|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On April 07 2016 05:50 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2016 05:43 Naracs_Duc wrote:
@whitedog
You saying
"a shit leader, because they follow liberal, productivist ideals that are different from mine"
Tells me everything I need to know as to why you think education is irrelevant to someone becoming good at what they do. Thank you for talking, you can walk away from this conversation now.
Cheers. Joke post. Being against liberalism and productivism is impossible to understand for the basic oneofsanto of the worlds ... "irrelevant to someone beong good at what they do" Still can't understand that politics is not a common activity that you can get better at by following some stupid course in a university ? Politics is not science, there's no irremediable "progress" in politics, and managing a society is not comparable to building and repairing some kind of machinerie.
There's no progress in history? That's not very Marxist. This relativism combined with the base democratic populism is why the left can't govern
|
On April 07 2016 05:57 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2016 05:50 WhiteDog wrote:On April 07 2016 05:43 Naracs_Duc wrote:
@whitedog
You saying
"a shit leader, because they follow liberal, productivist ideals that are different from mine"
Tells me everything I need to know as to why you think education is irrelevant to someone becoming good at what they do. Thank you for talking, you can walk away from this conversation now.
Cheers. Joke post. Being against liberalism and productivism is impossible to understand for the basic oneofsanto of the worlds ... "irrelevant to someone beong good at what they do" Still can't understand that politics is not a common activity that you can get better at by following some stupid course in a university ? Politics is not science, there's no irremediable "progress" in politics, and managing a society is not comparable to building and repairing some kind of machinerie. There's no progress in history? That's not very Marxist. This relativism combined with the base democratic populism is why the left can't govern
I'm not a marxist, and more than that I said there is no irremediable "progress" in politics.
Sure words don't matter that much, but there is limit to that. Maybe incapacity to understand basic language is the reason why the left can't govern.
I don't know if you know, but in science when a law is found and falsified it is an irremediable progress : we can stay at this level of knowledge, or progress further, but we cannot really go back. Politics has nothing to do with that.
|
Sure it has. We're never going to get back to nationalism, globalization isn't going to be stopped. The Left actually would have agreed with this a hundred years ago before they did what they're doing now, which is thinking that the nation state is the solution to everything. We all know how that turned out. If the left wants to have a say in politics this century they're going to need to develop something that actually works in an international framework.
Bernie suffers from this as well. I wonder what he's going to tell to the millions of workers in the developing world who are going to suffer from his new trade policies.
|
On April 07 2016 05:05 Sermokala wrote:
So to change the subject. Words coming out that hillary is going to ramp up the criticism of bernie sanders in the coming days. Who is dumb enough to authorize this? Best case for hillary at this point is a slow burn of the movement that peters out when the numbers just don't end up for him and hillary ends up at the convention with the popular vote and the majority of non super delegate votes. Any atttacks against Bernie sanders at this point is just going to hurt her in the general when she needs bernie sanders voters to vote for her.
Maybe she is still not sure she will win,else this is difficult to explain.
The democrats are a bit of a mess atm, there also seems to be a split between the establishment and the younger generation of democrats who unite behind Bernie.
The republicans are in an even worse mess. The establishment is willing to risk a contested convention.
They would rather loose to Clinton then unite behind trump.
Unless the economy gets better in the next 4 years (don't think it will), this will only pave the way for an even more radical and polarizing candidate 4 years from now. Maybe its best to go with trump and let him have a shot at it. Then in 4 years maybe a more moderate candidate can be choosen. To now rip trump in a contested convention is a bad idea in the long run I think.
|
On April 07 2016 06:08 Nyxisto wrote:
Sure it has. We're never going to get back to nationalism, globalization isn't going to be stopped. The Left actually would have agreed with this a hundred years ago before they did what they're doing now, which is thinking that the nation state is the solution to everything. We all know how that turned out. If the left wants to have a say in politics this century they're going to need to develop something that actually works in an international framework.
Bernie suffers from this as well. I wonder what he's going to tell to the millions of workers in the developing world who are going to suffer from his new trade policies.
![[image loading]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/KAS-Bonitz%2C_Peter-Bild-15535-1.jpg)
There is no alternative.
Your post is nonsense to me, like we could say globalization or nations is a "progress" on par with the discovery of the atom for exemple. In many part of the world the globalization is not a good thing, and nations are still changing (the middle east ?). Germany was not a nation a hundred year ago almost, and was split in two just forty years ago.
Bernie suffers from this as well. I wonder what he's going to tell to the millions of workers in the developing world who are going to suffer from his new trade policies.
I've already pointed out in many posts that globalization result, for the weakest country, in a state of dependancy. Many countries, in Africa for exemple, that are way too open to globalization, would benefit a lot from going back on it and developping their own infrastructure safe from the competition of the developped countries. Those people who would suffer from "trade policies" could actually well benefit from it, by producing their own goods free from the unequal competition of developped countries.
Now explain me how the Greek economy is benefitting from trading with Germany... lol.
|
On April 07 2016 06:16 pmh wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2016 05:05 Sermokala wrote:
So to change the subject. Words coming out that hillary is going to ramp up the criticism of bernie sanders in the coming days. Who is dumb enough to authorize this? Best case for hillary at this point is a slow burn of the movement that peters out when the numbers just don't end up for him and hillary ends up at the convention with the popular vote and the majority of non super delegate votes. Any atttacks against Bernie sanders at this point is just going to hurt her in the general when she needs bernie sanders voters to vote for her. Maybe she is still not sure she will win,else this is difficult to explain. The democrats are a bit of a mess atm, there also seems to be a split between the establishment and the younger generation of democrats who unite behind Bernie. The republicans are in an even worse mess. The establishment is willing to risk a contested convention. They would rather loose to Clinton then unite behind trump. Unless the economy gets better in the next 4 years (don't think it will), this will only pave the way for an even more radical and polarizing candidate 4 years from now. Maybe its best to go with trump and let him have a shot at it. Then in 4 years maybe a more moderate candidate can be choosen. To now rip trump in a contested convention is a bad idea in the long run I think.
How does the longest sustained job growth in recent american history count as a bad economy?
|
On April 07 2016 05:37 WhiteDog wrote:
Naracs_Duc you have 0 economic knowledge, I can't even make sense of your first sentence, and germany had more debt than most other european country before the subprime crisis - more than france for exemple.
Merkel is a shit leader, Bush is a shit leader, because they follow liberal, productivist ideals that are different from mine (ideals like equality and solidarity, individual freedom (with limits), cooperation rather than competition, etc.). The PhD is completly irrelevant, education gives nothing for politics : with or without an education, you defend specific interests, you belong to a specific group (and a society is made of different and sometime opposed groups), you have certain values and defend those.
A good politician is not someone who find efficient solution to problems, because there is no "efficiency" outside of any moral judgement. A good president is someone who define the goal, the efficiency. In this regard, Clinton, always running after other's ideas, and incapable of actually defend a set of values, is the core exemple of the professionnal politician that, like a tennis player on a court, do what it must to win "the game" : it's half the reason why some people don't like her, much like any other professionnal politician out there.
People who root for her know, even inconciously, that she defend their interests and their values in the end, the values of the upper middle class, the value of the system.
Ofcourse education matters in how you approach a problem, including as a politician.
If one man looks to models and projections about how he can benefit the group he wants to support and the other takes what 'God' told him in a dream then there is bloody well going to be a difference in outcome.
|
On April 07 2016 06:25 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2016 05:37 WhiteDog wrote:
Naracs_Duc you have 0 economic knowledge, I can't even make sense of your first sentence, and germany had more debt than most other european country before the subprime crisis - more than france for exemple.
Merkel is a shit leader, Bush is a shit leader, because they follow liberal, productivist ideals that are different from mine (ideals like equality and solidarity, individual freedom (with limits), cooperation rather than competition, etc.). The PhD is completly irrelevant, education gives nothing for politics : with or without an education, you defend specific interests, you belong to a specific group (and a society is made of different and sometime opposed groups), you have certain values and defend those.
A good politician is not someone who find efficient solution to problems, because there is no "efficiency" outside of any moral judgement. A good president is someone who define the goal, the efficiency. In this regard, Clinton, always running after other's ideas, and incapable of actually defend a set of values, is the core exemple of the professionnal politician that, like a tennis player on a court, do what it must to win "the game" : it's half the reason why some people don't like her, much like any other professionnal politician out there.
People who root for her know, even inconciously, that she defend their interests and their values in the end, the values of the upper middle class, the value of the system. Ofcourse education matters in how you approach a problem, including as a politician. If one man looks to models and projections about how he can benefit the group he wants to support and the other takes what 'God' told him in a dream then there is bloody well going to be a difference in outcome.
What's the difference between a guy, alone, with a phd, finding "scientifically" a solution to defend the interest of his group, and another guy, who believe in god and has no education, who ask dozens of experts with PHD to find another solution to defend the interest of another group ?
The second is a better politician for his group.
Note that the "how you approach a problem" is a very mathematical way to put it. Politics is not like that ; it's not about facing one problem and finding a solution, it's about defining what is problematic and what is the ideal that your society should go to.
|
On April 07 2016 06:28 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2016 06:25 Gorsameth wrote:On April 07 2016 05:37 WhiteDog wrote:
Naracs_Duc you have 0 economic knowledge, I can't even make sense of your first sentence, and germany had more debt than most other european country before the subprime crisis - more than france for exemple.
Merkel is a shit leader, Bush is a shit leader, because they follow liberal, productivist ideals that are different from mine (ideals like equality and solidarity, individual freedom (with limits), cooperation rather than competition, etc.). The PhD is completly irrelevant, education gives nothing for politics : with or without an education, you defend specific interests, you belong to a specific group (and a society is made of different and sometime opposed groups), you have certain values and defend those.
A good politician is not someone who find efficient solution to problems, because there is no "efficiency" outside of any moral judgement. A good president is someone who define the goal, the efficiency. In this regard, Clinton, always running after other's ideas, and incapable of actually defend a set of values, is the core exemple of the professionnal politician that, like a tennis player on a court, do what it must to win "the game" : it's half the reason why some people don't like her, much like any other professionnal politician out there.
People who root for her know, even inconciously, that she defend their interests and their values in the end, the values of the upper middle class, the value of the system. Ofcourse education matters in how you approach a problem, including as a politician. If one man looks to models and projections about how he can benefit the group he wants to support and the other takes what 'God' told him in a dream then there is bloody well going to be a difference in outcome. What's the difference between a guy, alone, with a phd, finding "scientifically" a solution to defend the interest of his group, and another guy, who believe in god and has no education, who ask dozens of experts with PHD to find another solution to defend the interest of another group ? The second is a better politician for his group. Note that the "how you approach a problem" is a very mathematical way to put it. Politics is not like that ; it's not about one problem and finding a solution, it's about defining what is problematic and what is the ideal that your society should go to.
So let me get this straight.
You think you can turn back globalization
You think education is irrelevant
And you think people with different ideas than you are shit
You're a troll, please stop, no one can be this stupid.
|
On April 07 2016 06:32 Naracs_Duc wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2016 06:28 WhiteDog wrote:On April 07 2016 06:25 Gorsameth wrote:On April 07 2016 05:37 WhiteDog wrote:
Naracs_Duc you have 0 economic knowledge, I can't even make sense of your first sentence, and germany had more debt than most other european country before the subprime crisis - more than france for exemple.
Merkel is a shit leader, Bush is a shit leader, because they follow liberal, productivist ideals that are different from mine (ideals like equality and solidarity, individual freedom (with limits), cooperation rather than competition, etc.). The PhD is completly irrelevant, education gives nothing for politics : with or without an education, you defend specific interests, you belong to a specific group (and a society is made of different and sometime opposed groups), you have certain values and defend those.
A good politician is not someone who find efficient solution to problems, because there is no "efficiency" outside of any moral judgement. A good president is someone who define the goal, the efficiency. In this regard, Clinton, always running after other's ideas, and incapable of actually defend a set of values, is the core exemple of the professionnal politician that, like a tennis player on a court, do what it must to win "the game" : it's half the reason why some people don't like her, much like any other professionnal politician out there.
People who root for her know, even inconciously, that she defend their interests and their values in the end, the values of the upper middle class, the value of the system. Ofcourse education matters in how you approach a problem, including as a politician. If one man looks to models and projections about how he can benefit the group he wants to support and the other takes what 'God' told him in a dream then there is bloody well going to be a difference in outcome. What's the difference between a guy, alone, with a phd, finding "scientifically" a solution to defend the interest of his group, and another guy, who believe in god and has no education, who ask dozens of experts with PHD to find another solution to defend the interest of another group ? The second is a better politician for his group. Note that the "how you approach a problem" is a very mathematical way to put it. Politics is not like that ; it's not about one problem and finding a solution, it's about defining what is problematic and what is the ideal that your society should go to. So let me get this straight. You think you can turn back globalization You think education is irrelevant And you think people with different ideas than you are shit You're a troll, please stop, no one can be this stupid.
I don't think we "can" turn back on globalization nor that education is irrelevant. I believe education does not grant definite qualities to an individual in politics, nor any clear cut solution to any political problem for that matter, and that globalization is not an irremediable process.
I'm a troll..... why not ? So is ... say Max Weber :
"After Nietzsche's devastating criticism of those 'last men' who 'invented happiness,' I may leave aside altogether the naive optimism in which science--that is, the technique of mastering life which rests upon science--has been celebrated as the way to happiness. Who believes in this?--aside from a few big children in university chairs or editorial offices. Let us resume our argument.
Under these internal presuppositions, what is the meaning of science as a vocation, now after all these former illusions, the 'way to true being,' the 'way to true art,' the 'way to true nature,' the 'way to true God,' the 'way to true happiness,' have been dispelled? Tolstoi has given the simplest answer, with the words: 'Science is meaningless because it gives no answer to our question, the only question important for us: "What shall we do and how shall we live?" ' That science does not give an answer to this is indisputable. The only question that remains is the sense in which science gives 'no' answer, and whether or not science might yet be of some use to the one who puts the question correctly."
http://anthropos-lab.net/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Weber-Science-as-a-Vocation.pdf
|
On April 07 2016 06:37 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2016 06:32 Naracs_Duc wrote:On April 07 2016 06:28 WhiteDog wrote:On April 07 2016 06:25 Gorsameth wrote:On April 07 2016 05:37 WhiteDog wrote:
Naracs_Duc you have 0 economic knowledge, I can't even make sense of your first sentence, and germany had more debt than most other european country before the subprime crisis - more than france for exemple.
Merkel is a shit leader, Bush is a shit leader, because they follow liberal, productivist ideals that are different from mine (ideals like equality and solidarity, individual freedom (with limits), cooperation rather than competition, etc.). The PhD is completly irrelevant, education gives nothing for politics : with or without an education, you defend specific interests, you belong to a specific group (and a society is made of different and sometime opposed groups), you have certain values and defend those.
A good politician is not someone who find efficient solution to problems, because there is no "efficiency" outside of any moral judgement. A good president is someone who define the goal, the efficiency. In this regard, Clinton, always running after other's ideas, and incapable of actually defend a set of values, is the core exemple of the professionnal politician that, like a tennis player on a court, do what it must to win "the game" : it's half the reason why some people don't like her, much like any other professionnal politician out there.
People who root for her know, even inconciously, that she defend their interests and their values in the end, the values of the upper middle class, the value of the system. Ofcourse education matters in how you approach a problem, including as a politician. If one man looks to models and projections about how he can benefit the group he wants to support and the other takes what 'God' told him in a dream then there is bloody well going to be a difference in outcome. What's the difference between a guy, alone, with a phd, finding "scientifically" a solution to defend the interest of his group, and another guy, who believe in god and has no education, who ask dozens of experts with PHD to find another solution to defend the interest of another group ? The second is a better politician for his group. Note that the "how you approach a problem" is a very mathematical way to put it. Politics is not like that ; it's not about one problem and finding a solution, it's about defining what is problematic and what is the ideal that your society should go to. So let me get this straight. You think you can turn back globalization You think education is irrelevant And you think people with different ideas than you are shit You're a troll, please stop, no one can be this stupid. I don't think we "can" turn back on globalization nor that education is irrelevant. I believe education does not grant better qualities in politics, and that globalization is not an irremediable process. I'm a troll..... sure.
As people have stated repeatedly. An educated person is more likely to realize he doesn't know the answer and should ask someone who does.
but whatever, keep on thinking a caveman is as good a politician as well educated modern person.
|
On April 07 2016 06:44 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2016 06:37 WhiteDog wrote:On April 07 2016 06:32 Naracs_Duc wrote:On April 07 2016 06:28 WhiteDog wrote:On April 07 2016 06:25 Gorsameth wrote:On April 07 2016 05:37 WhiteDog wrote:
Naracs_Duc you have 0 economic knowledge, I can't even make sense of your first sentence, and germany had more debt than most other european country before the subprime crisis - more than france for exemple.
Merkel is a shit leader, Bush is a shit leader, because they follow liberal, productivist ideals that are different from mine (ideals like equality and solidarity, individual freedom (with limits), cooperation rather than competition, etc.). The PhD is completly irrelevant, education gives nothing for politics : with or without an education, you defend specific interests, you belong to a specific group (and a society is made of different and sometime opposed groups), you have certain values and defend those.
A good politician is not someone who find efficient solution to problems, because there is no "efficiency" outside of any moral judgement. A good president is someone who define the goal, the efficiency. In this regard, Clinton, always running after other's ideas, and incapable of actually defend a set of values, is the core exemple of the professionnal politician that, like a tennis player on a court, do what it must to win "the game" : it's half the reason why some people don't like her, much like any other professionnal politician out there.
People who root for her know, even inconciously, that she defend their interests and their values in the end, the values of the upper middle class, the value of the system. Ofcourse education matters in how you approach a problem, including as a politician. If one man looks to models and projections about how he can benefit the group he wants to support and the other takes what 'God' told him in a dream then there is bloody well going to be a difference in outcome. What's the difference between a guy, alone, with a phd, finding "scientifically" a solution to defend the interest of his group, and another guy, who believe in god and has no education, who ask dozens of experts with PHD to find another solution to defend the interest of another group ? The second is a better politician for his group. Note that the "how you approach a problem" is a very mathematical way to put it. Politics is not like that ; it's not about one problem and finding a solution, it's about defining what is problematic and what is the ideal that your society should go to. So let me get this straight. You think you can turn back globalization You think education is irrelevant And you think people with different ideas than you are shit You're a troll, please stop, no one can be this stupid. I don't think we "can" turn back on globalization nor that education is irrelevant. I believe education does not grant better qualities in politics, and that globalization is not an irremediable process. I'm a troll..... sure. As people have stated repeatedly. An educated person is more likely to realize he doesn't know the answer and should ask someone who does. but whatever, keep on thinking a caveman is as good a politician as well educated modern person.
I'd say most of the value we share and treasure (and on which our societies were built) were first thought then defended by cavemen who barely knew how to write.
|
Globalization is an unstoppable process thats been started ever sense the colonial age it can be slowed down however. At some point we're going to be living in one giant nation with one culture and one economy.
|
Can we go back to talking about politics. Cavemen being equivalent options to academics in policy discourse and nation building is bothering me more than it should.
|
Talking about globalization with people that barely even know what it is is tiresome. Do you even know the US is no very open to international trading ? That poorest countries are more "globalized" than most developped countries ? Na you don't, obviously.
You're right, mankind, by the strength of the holy science, will abolish distance, sight and constraints, and we will all live everywhere and nowhere, like information in the internet. We will all belong to same familly, and no one will be sad anymore. The end history.
Amen.
And don't bother about global warming and all that, it's a secondary problem.
|
On April 07 2016 06:19 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2016 06:08 Nyxisto wrote:
Sure it has. We're never going to get back to nationalism, globalization isn't going to be stopped. The Left actually would have agreed with this a hundred years ago before they did what they're doing now, which is thinking that the nation state is the solution to everything. We all know how that turned out. If the left wants to have a say in politics this century they're going to need to develop something that actually works in an international framework.
Bernie suffers from this as well. I wonder what he's going to tell to the millions of workers in the developing world who are going to suffer from his new trade policies. There is no alternative. Your post is nonsense to me, like we could say globalization or nations is a "progress" on par with the discovery of the atom for exemple. In many part of the world the globalization is not a good thing, and nations are still changing (the middle east ?). Germany was not a nation a hundred year ago almost, and was split in two just forty years ago. Show nested quote +Bernie suffers from this as well. I wonder what he's going to tell to the millions of workers in the developing world who are going to suffer from his new trade policies. I've already pointed out in many posts that globalization result, for the weakest country, in a state of dependancy. Many countries, in Africa for exemple, that are way too open to globalization, would benefit a lot from going back on it and developping their own infrastructure safe from the competition of the developped countries. Those people who would suffer from "trade policies" could actually well benefit from it, by producing their own goods free from the unequal competition of developped countries. Now explain me how the Greek economy is benefitting from trading with Germany... lol.
Africa had developing infrastructure...as a result of globalization (then colonialism). When they turned their back on it that infrastructure crumbled because they didn't have the technical ability to maintain it. Meanwhile China went from an international power, crippled itself for nearly a century with bad economic and political policies (which included isolationism in many respects) and then in the last 20 years pulled nearly a billion people out of abject poverty by embracing globalization.
|
On April 07 2016 07:02 WhiteDog wrote:
Talking about globalization with people that barely even know what it is is tiresome. Do you even know the US is no very open to international trading ? That poorest countries are more "globalized" than most developped countries ? Na you don't, obviously.
You're right, mankind, by the strength of the holy science, will abolish distance, sight and constraints, and we will all live everywhere and nowhere, like information in the internet. We will all belong to same familly, and no one will be sad anymore. The end history.
Amen.
And don't bother about global warming and all that, it's a secondary problem.
Global warming on the other hand is an excellent example of why national solutions will not work. We will not get a significant reduction of the problem without an international framework that actually binds all countries.
|
On April 07 2016 07:05 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2016 07:02 WhiteDog wrote:
Talking about globalization with people that barely even know what it is is tiresome. Do you even know the US is no very open to international trading ? That poorest countries are more "globalized" than most developped countries ? Na you don't, obviously.
You're right, mankind, by the strength of the holy science, will abolish distance, sight and constraints, and we will all live everywhere and nowhere, like information in the internet. We will all belong to same familly, and no one will be sad anymore. The end history.
Amen.
And don't bother about global warming and all that, it's a secondary problem. Global warming on the other hand is an excellent example of why national solutions will not work. We will not get a significant reduction of the problem without an international framework that actually binds all countries.
If you take seriously global warming (meaning if you actually think that we cannot solve it without changing our consumption and our energy production without any kind of scientific innovation that could completly solve its problem), then, somewhere in your head, you didn't came to the conclusion that reducing energy consumption will most likely lessen our hability to travel, and thus to trade ?
On April 07 2016 07:05 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2016 06:19 WhiteDog wrote:On April 07 2016 06:08 Nyxisto wrote:
Sure it has. We're never going to get back to nationalism, globalization isn't going to be stopped. The Left actually would have agreed with this a hundred years ago before they did what they're doing now, which is thinking that the nation state is the solution to everything. We all know how that turned out. If the left wants to have a say in politics this century they're going to need to develop something that actually works in an international framework.
Bernie suffers from this as well. I wonder what he's going to tell to the millions of workers in the developing world who are going to suffer from his new trade policies. There is no alternative. Your post is nonsense to me, like we could say globalization or nations is a "progress" on par with the discovery of the atom for exemple. In many part of the world the globalization is not a good thing, and nations are still changing (the middle east ?). Germany was not a nation a hundred year ago almost, and was split in two just forty years ago. Bernie suffers from this as well. I wonder what he's going to tell to the millions of workers in the developing world who are going to suffer from his new trade policies. I've already pointed out in many posts that globalization result, for the weakest country, in a state of dependancy. Many countries, in Africa for exemple, that are way too open to globalization, would benefit a lot from going back on it and developping their own infrastructure safe from the competition of the developped countries. Those people who would suffer from "trade policies" could actually well benefit from it, by producing their own goods free from the unequal competition of developped countries. Now explain me how the Greek economy is benefitting from trading with Germany... lol. Africa had developing infrastructure...as a result of globalization (then colonialism). When they turned their back on it that infrastructure crumbled because they didn't have the technical ability to maintain it. Meanwhile China went from an international power, crippled itself for nearly a century with bad economic and political policies (which included isolationism in many respects) and then in the last 20 years pulled nearly a billion people out of abject poverty by embracing globalization.
False on Africa, false on China. Nice try. What it shows is your lack of knowledge on the subject ; colonialism destroyed most african infrastructures, due to the lack of knowledge of the colonial powers mostly. They were unable to adapt to the environment ; one famous exemple, they put cities near water (lake and such), mimicking europe, but those wet area were also the place where most insect strive, so much that they greatly enhanced the effect of malaria and such (while pre colonial tribes had "cities" in dry areas).
|
On April 07 2016 07:02 WhiteDog wrote:
Talking about globalization with people that barely even know what it is is tiresome.
You're right, mankind, by the strength of the holy science, will abolish distance, sight and constraints, and we will all live everywhere and nowhere, like information in the internet. We will all belong to same familly, and no one will be sad anymore. The end history.
Amen.
And don't bother about global warming and all that, it's a secondary problem.
Globalization is not a problem, its an inevitability. Why would you have people working some place more expensive when you can have them working some place cheaper? Especially now that transportation of commercial goods is much easier and the purchasing power of online customers much faster and normalized. Its not a "How do I deal with globalization" problem its a "How does more solutions to problems I care about scale with the coming globalization."
And its not just globalization either. There are a lot of things that are linked together in global and local politics that are effected by the same variables it itself affects. People who are only focused in ideals and rhetoric end up tossing the baby with the bathwater all in the name of "at least I tried" mind sets. Its what happened with Bush, its what will happen with Sanders, its what will happen to anyone more focused in "what I believe in" more than "how does this affect and integrate into the current system."
|
On April 07 2016 07:09 WhiteDog wrote:
If you take seriously global warming (meaning if you actually think that we cannot solve it without changing our consumption and our energy production without any kind of scientific innovation that could completly solve its problem), then, somewhere in your head, you didn't came to the conclusion that reducing energy consumption will most likely lessen our hability to travel, and thus to trade ?
I don't think that reducing energy consumption means reducing trade or free movement(although the methods of movement need to shift towards public means of transportation). Actually over the last two decades that is provably false. The global economy is making energy production more efficient and less dependent on carbohydrates at a rather fast pace, and a significant amount of products is digital or in other ways more resource independent. Pretty much all developed countries are reducing their waste and emission products while steadily growing and increasing trade.
The tricky part is getting India, China and so on to do the same.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
