Antiglobalization

"Economic golbalization may have brought people together as never before, but it also divided them sharply" (p.730).

So while it would seem, judging by the tone of my posts, that I'd be a proponent of antiglobalization, I am not, necessarily. Though it seems to have garnered a fair amount of support, I am not so much for calling to an end to globalization, as it has its advantages, so much as I am for calling for a state that is more inclusive. The ratio between incomes of rich and poor, largely due to globalization, rose from 3:1 in 1820, to 86:1 in 1991. Now that's unfair. And that was some 19 years ago. I'm sure it hasn't gotten much better, if it has all. This is the type of priming that heralds change.

My thought on the widening gap between rich and poor is that if it continues, there are going to be serious consequences, in the form of rebellions, revolutions, and so on. I think it the more obvious and cooperative aim to seek to include those who may not have been opportuned the same life chances. And yes, I just made that word up.

Now the question seems to be, can globalization, which is seen by many as putting corporate interests before the welfare of people be tweaked so as to make for a more even distribution of wealth-one where human capital, land, and natural resources aren't exploited for the benefit of a minority?