I think we're painting a picutre of globilization with too broad of a paint brush. In Boliva it appears private investment has raised the standard of living, but is it in a nation where there is a democratic or fear based type of government? It looks like Bolivia is barely holding on by a thread to its democratic type of government.

What happens if they are taken over by force by the communist leftist element? What happens to all the private investment?

It appears Globilization can be a good thing, but it only makes sense within certain paramenters. Does the country receiving the benefit of globilization have a democratic or fear based government, e.g. China, North Korea, Venezuela, etc.

Without isolating nations with a strong committment to having a non fear based government, it seems globalization only makes our enemies stronger.

Bolivia is a democratic republic with 5 year presidential term limits. The current president assumed after the previous resigned due to pressure. Congress appointed the previous because neither candidate won a majority. Morales was the loser in the congressional vote. And he's not happy about it.

The current trend in LATAM is populist presidents, many of whom were former military officers, that promise the moon. Few go as far as Chavez has. At any rate, when they get into office and don't deliver, the "people" hold a referendum in the street and force them from office, putting in the one that promises them the moon next. it is a vicious cycle and shows the absurdity of a true democracy as a form of government. The "people" are a rabble.

I think a lot of the dissatisfaction is due to a feeling of being left out. Internet and cable tv is prevalant. they know what's going on in the world and they want to play. yet their leaders still can convince them that protectionism is a good thing. They believe the rhetoric about the Yankees wanting to rape their natural resources etc. You wouldn't believe the grafitti and slogans painted all over the place. The damn universities are a breeding ground for the crap. And they are the most connected!

Fear-based governments cannot survive long-term in a globablized economy. Globalization means being competitive is absolutely necessary. Being competitive requires communication. Communication means exposure to outside ideas and concepts.

China is finding this out now, and is struggling with dealing with the demand for self-determination in both Hong-Kong (which had it) and Shanghai (which wants it). The primary solution at this point is compromise. Not fear.

Fear based governments can survive for a fair amount of time if we subsidize them with technology and money. They can survive long enough to cause us a butt load of problems. One of the biggest complaints about detente with the previsous soviet regime was that it prolonged their government.

Are we doing the same with China? Asking them to help us with Korea etc. and what's the impact of sharing of top secret technology. I'm all for capitalism, but I still ask the question about these large american based international corporations: "where do their loyalties reside?"

Also, just because the Russian government imploded, does that mean fear based governments can't last long enough to piss in our rice crispies?

When engaged in a global economy, they are far less likely to "piss in our rice crispies". The chance of a war with China is darn near nil. Why? Because we need them and they need us, economically. And they know it.

Not to mention the fact that it would serve no purpose. Agreed.

GH,
Do you believe that China will be able to continue to balance Capitalism and Communism. They are walking a very fine line, should one or the other fail, there will be consequences. While many economists amazed at the growth of the private sector in China tout the victory of Capitalism , there are many who feel that the balance will not be maintained for long. The link below is to a Communist group arguably with the Marxist Ideology chip on its shoulder. (Cut and paste link to ICC to avoid PS.Com from showing please http://en.internationalism.org/wr/278_china.htm)
There are valid points which can be verfied with a little research. (See Unemployment poverty inflation ) According to Hawsbawn in his The Age of Extremes "Mao was fundamentally convinced of the importance of struggle, conflict and high tension as something that was not only essential to life but prevented the relapse into the weaknesses of the old Chinese society, whose very insistence on unchanging permanence and harmony had been its weakness." This principle is highly evident in China today.
A trip to Human Rights In China yields a factual glimpse into many problems facing the growth of industry in that nation today. Globalizition is bringing into sharp relief the many problems the Chinese government faces in the wake of their astounding growth.
In my mind it is unlikely that Capitalism and Communism will continue to co exist in China. The unrest that follows may lead to conflict. In the event of strains in China I see LRDs fear of the elephant making deals with the mice to be a real concern.

This whole Gap vs Core thing makes a very compelling case for the Spec Ops Community to my way of thinking.

Cuba has managed to do it for 50 years, albeit on a much smaller scale.

I would argue that our rice crispies already smell of urine. China's agreements with Venezuela, Iran, Syria. Weapon shipments to Iran, etc. Instead of the Russian velvet glove, this is more like someone offering us cheap goods with one hand, ready to smack us with a closed fist that's hidden behind their back. Both Iran and Venezuela are appearing pretty cocky. I think it has something to do with having acquired fairly substantial and complex weapon systems. They seemed to have adopted an "all in" poker attitude. I cannot buy the world peace through economic interdependence argument.

Regardless, we still haven't addressed the issue of national interest versus profit motive. I'm not bashing capitalism, but where should the loyalty reside? Is maximizing the bottom line a corporation's only concern? I'm not trying to hijack this thread, but it's appears to be related to globilization.

Also, how can a specific business sector compete on a world market if foreign businesses are subsidized (cheaper acquistion of technology and state sponsored exportation of goods)? I know Friedman would say it provides Americans with cheaper goods. But what about the economic unrest during the transition period? Also, why do we need China? Cheaper Barbie dolls? Lastly, do you believe the economic benefit we receive truly has a trickle down effect?

Is the standard of living higher there than it was 50 years ago?

TR

The chances of war with China may be small, but I think “close to nil� is an exaggeration. Taiwan and North Korea are two possible starting points, for example.

Probably about the same as after Che destroyed the economy through his mis-management of the sugar industry.

I'm laughing at everybody on here trying to justify the Chinese as the next "near-peer" opponent. Sound like a bunch of Squid Boat drivers and AF generals trying to convince Congress to fund more GBGBs and the next generation of Jedi X-Wing Bombers.

What exactly do all of you propose we do about it? It's not an arms race. Their "arms" are their population. You want to try to isolate China? What?

Why?

This is a tautology. "Gap" countries are defined as countries displaying these conditions, so the fact that an overwhelming number of countries displaying these conditions are "Gap" countries is, shall we say, unsurprising.