on "anti globalisation" than there are on globalisation. It's damn near enough to make me think wikipedia is an anarchist dictatorship. Really, just think about it-why are there almost never big "anti-globalisation" protests in the third world? -Because in the developing world, it seems, people still believe in hard work and discipline, which is a lot of what made the West great before it went soft. The bottom line is globalisation has greatly reduced poverty throughout the world via development. Yeah-that's right; it used to be everyone lived a sustainable lifestyle and it was called poverty (life was nasty, brutish and short). People just crapped in the woods like animals. If people got sick, they just died; ditto if they broke a bone or they couldn't keep up. I think it's terribly ironic that these freaks use technology created by capitalism, especially computers and the internet; technology that would be unlikely to have developed under any other sysytem (the Soviet regime might have industrialized Russia and its dependencies, but clear through the Cold War, they lagged far behind in computers, and largely depended on defectors and espionage for innovation). To be honest, the hours are too long and the wages too low for factory workers in China, and Americans in particular tend to consume excessively, say suv's and McMansions. Besides, they already tried that sort of thing in China and they hated it like poison. The best solution for people suffering from poverty is development. This is exactly what has happened in the last few decades in South Korea, Singapore, Chile, and increasingly Malaysia.