No, it's not building their stuff that's necessarily moving people out, it's other things, like Coke plants in India using up all the groundwater, and contaminating what's left, or, to use another example in India, the huge inhabited "black zone" around Bhopal, where by rights, nobody should be living...
The thing is, there are at least two schools of thought as to what "globalisation" even means, and I'm sitting in the other camp from what Alan Greenspan means by it. (The guy is pretty much purely evil, and I'd feel bad about myself if I came down on the same side of any major issue as him, sorry.) I'm into "globalisation" as meaning fair trade, sustainable development, appropriate technology, international localisation, and international decentralisation, as well as a gradual winding-down of overconsumption here at home as standards of living equalise around the globe.
That is not what Alan Greenspan means by it. He's indisputably on the side of the "big [large-sized] winners," and I don't even think there should be "big winners." There is no real reason whatsoever these days to even have transnational corporations, rather than tightly-integrated, decentralised networks of small suppliers and sellers. (Thank you Linus Torvalds for proving to the world that it is possible to run a massively-complex, large, distributed organisation worldwide and still produce a coordinated project made up of small components -- General Motors take note.)
As Rustin says, "A corporation should be a privilege, not a right," and I'll be the first to tell you that the only time I ever support the death penalty is when you call it "dechartering," so that should give you the rest of the context...
(no subject)
The thing is, there are at least two schools of thought as to what "globalisation" even means, and I'm sitting in the other camp from what Alan Greenspan means by it. (The guy is pretty much purely evil, and I'd feel bad about myself if I came down on the same side of any major issue as him, sorry.) I'm into "globalisation" as meaning fair trade, sustainable development, appropriate technology, international localisation, and international decentralisation, as well as a gradual winding-down of overconsumption here at home as standards of living equalise around the globe.
That is not what Alan Greenspan means by it. He's indisputably on the side of the "big [large-sized] winners," and I don't even think there should be "big winners." There is no real reason whatsoever these days to even have transnational corporations, rather than tightly-integrated, decentralised networks of small suppliers and sellers. (Thank you Linus Torvalds for proving to the world that it is possible to run a massively-complex, large, distributed organisation worldwide and still produce a coordinated project made up of small components -- General Motors take note.)
As Rustin says, "A corporation should be a privilege, not a right," and I'll be the first to tell you that the only time I ever support the death penalty is when you call it "dechartering," so that should give you the rest of the context...