Quotes About Globalization

It made me angry that people could simply kill other people, take what they wanted, and ignore the cries of the sick and hungry. The world wasn't like that— or it shouldn't be like that—even though I hadn't seen enough of the world to know what it was really like.

Ethiopia doesn't matter to the West," I say, stating the obvious. "We offer them nothing they can exploit.

Much of Australia's history had been shaped by the contradiction that it depended intimately and comprehensively on a country which was further away that almost any other in the world. Now the dependence had slackened, the distance had diminished. The Antipodes were drifting, though where they were drifting no one knew.

Manchester's disciples believed that paradise was an international bazaar. They favoured the international flow of goods and ideas and the creation of institutions that channeled that flow and the abolition of institutions that blocked it. Nations, they argued, now grow richer though commerce than though conquest.

Billions of dollars were sunk into cables spanning six continents and three oceans, and a web of optical fiber engulfed the world. When the operation peaked in 1991, fiber was being rolled out, globally, at over 5,000 miles per hour, or nine times the speed of sound: Mach 9.

The United States has little reason to build an empire for economic and trade purposes. It exports only 13 percent of its GDP to the world, compared with Germany, which exports almost 50 percent, or China's exports in excess of 20 percent of GDP.

Capital may have no country, as Marx argued, but the lower classes not only have countries but cling to them. Economic issues and cultural issues merge, fear of the outsider rises, and the result is political pressure from the Right. This is not confined only to the failing countries. It is there in northern European countries as well, even Germany. Or the United States.

Despite extensive travel, we no longer have plagues and epidemics.

At the beginning of the twentieth century, the world's democracies numbered fewer than a dozen. Since this imperfect United States of America became the recognized leader of the world, 80 percent of the countries on Planet Earth are either democracies or proto-democracies.

It was a low point in history – but it was the end of nationalism. Earth was too small for nations and they began grouping themselves into Regions. It took quite a while. When I was born the United States of America was still a nation and not merely a part of the Northern Region. In fact, the name of the corporation is still "United States Robots—". And the change from nations to Regions, which has stabilized our economy and brought about what amounts to a Golden Age

La humanidad debe vivir en un mundo unido, donde se mezclen las razas, lenguas, costumbres y sueños de todos los hombres. El nacionalismo repugna a la razón. En nada beneficia a los pueblos. Sólo sirve para que en su nombre se cometan los peores abusos.

Gringos invented two terms that are untranslatable into most languages: "snack" and "quickie," to refer to eating standing up and loving on the run . . . that, too, sometimes standing up.

We are a small, open economy, highly dependent on global flows. It is inevitably a demand that dramatically alters and that is reflected in what we feel here in New Zealand. So there is at its most basic level a limit to what we can do and that is true everywhere.

I think it would be impossible not to be an Internet kid, coming from New Zealand, because culturally it's a little barren.

'Commonwealth' is not a word I ever used growing up in Colombo. There, in the late 1950s, it would have meant little more than New Zealand lamb and Anchor butter at the cold stores.

New Zealand obviously is fully integrated into the global economy.

The prestige of the international financial institutions rates less than zero.

A lot of people, including business leaders, think the future belongs to China. Globalization is not a zero-sum game, but we need to hone our skills to stay in play.

In a world where global politics is no longer a zero-sum game, it is - or should be - counterintuitive to pursue one's interests without considering the interests of others.

President Trump sees the world in transactional and zero-sum terms - if something is good for China, it must be bad for the U.S. By contrast, economists see the world in much more nuanced ways: if globalization is well-managed, it can be a positive-sum game, where both the U.S. and China gain; if it is badly managed, it can be negative-sum.

Trump sees the world in terms of a zero-sum game. In reality, globalisation, if well managed, is a positive-sum force: America gains if its friends and allies - whether Australia, the E.U., or Mexico - are stronger. But Trump's approach threatens to turn it into a negative-sum game: America will lose, too.

Much of our national debate proceeds as if China and America were locked in a zero-sum game in which one's loss is precisely the other's gain.

It doesn't matter to me who's the most powerful or profitable country in the world. All countries want to be prosperous. What's happening is a zero-sum game between China and the U.S., where their gain is our loss.

When I was growing up, I had three channels, and I didn't know what happened in the Philippines instantly if it happened. Now you can be on the Internet and find out what's going on in Zimbabwe. It's changed.