Globalisation versus Gravity

Globalisation and Gravity
First we should distinguish between various kinds of globalisation. “Globalisation” (as bleated about by Blair, Bush etc.) is really ‘corporate-driven integration’ or just plain ’21st century capitalism’.
It’s also profoundly irritating and just plain wrong that the press has labelled us the “anti-globalisation movement”. Let’s make clear that we are “pro-globalisation”. We are in favour of sharing friendship, culture, cuisine, travel, solidarity, wealth and resources world wide. We are above all “pro-democracy” and “pro-planet” which our adversaries most clearly are not. (Susan George)
“Globalisation” means all rights to investors, none to locals. Countries that have in any way “succeeded”- Taiwan, Korea, Japan and China (you hear a lot less about the first two since the 1997 collapse!) did the exact opposite of what globalisation “theory” calls for!! Africa, Latin America etc., who followed the advice are now economic basket cases.

If it’s so inevitable, why is it being rammed through, and often in secret? Why are governments deliberately deregulating financial markets, investing heavily in international infrastructure (containerisation- pushed through by the US military- has increased transport of goods enormously) and leaving aviation fuel untaxed. Why do things like the MAI, (Multilateral Agreement on Investments), NAFTA etc. get negotiated in secret, with clauses that are never made public. Gravity my arse. It is simply international capital getting exactly what it wants, and bugger the consequences.

“I sympathize with those who would minimize, rather than those who would maximize economic entanglements between nations. Ideas, art, knowledge, hospitality and travel should be international. But let goods be homespun whenever it is reasonable and conveniently possible, and above all let finance be primarily national.”
John Maynard Keynes