Interesting, well written article. While acknowledging there is a downside to globalization, it didn't say what it was.

Globalization is one of those things which made so much sense to me that I couldn't understand the opposition to it. So, as in other things which seem to have only one side, I looked up the other. (One of the others was the POW-MIA thing in Korea and Vietnam. Turned out we DID leave behind substantial numbers of POWs and knew it.)

The negative aspect to globalization is that it creates a large number of poorer, debtor nations who are forced to borrow money on terrible terms. They wind up having to import foreign products and paying for them through working for very little in "free trade zones". The local economies can be destroyed and the population forced to work in "free trade zones" to repay the loans.

A program I saw showed how in Jamaica they were forced to import American powdered milk, which destroyed their dairy industry. Then the price of powdered milk went up, and there wasn't he capital to restart their own dairies.

(In an effort to avoid an effect of globalization on the American economy, Bush instituted tariffs on foreign steel.)

In effect, globalization can be economic colonization without the necessity of physically occupying the countries.

It certainly ain't all bad, and it's not all good, either. Often the resistors aren't resisting truth, freedom, motherhood and apple pie, but trying to protect a local population, just as did George Bush.

Arf