All those "bad" things
We keep on discussing the ways corperations "abuse" their power when manipulating the forces of worldwide globalization, but I don't think we are seeing the whole story. If one buys into the idea of "Americanizaion", the way the United States is leading globalization and the incredible influence our corperations have over others, then we have to look directly at the source.
The 14th Amendment. More specificly, Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company.
In this landmark case, corperations became people. This is the offical statement by the court when the question was posed:
"The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of opinion that it does."
This simple three-line statement changed the course of history. As people in the eyes of the law, corperations could now sue and be sued, but, more importantly, have very specific protections from federal goverment intrusions into free trade, and, ultimately, globalization.
So, asuming the current trend is "Americanization" and it is United States buisness that is powering this international trend, without this court case, where is the world? Would another country simply have stepped into the void? Does another country of our economic might have a similar legal case that protects it's corperations? Or, is the United States, once again, the ones who must change in order to save the world from the "misuse" of globalization?
Comments
Are you saying that that court case is what "started" this era's globalization? And are you asking that if this case had not happened, that another country could have potentially had a decision with an equal impact on the world and therefore been the primary force behind globalization?
And further, I don't understand where what the "Or" is supposed to mean, there has to be a choice between two related statements for an "or", but that doesn't seem to be the case. You offer the choice between "does another country have a similar protection for it's corporations?" and "does the united states have to keep globalization under control?" The two statements don't fit.
But to answer your last question; yes, it does, because the United States is gone off the deep end and contributed little positive to the world other than more money and faster food.
Posted by: The Laughing Man | September 10, 2006 11:03 PM
I threw it out there just for something to think about, sorry it wasn't polished...that being said, I guess we didn't help any in WWII...or WWI for that matter...but I really like money and fast food.
Posted by: Joseph Lindberg | September 11, 2006 12:28 AM
I don't think you can point to a single court case to define an entire era. I also agree with the laughing man, you need to contruct your argument a little bit better next time, you are asking about 12 diffrent things.
Posted by: "That" Guy | September 13, 2006 10:43 AM
I just want to refer to the last part of your blob. I think it's very true that if our country wouldn't have started being more productive, utilizing new technologies for faster communication, etc. that another country not too far behind the US economically would have. It's always been a race between different countries to accomplish "going to the moon first" or "who has more nuclear weapons..". I think that the reason that Americans aren't really recognizing the negative effects of globalization yet is because people feel that we are "winning" again. America has the power, money and time to basically rule the world and we're cocky about that and like knowing we can do whatever we want. Whether it mean to start and finish the War on Terrorism or setup international bases in other countries. Governments are threatened by our success and we don't back down in majority of circumstances since we want to feel and have ALL the power possible. I don't think it's a bad thing that America has so much power but sometimes we take issues too far and get into some mucky water!
Posted by: Kayla | September 13, 2006 10:56 AM
well said, kayla, about the feeling that we're winning. we're physically comfortable, but empty inside. an interesting observation in the "McWorld vs Jihad" article was that Jihadis are desperately trying to cling to an identity and repelling the outside violently whereas "McWorlders" don't have an identity. They just simply consume. That's what our culture is built upon, for what else are advertisements for then to tell us we're lacking without this product or that image (brought to us by a product), ect? Advertisement is used to create an empty, lacking feeling within us, and to make us search for an identity external to us (And if it's external to us, it's not "our own" now, is it?). We just become empty souls and partake in the passive-aggression of our culture upon the world and eachother. Some would argue the Jihadis at least aren't hiding their violence, but then again, they don't have the luxury of disguising it the way "McWorld" can.
Posted by: The Laughing Man | September 13, 2006 09:39 PM