income inequality on the other hand sure does. There need to be a limit on how big that disparity can get

No one and I mean NO ONE needs millions upon millions of dollars. Billions should be out of the question.

IMHO


For every billionaire there are tens of thousands without enough to eat, a safe home to live in or security going into their years of old age. Unable to do much more than exist

We have lost millions of jobs. We can't just end it...but we sure could make it work better for the American people and not the few the rich the no reason be proud.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2016/06/29/bernie_sanders_take_on_globalization_is_simple_ideologically_comforting.html

The Brexit referendum has given Bernie Sanders an opportunity to say, ”I told you so.” In Wednesday morning's New York Times, the still-technically-a-presidential candidate argues, as many have, that Brits voted to leave the EU as an angry rebuke to elites over growing economic inequality brought on by globalization—the same issues that he's made the focus of his White House campaign. The man makes some fine points. But then, about midway through, there's this:

Let’s be clear. The global economy is not working for the majority of people in our country and the world. This is an economic model developed by the economic elite to benefit the economic elite. We need real change.

This is Bernie Sanders', and much of the left's, elevator pitch on globalization. It's a simple, ideologically comforting take—black hats vs. white hats, Wall Street financiers vs. hard-working factory employees. But it just doesn't track with reality. The fact is, most of the world has seen its standard of living improve quite a bit in the era of free trade. And while you can argue about whether or not that means the global economy is “working,” or working optimally, it is absolutely impossible to have a meaningful discussion about how the world has changed in the past 30 or so years without acknowledging and weighing that progress.



As has been written over and over, those “losers” are now “rebelling” or “revolting” or staging a mutiny by doing things like voting for things like Donald Trump and Brexit. Those are the people Sanders is focused on. But talking about them, without acknowledging the winners—the entire global middle class, and much of its poor—is simply dishonest.

old-fashioned trade between nations so it works well for as many as possible to an evil "one-world-order" conspiracy depending on who's using the word and, usually, what direction the user is trying to fool people into going. This is to the point that most discussion using that word alone is almost always extremely silly and extremely ignorant.

My first thought on this survey was how the question was phrased, but the 2:1 response suggested an attempt was made to use a meanstream meaning.

Corporate/conservative globalization is nothing like what FDR envisioned. Corporate/conservative nationalism is what the right pursued prior to FDR and is doing now.

Globalization is not the problem. Corporate/conservative power is.

There will be a real revolution, not faux T party nonsense, if the issue is not addressed squarely.

It could easily be made worse by the soon-to-come AI tsunami but that could just as easily make things more equal and beneficial.

Globalization, on the other hand, enhances peace and provides wonderful technology we love. The iPhone factory worker in China does not want to fight a war with the USA that buys the phones. She/he wants to go home, help their children with homework and have some beer and noodles. Pretty much the same as the US worker of any kind.

Unemployed and underemployed and exploited people see little left to lose if inequality is too great and become more open to wars.

You just did.

Peace

But carried out in a supply-side, anti-labor economic environment, the negatives have really weighed that down. People can't eat iPhones, nevermind afford them anymore.

Globalization absent policy that protects the economic well-being of America's working class will only continue to fuel income inequality.

Ironically, income inequality is relatively acceptable when the working class is taken care of. Will we be smart enough to get there?

It is still dangerous to underestimate the anti-globalization, anti-trade and anti-immigrant sentiment that fueled both Trump and Bernie's campaigns. Indeed, the temptation to scapegoat the other by attacking trade and immigrants can be felt on the left, as well as the right.

http://time.com/4299604/globalization-free-trade-trans-pacific-partnership/

The trend towards greater globalization has benefited the world economy, lifting hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. But there have been drawbacks as well—especially for blue-collar Americans who have seen manufacturing jobs lost to developing economies. That has fueled a populist backlash against globalization and new free trade deals like the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and has supported the presidential candidacies of outsiders like Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders. As TIME foreign affairs columnist Ian Bremmer explains in this video, both the benefits and the cost of globalization must be better shared in the U.S.—or the trend toward greater free trade could be reversed, which would cost everyone.

When you are getting kudos from the likes of Steve King and Lou Dobbs on immigration, then you have to ask why.

http://time.com/4170591/bernie-sanders-immigration-conservatives/

When it comes to immigration reform, Bernie Sanders has checked all the boxes for a Democratic presidential candidate. The Vermont Senator supports a path to citizenship. He would protect the vast majority of undocumented immigrants from deportation. He’d abolish most detention centers and allow the undocumented to buy health insurance through the Affordable Care Act.

Nevertheless, the liberal senator has drawn approval from some unlikely quarters.

* * *
Rep. Steve King of Iowa, the adamantly pro-life co-chair of Sen. Ted Cruz’s presidential campaign who has dismissed global warming as a hoax and repeatedly supported shutting down the federal government, praised Sanders’ immigration stance several times in August.

“I admire Bernie’s passion and I notice that his immigration position is closer to mine than it is some of the presidential candidates on the Republican side,” King said in an interview with an Iowa radio station over this past summer. “He’s said ‘Let’s take care of American workers.’ I’m all for that."

To be sure, Sanders differs from conservative boosters like Beck and King on most counts. Sanders has long supported a path to citizenship and called for better treatment of undocumented immigrants. (NumbersUSA has given Sanders an "F-" grade on immigration policy.)

Besides, this is not what we are talking about. You stated that "anti-immigrant sentiment fueled Bernie's campaign", which anyone paying attention would know to be categorically false. I don't think that Bernie is perfect on this issue (neither was Hillary, by the way), but to say that those of us who supported his presidential campaign did so because of anti-immigrant xenophobia rather than out of a commitment to both social AND economic justice is complete nonsense. And I am sure you know this.

Bernie pushes similar talking points to Trump, but from a progressive perspective. In the end, both are acting like outsiders scapegoating trade and immigrants. But do you see Trump and Bernie talking about trade with Canada or Europe who are out biggest trading partners? No. Instead, they both direct most of their vitriol toward China and Mexico.

I certainly like Bernie's viewpoints on single payer, but a lot of his rhetoric sounds like leftist version of Trump: Anti-Trade, Anti-Immigrant, Anti-Establishment, and Pro-Russia. For example, here is Bernie talking with Lou Dobbs echoing Jeff Session's attacks on work permit programs:

https://www.vox.com/2016/2/12/10981234/bernie-sanders-lou-dobbs

DOBBS: The future of the so-called grand amnesty compromise is highly uncertain tonight. Many senators opposing that legislation. The only independent senator in the Senate is Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont. And he joins me now. Senator, good to have you with us.

SANDERS: Good to be with you, Lou.

* * *

SANDERS: You've got it. And that's exactly the situation and of course there is concern on at least some of our parts. The reality is that I think a growing number of Americans understand that what happens in Congress is to a very significant degree dictated by big money interests.

And these guys are basing their - their whole ideology is based on greed. They're selling out American workers and in fact they're selling out our entire country and that is a major struggle that we have got to engage in to take back our country from these very powerful and wealthy special interests.

DOBBS: These special interests, and you and I have talked about this. It is now so blatant, so overt, that only those who would refuse to see could deny that both the Democratic and Republican parties are owned lock, stock and barrel by corporate America and special interests including in the amnesty legislation, socioethnic- centric interest groups who really have very little regard for the traditions of this country, the values of this country or the constituents.

It is seemingly impossible to awaken our elected officials in Washington to their moral responsibility. There are wonderful people — including yourself — I don't mean to suggest that everyone is in this situation, only the majority, unfortunately in the Senate and the House. Is there any hope that we can change that?

SANDERS: Of course there is hope that we can change that. And I think there are a growing number of Americans who understand that there's something wrong when the middle class in this country continues to shrink despite a huge increase in worker productivity, poverty continues to increase. Since Bush has been president, 5 million more Americans have slipped into poverty. Six million Americans more have lost their health insurance and the gap between the rich and everybody else is growing wider.

So when President Bush tells you how great the economy is doing, what he is really saying is that the CEOs of large multinationals are doing very, very well. He's kind of ignoring the economic reality of everybody else and that gets us to the immigration issue.

If poverty is increasing and if wages are going down, I don't know why we need millions of people to be coming into this country as guest workers who will work for lower wages than American workers and drive wages down even lower than they are now.

DOBBS: And as we know, the principal industries which hire the bulk of illegal aliens, that is construction, landscaping ...

SANDERS: Lou, I just heard something.

DOBBS: Those are all industries in which wages are declining. I don't hear that discussed on the Senate floor by the proponents of this amnesty legislation.

SANDERS: That's right. They have no good response. I read something today that a lot of people coming into this country are coming in as lifeguards. I guess we can't find - that's right. We can't American workers to work as lifeguards. And the H1B program has teachers, elementary school teachers. Well, you know.

DOBBS: And that H1B program, we got to watch Senator Ted Kennedy watch there with the sole witness being one Bill Gates, the world's richest man, telling him he wanted unlimited H1B visas, obviously uninformed to the fact that seven out of 10 visas under the H1B program goes to Indian corporations that are outsourcing those positions to American corporations in this country and that four out of five of those jobs that are supposed to be high-skilled jobs are actually category one jobs which is low skill.

SANDERS: Well, you raise a good point, in that this whole immigration guest worker program is the other side of the trade issue. On one hand you have large multinationals trying to shut down plants in the America, move to China and on the other hand you have the service industry bringing in low wage workers from abroad. The result is the same — middle class gets shrunken and wages go down.

DOBBS: Senator Bernie Sanders, we thank you for being with us, as always.

SANDERS: My pleasure.

I am all for trade. Everyone is. Agreements should be structured in such a way that intends to protect the environment, increase the welfare of workers everywhere, and prevent the abuse and exploitation of workers in countries that do not protect workers' rights, not just to increase profits for corporations. To dismiss working people's legitimate fear that they may have their livelihoods disrupted and their jobs shipped over to low-wage countries as being the product of xenophobia or anti-globalism smacks of elitism.

But, again, this is beside the point. You stated that "anti-immigrant sentiment fueled Bernie's campaign." That is nonsense, and you know it.

Jeff Sessions attacked the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals exec order, arguing that immigrants robbed jobs “from hundreds of thousands of Americans.”

Put another way, if your explanation is correct, then how is Bernie Sander's anti-immigration rhetoric different than Trump's save for the express racism? Both of them claim that their scapegoating of immigrants is due to concern for the working class.

Also, in the U.S. due to lower birth rates, we need immigrants to keep the economy going and pay for benefits. Otherwise, the U.S.'s population would age, which would endanger programs like social security that depend on a flow of younger workers.

These attacks on immigrants are not based on facts. They are based on racism regardless of whether they are made by folks on the so-called left.

Remember, even FDR approved placing Japanese Americans in internment camps for no reason other than their race and heritage.

I was talking about trade.

To compare Bernie's stance on guest workers to Jeff Sessions ridiculous stance on immigration is completely absurd. You know that.

Who here is arguing against immigration? Why the constant deflections from my criticism of your original statement that "anti-immigrant sentiment fueled Bernie's campaign"? Why not just admit that it's another ridiculous, inflammatory statement that you threw out there because you know that there are no consequences for bullies on this site, so long as they aim their wrath at "Bernie-bros?"

Bernie is not perfect on immigration. Never said he was. Neither was Hillary, who supported the border wall once upon a time, by the way.

They have been "globalized" since the age of Exploration.

The result was slavery, genocide, and enduring poverty.

Economic nationalism? I hear a lot of people talk about opposing 'globalism' but not much clarity on what that means.

...racists and antisemites, who see evil "Joos" as the puppeteers surreptitiously pulling the strings of global power to promote "white genocide", and the like. Then there's the hopelessly naive who still believe it's possible to go back to a "simpler time". These people never seem to explain, of course, where or when that simpler time allegedly existed. Was it The Black Death? The Holocaust? The Civil War? The Neolithic? When?

I dunno. In reality, there's good and bad that accompanies globalization, the full scope of which isn't really clear yet as it is still an ongoing (and gradual) process.