America is not the land of the free but one of monopolies so predatory they imperil the nation...

Click HERE to read the article from The Guardian!

Revealed: Disney's £35 Ariel doll earns a Chinese worker 1p

Click HERE to read the article from The Guardian

Who are "les Anglo-Saxons"?

Sutton Hoo helmet

> Click HERE to read an article from AEON!
> Click HERE for the translation!

Americans: how we see ourselves and how the world sees us...

Cartoon candidate Donald Trump in "Doonesbury"

Click HERE to view the article in The Washington Post!
Click HERE to watch a video interview of the journalist!
Click HERE for a version in French of the article!

French "rockeur" legend Johnny Hallyday dies...

Fats Domino, Johnny Halliday, Ray Sugar Robinson (1962)

Click HERE to read an article from The Guardian!

Questions on the article from The Guardian:

1. What is “the tragedy of Johnny Hallyday”?
2. Why should he “have sung Piaf, not Presley”?
3. What does “purveyor of pastiche” mean?
4. Why was he “mercilessly teased by French satirists and despised by the many tribes of French intellectuals, both of the right and the left”?
5. Are there aspects of American culture that French intellectuals do admire (why)?
6. Do you agree he was “one of the most remarkable of all rock stars”?
7. In what way is he “a symbol of French cultural resistance”?
8. Do you, like De Gaulle, condemn him as a fifth columnist for “American cultural imperialism”?
9. Do you agree “France is a grown-up country that does not have to rely on US missiles or US pop stars”?
10. Why is France so afraid of cultural colonisation by the US do you think?

Costco comes to France...

 

A) Read the article: An American Mastodon in Paris (The Atlantic) (note that there is a translation of the article in the "comments" section of this blog post!)

B) Answer the following questions on the article from The Atlantic:

1. Why do the French like Jerry Lewis, Burger King and "anything très Brooklyn" do you think?
2. Why do the French like less Uber, Netflix and Skippy peanut butter do you think?
3. Was Le Parisien pleased Costco opened its first warehouse in France recently?
4. Do you think Doug Stephens is right?
5. How different from a North American Costco is the one in Paris?
6. What kind of people shop at the Paris Costco?
7. In what ways is French life "segregated"?
8. Why is the Paris Costco so popular do you think?
9. Would you shop at the French Costco (why/not)?
10. Will Costco open more warehouse stores in France do you think (why/not)?

C) Carry out research on The Atlantic magazine (history, types of readers, influence, political bias, etc.).

D) Carry out research on Costco (YOU MUST TAKE NOTES!)

You need to find out:

• who the people concerned by Costco's expansion are;
• what "flows" of goods and finance are involved;
• what types of networks are needed;
• what issues are raised (such as the possible impact on French consumer habits.

E) List the reasons for and against the following proposal in preparation for a debate in class (be sure to use Costco as an example!):

"The French state should limit the number of foreign retail stores in France."

The USA and the world, now and tomorrow...

To watch the TED talk by Ian Bremmer "How the US should use its superpower status...", click HERE!

Ian Bremmer, global research professor at New York University, teaches classes in the field of political risk. "G-Zero" (i.e. no G20 or G7) is a term used by Bremmer, and widely accepted by policymakers, for a global power vacuum in which no country is willing and able to set the international agenda...

Summary of the TED talk by Ian Bremmer:

Is the USA, “large and in charge”, still in fact the world’s “n°1”? We are increasingly in a “driverless world” (i.e. the USA no longer “drives” the world). Americanization and globalization were, up to now, the same thing (WTO, IMF, World Bank, Bretton Woods Accord, etc., were “American” institutions).

US view: President Obama (USA) in charge of the world. The reality: US now has little impact on G20; Putin, Xi Jinping, Angela Merkel, etc. are now “calling the shots”. The problem is it's a G-Zero world that we now live in, i.e. a world order where there is no single country or alliance that can meet the challenges of global leadership.

Globalization is continuing. Goods and services and people and capital are moving across borders faster and faster than ever before, but Americanisation is not.

What are the implications of the end of Americanisation for the whole world, and what do we think about it in the United States?

Why are we in this situation? It’s because:

> the USA spent two trillion dollars on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that failed and we don't want to get involved in (expensive) wars anymore;

> large numbers of middle and working class Americans feel they've not benefited from globalization, so they are rejecting it;

> we don't need OPEC or the Middle East because we now produce most of our oil in the United States.

Americans don't want to be the global sheriff for security or the architect of global trade any more. They don't even want to be the cheerleader of global values.

Europe:  transatlantic relationship is now weaker than it has ever been (crises: Brexit, French vs Russians, Germans vs Turks, Brits vs Chinese, etc.).

China: wants leadership only in economic sphere, hence competition with US.

Russia: wants more leadership (cf. Ukraine, Baltic States, Middle East), hence competition with USA.

Middle East: now very unstable because US and allies no longer provide military security, oil revenue has gone down, and populations are rebelling against corrupt despots (hence failed states, terrorism, refugees, etc.). Will entire Middle East fall apart? No, Kurds, Iraq, Israel, Iran will do well.

Russia: antagonized by US and Europe expanding NATO right up to its borders; also threat from China which is going to dominate (economically) every country around Russia.

Asia: political stability in most important economies (Modi in India, Abe in Japan, Xi Jinping in China). Problems: South China Sea, Kim Jong Un. But most leaders want to avoid xenophobia and escalation of geopolitical and cross-border tensions because they want long-term economic stability and growth.

Europe: suffering from refugee crisis (> Brexit, populism across all of European states). In G-Zero world, Europe will get smaller (because Eastern Europe and Turkey are too different from “core Europe” and NATO will be weaker without US dominance). Germany and France and others will still function, but peripheral countries (Greece, Turkey, others) will not.

Latin America: populism and opposition to USA > economic downturn. Hope for Argentina, Cuba, Venezuela, Brazil? Not for Mexico (cf. Trump)…

Africa: in G-Zero world  > extreme segregation between winners and losers across Africa: the few countries that are well-governed, urbanized, with entrepreneurship and women in workforce vs other countries (with extreme climate, radicalism, poor governance, border wars, forced migration, etc.).

United States: elections have highlighted loathing of Washington (the “establishment”), the media and globalization. Americans now have to compete with the rest of the world (it can easily). Protectionism and isolationism are not good options. NAFTA is a good thing for USA. Terrorism and refugees are not as big a problem for USA as for Europe or Middle East.

USA no longer wants to be global cop, architect of global trade, cheerleader of global values. But, in G-Zero world, USA should lead by example. Clinton wants to go back to the '90s (i.e. US dominating the world), Trump back to the '30s (i.e. US rejecting the world). But, in G-Zero world, though the US will not be in economic decline, America will no longer be able or willing to control the world.

Are we prepared to be a model country, one which the world will emulate? We need to change first! Another crisis (global financial crisis or economic depression or terrorist attack) could force us to change... We, individually, need to force our leaders to deal with the inequality in our country; this is urgent.

(Click HERE to watch a September 2018 interview of Prof. Bremmer!)

How to boost employment, productivity and growth, and make globalization enter a new era...

Click HERE!

Summary of the TED talk by Olivier Scalabre:

Our global economy has stopped growing. This creates tensions (more people, less to go around).

Manufacturing revolutions (mid-19^th century steam engine, beginning 20th century mass-production model, 1970s first automation wave) lead to big growth thanks to improved productivity (i.e. the efficiency of a person, machine, factory, system, etc., in converting inputs into useful outputs).

Offshoring factories has not worked because cheap labor didn't stay cheap for long.

We've made our factories larger, making a lot of one product, stockpiling it to be sold on demand. This helped productivity for a while, but it introduced a lot of rigidities in our supply chain. 

Innovation in the tech sector hasn't done much for productivity either.

A fourth manufacturing revolution is underway: major technologies are entering the manufacturing space; it will boost industrial productivity by more than a third and create growth. It will change globalization.

By 2025, advanced manufacturing robots, programmed to perform complex, non-repetitive tasks, will result, compared to today, in an increase in productivity, output and growth of 20%.  Plastic and metal manufacturing (25% of global manufacturing production) is being improved by 3D printing (e.g. aerospace companies are now using 3D printing, resulting in 40% more productivity, output and growth).

Imagine a world where you can buy the exact products you want with the functionalities you need, with the design you want, with the same cost and lead time as a product that's been mass produced, like your car, or your clothes or your cell phone. The new manufacturing revolution makes it possible.

Not only will manufacturing become more productive, it will also become more flexible. Our factories will be smaller, operating on a multi-product, made-to-order basis. It will create a macroeconomic shift: our factories will be relocated into our home markets. In the world of scale customization, consumer proximity is the new norm.

Globalization will enter a new era. The East-to-West trade flows will be replaced by regional trade flows: East for East, West for West. The old model was insane: piling up stocks, making products travel the whole world to reach consumers.

The new model, producing just next to the consumer market, will be much better for our environment.

In mature economies, manufacturing will be back home, creating more employment, more productivity and more growth.

We'll have to massively re-train our workforce. We need to teach manufacturing again at university. Only the countries that will boldly transform will be able to seize this growth.

China and other emerging economies won't be the factory of the world anymore. It was not a sustainable model; it is already as expensive to produce in Brazil as to produce in France. By 2018, manufacturing costs in China will be on par with the US. The new manufacturing revolution will accelerate the transition of those emerging economies towards a model driven by domestic consumption, creating growth there.

The fourth manufacturing revolution means more wealth distributed to all of us and a better future for our children.

For further reading, click on the "comments" below!

Obama explains his foreign policy...

Click HERE!

Brexit... Will the UK choose "the open sea"?

Article from theguardian: click HERE!
What would happen if UK left the EU?
Do we need a new vision of Europe?

Also from theguardian:

If a referendum were held on the UK’s membership of the EU with the options being to remain a member or withdraw, how do you think you would vote?

Would definitely vote to leave the EU = 28%

Would probably vote to leave the EU = 18%

Would probably vote to remain in the EU = 20%

Would definitely vote to remain in the EU = 18%

Don’t know = 17%

To what extent do you consider yourself to be European?

It is a large part of who I am = 13%

It is a small part of who I am = 26%

It doesn’t really describe who I am = 27%

It does not describe who I am at all = 34%

Do you speak any European languages fluently (other than the one/s you class as your mother-tongue)?

Yes 19%

No 81%

76% of Britons believe there should be a referendum on whether the UK remains a member of the EU (47% “definitely”, 29% “probably”). There are predictable splits along party lines; 84% of Ukip supporters say there should “definitely” be a referendum while 11% believe there should “probably” be one. The motivations of the remaining 5% are unclear. Age also has an influence on outlook; only 11% of 18-24s believe there should “definitely” be a referendum, compared with 55% of those aged 55+.

As things stand, Britain would vote to leave the EU if a referendum were held; 46% would either “definitely” (28%) or “probably” (18%) vote to leave, while 38% would “definitely” (20%) or “probably” (18%) vote to remain. Again, there is a clear division on the basis of age; 68% of 18-24s would vote to stay in the EU, while only 9% would vote to leave. Among those aged 55+ the pattern is reversed and 57% would vote to leave while 35% would vote to stay. Londoners are the least likely to vote to leave the EU (36%), while those in the north-east would be the most likely to vote to leave (60%).

Given this hostility to the EU, it is unsurprising that only a minority of Britons think of themselves as European; 13% say it is “a large part of who I am”, while a further 26% say it is “a small part of who I am”. The term “European” is not important to the self-identity of 61% of Britons.

The lack of association with all things European is reflected by the large proportion of Britons (81%) who do not speak another European language fluently. The 19% who do speak another European language are significantly more likely than the average to say that being European is a “large part” of their identity (39% versus 13%) and much more likely to vote to remain part of the EU in any future referendum (49% versus 38%).

What role did Winston Churchill play in European post-war integration?

Document 1: 1948 cartoon by Illingworth

Document 2: extracts from the speech Churchill gave in Zurich on the 19^th September 1946

“If Europe were once united in the sharing of its common inheritance, there would be no limit to the happiness, to the prosperity and glory which its three or four hundred million people would enjoy. Yet it is from Europe that have sprung that series of frightful nationalistic quarrels, originated by the Teutonic nations, which we have seen even in this twentieth century and in our own lifetime, wreck the peace and mar the prospects of all mankind.[…]

There is a remedy which, if it were generally and spontaneously adopted, would as if by a miracle transform the whole scene [...] It is to re-create the European Family, or as much of it as we can, and provide it with a structure under which it can dwell in peace, in safety and in freedom.[…]

We must re-create the European family in a regional structure called, it may be, the United States of Europe. […]

The salvation of the common people of every race and of every land from war or servitude must be established on solid foundations and must be guarded by the readiness of all men and women to die rather than submit to tyranny.

In all this urgent work, France and Germany must take the lead together.

Great Britain, the British Commonwealth of Nations, mighty America, and I trust Soviet Russia - for then indeed all would be well - must be the friends and sponsors of the new Europe and must champion its right to live and shine."

The web spreads ideas, good and bad, across the globe...

Why do transnational extremist organizations succeed where democratic movements have a harder time taking hold?

Click HERE to watch a TED talk!

In a globalized world, where is "home"?

Click HERE to watch the TED talk!

Extracts of the talk by Pico lyer:

“… The number of people living in countries not their own now comes to 220 million (…)  And the number of us who live outside the old nation-state categories is increasing so quickly, by 64 million just in the last 12 years, that soon there will be more of us than there are Americans. Already, we represent the fifth-largest “nation” on Earth. (…) in Canada's largest city, Toronto, the average resident today is what used to be called a foreigner, somebody born in a very different country (…) Many of the people living in countries not their own are refugees who never wanted to leave home and ache to go back home. But for the fortunate among us, I think the age of movement brings exhilarating new possibilities (…) And home, we know, is not just the place where you happen to be born. It's the place where you become yourself.”

A European army?

Click HERE to read the article from theguardian!

1951: an army for six countries?

News video (January 2014) on the Common Defence Policy

Globalization: good or bad for our future?

Click HERE to watch the TED-Ed talk!

Some USA and UK newspapers and news magazines...

US :

• The Wall Street Journal
• Washington Post
• The New York Times
• TIME
• The New Yorker
• Foreign Affairs

UK :

• The Guardian
• The Times
• The Telegraph
• The Independent
• Daily Mail
• The Economist

Describe and comment this 2005 editorial cartoon by Jeff Danziger entitled "The world according to Nike"

Inequalities caused by globalization : the forgotten countries

Baku

The recent colour photo above illustrates in a stricking manner the social and spatial disparities within Baku: the ultra-modern high-rise buildings (flats and offices) of the wealthy dominate the dilapidated low-rise inhabitations and workshops of the poor. The document shows that there is wealth in this city (thanks to globalization) but that it is unevenly shared. Globalization has made the disparities that already existed in Azerbaidjan worse. Perhaps, over the long-term, globalization will raise everyone's standard of living to a decent level?

Cf. pages 78 and 79 (Lesson 4) of your textbook.

“Heterogeneity in the South” (cf. "A. Heterogeneity in the South" on page 78) means that many of the regions that make up the “South” (i.e. the LEDCs which are found mostly in the southern hemisphere) have not benefited equally from globalization: there are disparities of income within and between regions.

The impact of globalization on poorer countries can be seen as positive: it has brought them greater wealth.

The impact can also be seen as negative: it has only brought wealth to a small percentage of these countries’ populations, creating or exacerbating social and spatial inequalities (within the growing urban areas and between rural and urban areas).

Document 1 is a photo of Baku, capital of Azerbaidjan, in Central Asia. The urban landscape has been transformed by the impact of increased wealth. After the collapse of the Soviet Bloc in the early 1990s, Azerbaidjan started to profit from the international market for oil. The country's infrastructure started to be improved. However, poor housing still exists (note the slum-like dwellings) and not everyone has equal access to the city's amenities. This photo illustrates the fact that globalization results, at a local level, in increased wealth only for a privileged few (or the fact that “trickle-down” of wealth from the wealthy to the less wealthy is very slow…).

Document 2 is a World Bank graph showing gross capital formation (i.e. spending to improve a country’s infrastructure) in the South from 1980 to 2003. East Asia and Pacific countries show the greatest increase (especially since 2000) in investment. Investment in Latin America and the Caribbean increased slowly. Investment in South Asia was low in 1980 and only increased a little by 2003 (it has increased much more since). There has been virtually no investment in the countries of Sub-Saharan Africa. These figures are a good indication of a region’s integration into the globalized economy. We can say that South Asia has, up to recently, been excluded from the globalization process, and Sub-Saharan Africa continues to be excluded (it has been “forgotten” according to the lesson title). LEDCs have little money to invest in improving their facilities (e.g. factories) and transport networks (e.g. roads) and this results in an inability to exploit natural resources, transport and sell goods abroad.

TNCs prefer to invest (FDI) in countries which are not too risky (i.e. that are politically stable, with an abundant and competent workforce, not subject to extreme weather conditions, etc.). For example, a company will probably choose to invest in India rather than Pakistan. The result is that some LEDCs develop faster than others, hence the heterogeneity of the South.

Map showing that the South is less well served by air routes than the North

Document 3 is a table that illustrates the unequal benefits to destination countries of international tourism. The flow of international tourism has virtually doubled since 1990. All regions of the world are now tourist destinations, but it is the areas that are safe, easy to get to, and with decent tourist facilities that are preferred (tourists prefer Europe to Africa for example). Globalization includes the movement of people (for work, tourism, emigration), but the statistics show that the flows of travellers are concentrated between wealthier parts of the world with efficient transport hubs; poorer countries are not primary destinations and therefore do not benefit from increased immigration or from tourist money as much as the wealthier countries, thus accentuating income differences between the countries of the world.

Documents 1, 2 and 3 show that globalization has succeeded in increasing wealth generally (especially for those countries that have something to sell abroad), increased investment by TNCs in foreign countries, encouraged increased investment in infrastructure, and increased population flows. However, disparities between the MEDCs and LEDCs, and between rich and poor areas within regions, notably in the South, still remain.

There is a North-South divide still in the world (“North” means “wealthy countries”, most of which are indeed in the northern hemisphere, and “South” means “poor countries”, mostly in the southern hemisphere). Is it possible to balance this divide and if so, how? After all, the globalized economy is controlled by the powerful economies of the world to their advantage…

Document 4 is a cartoon which illustrates the absurdity of “free trade” between the North and the South. The man on his pallet truck carrying big boxes overflowing with consumer goods (symbolizing the great wealth of rich countries) seems very satisfied, whilst the woman, carrying a cooking pot on her head filled with fruit and vegetables (symbolizing the subsistence economy of the poorest countries) is at a loss as to how to react; she does not have anything with which to “trade”… The cartoonist is condemning the so-called “free trade” of the globalized economy which favours rich countries and excludes the poorest countries. Free trade is not an economic system that benefits countries that have insufficient resources with which to compete on a worldwide market. The differences between North and South rests on economic strength (the MEDCs are able to produce and trade vast amounts of goods, unlike the LEDCS) and political power (international trade agreements rarely favour poorer countries and TNCs can exploit the resources of poorer countries mostly to their advantage, cf. as an example the practices of several TNCs in Africa).

Document 5, a 2003 article from The Guardian, demonstrates how the “rules” of the globalized economy are biased in favour of the wealthy and powerful countries. The farmer in Benin produces plentiful crops of good-quality cotton. The Texas farmer’s cotton crops are poor because there is not enough rainfall. However, this is not a problem for him because cotton production is subsidised by the US State (he is guaranteed an income even if he does not manage to produce any cotton). Surplus American cotton is sold on the world market more cheaply than the African cotton. The result is that the African cotton farmers are put out of business (they do not get any help from the State) and the economy stays poor.

The USA is a proponent of “free trade”, in other words it is supposed to be against protectionism. Direct government subsidies to farmers are, however, a protectionist policy; it would appear that the USA is not playing by its rules… The WTO is also supposed to favour free trade but is still very much controlled by the most powerful countries to their advantage; the poorer countries are not so much “forgotten” but excluded from the global marketplace. Anti-globalization activists point to these unfair practices as proof that globalization actually creates poverty…

Documents 4 and 5 tend to prove that the globalization process is biased in favour of the rich and powerful countries, with little hope of breaching the divide between the North and South because poor countries are too weak to compete and are even excluded.

Conclusion

Not all countries have so far benefitted equally from increased global GDP; some have been "forgotten" (left trailing) by globalization. The world is still divided because some countries have greater advantages than others: they have a fairer socioeconomic system, are more stable, are wealthier, are good places for foreign investors, are more attractive to tourists, have greater resources, are more powerful, and use protectionist methods to maintain their advantages on world markets. Wealthy and powerful regions become more powerful and wealthier thanks to a globalized economy because they exploit their advantages mostly for themselves. The poorer regions find it difficult to compete on a world scale. The North-South divide will not be closed easily or soon...

The new Asian powers in the globalization process

The above 2015 editorial cartoon by Rodriguo De Matos entitled "China is out front" can be seen as a satirical warning to the USA that China is becoming a threat to US economic (and geopolitical?) domination. China, symbolized as a dragon in the colours of the Chinese flag, has beaten Japan (shown as a sumo wrestler turned into a ridiculous roast chicken by the dragon) economically. The dragon is pointing towards a small, fat (i.e. morally compromised?) and scared-looking Uncle Sam (symbol of the USA). The dragon threatens Uncle Sam: "You are next!", meaning that China intends to surpass the USA as an economic superpower.

Cf. pages 76 and 77 of your DNL textbook (Lesson 3).

The new Asian powers are: India, China, and South-East Asian nations like Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, and the Philippines, plus China since the early 2000s. They are becoming more and more economically important and contribute largely to globalization. They are disrupting the balance of (economic) power (the dominance of the Triad is being undermined). Greater integration into a global economy, however, is not without consequences for these countries...

Documents 1 and 2 concern China and Singapore, two key players of the Asia Pacific region and of globalization.

Document 1 is an optimistic article from the New York Times which highlights the impact of the Chinese economy on that of the USA. The trade deficit of the USA (meaning the USA imports more than it exports) is greatly due to its import of cheap goods from Asia. The fact that China is now the dominant economic power of the region (even more than Japan) is, according to the journalist, actually beneficial to the US economy. Because China makes consumer products more cheaply than the USA, the USA actually makes savings by importing them from China (it would cost more to the USA if it made the goods itself). This makes China a privileged trade partner for the USA for goods such as shoes, toys, electronic and numerous other consumer goods. In fact, the USA trade deficit has actually gone down because it now trades with China rather than more expensive Asian countries (South Korea, Japan).

China’s economic growth since 1979 (and especially 2001 when it finally joined the WTO) has been staggering. It has become the “workshop of the world”, overtaking other Asian nations in the amount of goods produced and pushing prices down. This is good news for consumers but not for the less competitive nations.

The photo of Singapore harbour (document 2) shows one of the world’s biggest and most modern container port facilities. This harbour is a major global trade hub because it has been modernized and is strategically situated on major sea routes between Japan, China, South Korea and the Middle East, Europe and North America. The harbour facilities have made the city state very wealthy (9^th on the UN HDI 2013 list).

We see part of the modern harbour complex: it is clean, well-ordered and highly-mechanized. Freight is unloaded by giant cranes along the piers. The very numerous containers are stacked along the wharfs. In the middle-distance, close to the harbour, is the CBD (high-rise prestigious office blocks for the headquarters of merchant companies, banks, insurance companies, etc.).

The map (document 3) illustrates the fact that Asia has become the workshop of the globalized economy. It shows where the various activities of Seagate Technology, an American TNC, are situated. Though its Registered Office is actually in a fiscal paradise on the Cayman Islands (which allows it to pay less taxes), the headquarters of Seagate (where the company’s executives and research staff are) is in the TNC’s “home” country (USA). Most of the actual production of the hard drives it makes takes place “offshore” in Asian countries where labour is as qualified but cheaper than in the USA.

Document 4 is an extract from a 2006 The Guardian newspaper article. In it, the journalist explains that the spectacular economic growth in Asia has resulted, unexpectedly, in unemployment and inequality. This is because many (young) people leave the countryside to work in the factories, hoping for better wages, but the demand for jobs has grown faster than the number of jobs available. The result is increased competition for jobs (and so greater job insecurity, unemployment, and poorer working conditions) as well as increased food insecurity in the countryside.

The fact that Chinese production costs are the lowest (though this is likely to change) means that companies move production to China away from other countries of the region, resulting in rising unemployment in those Asia-Pacific countries.

Conclusion

Asian countries, notably China since it adopted “state capitalism”, have become an essential component of the globalized economy, providing cheap and abundant labour for the TNCs and goods for the world via an efficient system of maritime transport (to the benefit of coastal cities like Hong Kong and Singapore that have invested in modern harbour facilities). However, the economic boom has not spared Asia from the problems inherent to globalization and from the risks involved in becoming dependent on a world-wide economic system.

Does inequality undermine growth?

A cartoon disparaging anti-globalization 

> Click HERE to read an article in THE DAY!