Thursday, February 23, 2006
Selling Our Souls
I learned recently a saying in Portuguese that says "um pau de dois bicos." This means a stick with two beaks or a forked stick. They like to use it to refer to things that require a downside to receive a benefit. That is my sentiment exactly on several trends that are happening right now. I love the fact that I can write this stuff on the internet, and easily share with friends around the world through the internet. I love how travel is getting easier (as long as one does not wear a turban, a burka, or look like a little old granny,sorry for the last bit of sarcasm). However, these things are coming at a significant cost. Since more and more of life is electronic, more and more of life is being recorded and sold to all kinds of people from advertising agencies to government agencies. With more global freedom comes less local control. South America is moving, like Europe toward a unified block. The fight is over external relations (mostly with the USA). Just like the tenth amendment has been basically nullified in the US constitution, this unification "just on economic means" always results in much more.
Add to that the trend of China, still playing games diplomatically here in Europe, and you get a muddled world of commerce. One good example is this. Portugal is trying to privatize many of their traditionally government owned sectors of the economy. They are debating waterworks, but they have already moved forward on healthcare, transportations, banking, and telecommunications. This last one has been the classic example of what can go wrong in globalization. As the government sought to privatize, a company owned by the Spanish government tried to buy out the company. At this point I ask which is worse, commerce owned by a local government or by a private government. Add to that that the Chinese government has begun to expand its holdings in corporations around the world, and that several of the Middle Eastern royal companies (that means government by kings, who own the companies) are doing the same, and we have a situation. Needless to say, I am skeptical of the whole port fiasco on the part of Bush.
But what do we see in the end? Commercial interests (from both private and public coffers) playing games with globalizing and trying to wield power across borders. That is where the real evil comes in. They want to build an environment in which they can control how we the people interact with them and with each other. Inherent in the "war on terror" is a cold war of competing global economic interests that seek to subvert one cause and advance another on an economic basis. I hate to sound like one of those evil premillennial dispensationalists (tongue in cheek) but is there not something in the Bible about commercial interests driving an increasing global economy, which results in a global government? I am not saying that this is it. I am just saying that the trends sure are in an affirmative direction. In the end, I am afraid that the rush for globalization is going to bring more harm than good, and that we may well lose more than we gain by pushing for that ideal.
Add to that the trend of China, still playing games diplomatically here in Europe, and you get a muddled world of commerce. One good example is this. Portugal is trying to privatize many of their traditionally government owned sectors of the economy. They are debating waterworks, but they have already moved forward on healthcare, transportations, banking, and telecommunications. This last one has been the classic example of what can go wrong in globalization. As the government sought to privatize, a company owned by the Spanish government tried to buy out the company. At this point I ask which is worse, commerce owned by a local government or by a private government. Add to that that the Chinese government has begun to expand its holdings in corporations around the world, and that several of the Middle Eastern royal companies (that means government by kings, who own the companies) are doing the same, and we have a situation. Needless to say, I am skeptical of the whole port fiasco on the part of Bush.
But what do we see in the end? Commercial interests (from both private and public coffers) playing games with globalizing and trying to wield power across borders. That is where the real evil comes in. They want to build an environment in which they can control how we the people interact with them and with each other. Inherent in the "war on terror" is a cold war of competing global economic interests that seek to subvert one cause and advance another on an economic basis. I hate to sound like one of those evil premillennial dispensationalists (tongue in cheek) but is there not something in the Bible about commercial interests driving an increasing global economy, which results in a global government? I am not saying that this is it. I am just saying that the trends sure are in an affirmative direction. In the end, I am afraid that the rush for globalization is going to bring more harm than good, and that we may well lose more than we gain by pushing for that ideal.
