[av_one_full first min_height=” vertical_alignment=” space=” custom_margin=” margin=’0px’ padding=’0px’ border=” border_color=” radius=’0px’ background_color=” src=” background_position=’top left’ background_repeat=’no-repeat’ animation=”]
[av_heading heading=’ VIEWPOINTS | Globalization’ tag=’h3′ style=’blockquote modern-quote’ size=” subheading_active=’subheading_below’ subheading_size=’15’ padding=’10’ color=” custom_font=”]
BY OSCAR CRUZ
[/av_heading]
[av_textblock size=” font_color=’custom’ color=”]
Sunday, April 9, 2017
[/av_textblock]
[av_textblock size=” font_color=” color=”]
OUR USUALLY qualified “Modern Era” is primarily marked and qualified by the complex phenomenon of economic and financial “Globalization” which in substance has reference to the process that progressively integrates national economies in the realm of the world exchange of goods and services and of financial transactions – among other things such as the dilution of culture and tradition, inclusive of the building or erosion of given ways of living and the national value systems that go therewith.
It all started with families exchanging goods and services among themselves. Thereafter, such exchanges gradually became a community concern, a provincial program and thereafter a national agenda. Thus it was until the substance of the said exchange of workers and products ultimately went worldwide.
Such is “Globalization” in substance and implications plus complications – with the following liabilities which beg for correction if not simply moderation – without denying the given and acknowledged benefits of a global interactive economy such as the socio-economic development of countries governed by knowledgeable and prudent public government officials specially so in the national level. Among other truths and realities, the following key errant global thoughts and perspectives come to mind.
(a) The priority of capital investments, efficient production, sales and profits over all other considerations such as the rights of labor, the welfare of their families, the good of their communities. All hereto contrary stance is definitely pro-man just as it is certainly pro-human rights and welfare.
(b) The superiority of the material and the temporal over human, ethical, and moral considerations. This perspective undermines human nature, human dignity and destiny. Subjecting the human to the but material and temporal can be anything but objective truth and reality.
(c) The supremacy of governments over people who are then made subordinate to market play and demands. This mentality is dehumanizing such as the material is valued over the human, making man but a cog in the realm of production, an instrument in the domain of industry.
So it is that globalization is synonymous with the emergence of the international market – business and commerce without territorial boundaries. When such an internationalization is brought to operational reality by capitalists/financiers and managers/administrators imbued with humane intentions and consequent beneficial human effects – for producing the best products and/or providing the best services to humanity at reasonable costs – then global economy becomes a blessing to humanity.
So is it that when imbued with the proper intentions plus the right value system, “Globalization” is an affirmation of economy and a blessing to humanity. These are certainly not the times for politicians imbued with but egoistic perspectives, with simply provincial outlook./PN
[/av_textblock]
[/av_one_full]
