nshinede@no-spam wrote:
> Mary Green, No, Golbalization does not contribute to the "advancement" of
> third world countries.
>
> It is directly and absolutely responsible for the economic destruction of
> the advanced countries, who did not need a handout to get where they were,
> before this locust policy decended upon us.
>
> This is just another socialist idea to "distribute" the wealth, and it will
> fail, but many of us will live to regret the process, first.
> "Mary Green" <megreen@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:8JdHa.209028$ro6.5690034@no-spam
>
>>"Karen Gordon" <ar231@no-spam> wrote in message
>>news:bcj21g$8ue$1@no-spam
>>
>>>They feel they need this kind of 'protection' because the people of
>>>the world are getting mad as hell at their globalization and corporate
>>>policies. And guess who gets to pay for providing the 'protection from
>>>the people'? The people themselves.
>>>___________________________
>>>
>>
>>========================================================
>>
>>Well if the 'left-wing' loonies and 'anarchists' would stop their
>
> stupidity,
>
>>then these events would not cost that much. Globalization is here to stay
>>and likely necessary for the advancement of third world undeveloped
>>countries.
>>
>>Get use to it.
>>
>>
>
>
Then why are all the socialists against globalization? Maude Barlow and
company have shrieked at high decibles over the whole matter.
Seems to me taht globalization is here to stay. The only problem is that
Unions et al have not figured it out yet, and that is why all the jobs
are now going to third world countries. How many things do you pick up
made in China, Malaysia or India. Its the wage levels. But at the same
time, those nations are doing quite well.