|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On December 11 2015 08:14 Sent. wrote:
Slovakia has a left wing government and the new ruling party in Poland is not new or fascist. If you count the votes from our recent elections you can see that our society is still split 50-50 between liberals and conservatives. Your turbonazis won those elections only because they're united and liberals ruled for 10 years so people got "bored" with them. Maybe voters in the West and South are getting more radical but here it was just a normal shift of power.
Iirc UKIP had terrible results in British elections so its not like UK is changing its course drastically either
Dude you should see the amount of propaganda the press spits out about those PIS fellas. It is quite embarassing tbh one could think they would be Adolf himself. Btw UKIP didn't do bad in the last election, they went from 3.1% in 2010 to 12.6% in 2015. That is not doing bad, they are growing.
|
On December 11 2015 20:34 oneofthem wrote:
that's entirely ridiculous and inaccurate. i am simply stating that globalization is irreversible via realistic (or desirable) political means. thus you are better off trying to solve problems wtihin this framework.
So you are exactly saying that the globalization is not up to discussion, not up to negociation. So yes, it's effectively undemocratic.
|
On December 12 2015 04:30 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2015 20:34 oneofthem wrote:
that's entirely ridiculous and inaccurate. i am simply stating that globalization is irreversible via realistic (or desirable) political means. thus you are better off trying to solve problems wtihin this framework. So you are exactly saying that the globalization is not up to discussion, not up to negociation. So yes, it's effectively undemocratic.
So is gravity. What's your point?
I guess in theory, you could have a referendum to reverse the globalization process in your country. It would entail a North Korea level of retraction from all international treaties, the internet, and trade. It would probably have North Korea level effects on the local economy as well, and plummet your nation into abject poverty. Now I'm not saying that all the poverty in North Korea is due to their isolationism, but I am willing to bet that a large part of it is.
|
On December 12 2015 04:53 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2015 04:30 WhiteDog wrote:On December 11 2015 20:34 oneofthem wrote:
that's entirely ridiculous and inaccurate. i am simply stating that globalization is irreversible via realistic (or desirable) political means. thus you are better off trying to solve problems wtihin this framework. So you are exactly saying that the globalization is not up to discussion, not up to negociation. So yes, it's effectively undemocratic. So is gravity. What's your point? I guess in theory, you could have a referendum to reverse the globalization process in your country. It would entail a North Korea level of retraction from all international treaties, the internet, and trade. It would probably have North Korea level effects on the local economy as well, and plummet your nation into abject poverty. Now I'm not saying that all the poverty in North Korea is due to their isolationism, but I am willing to bet that a large part of it is.
You guys are funny. So to you globalization is akin to gravity. You've been so dumbed down by the mainstream media you're even unable to understand what you say anymore. What is so irreversible about globalization ? What's so good about it ? Globalization is buying tomotatoes from spain when you produce enough tomatoes fives kilometers away but somehow sell those in spain, there are tons of things that are not economically efficient, optimal, or even morally acceptable, with our current trading, and there is nothing irreversible about free trade. But yeah you are right, criticizing globalizing NECESSARILY mean that we want to be north korea... And of course going back on things like unrestricted capital flows or effectively limiting social and environmental dumping would necessarily mean that we will have to retract from... the internet.
|
On December 12 2015 06:07 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2015 04:53 Acrofales wrote:On December 12 2015 04:30 WhiteDog wrote:On December 11 2015 20:34 oneofthem wrote:
that's entirely ridiculous and inaccurate. i am simply stating that globalization is irreversible via realistic (or desirable) political means. thus you are better off trying to solve problems wtihin this framework. So you are exactly saying that the globalization is not up to discussion, not up to negociation. So yes, it's effectively undemocratic. So is gravity. What's your point? I guess in theory, you could have a referendum to reverse the globalization process in your country. It would entail a North Korea level of retraction from all international treaties, the internet, and trade. It would probably have North Korea level effects on the local economy as well, and plummet your nation into abject poverty. Now I'm not saying that all the poverty in North Korea is due to their isolationism, but I am willing to bet that a large part of it is. You guys are funny. So to you globalization is akin to gravity. You've been so dumbed down by the mainstream media you're even unable to understand what you say anymore. What is so irreversible about globalization ? What's so good about it ? Globalization is buying tomotatoes from spain when you produce enough tomatoes fives kilometers away but somehow sell those in spain, there are tons of things that are not economically efficient, optimal, or even morally acceptable, with our current trading, and there is nothing irreversible about free trade. But yeah you are right, criticizing globalizing NECESSARILY mean that we want to be north korea... And of course going back on things like unrestricted capital flows or effectively limiting social and environmental dumping would necessarily mean that we will have to retract from... the internet.
I mean, I get the moral argument against globalization. It's stupid and nationalistic, but I get it.
But saying it's economically inefficient? Why the fuck would it happen unless it was all about ruthless optimization of supply chains from an economic standpoint?
|
On December 12 2015 06:26 Yoav wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2015 06:07 WhiteDog wrote:On December 12 2015 04:53 Acrofales wrote:On December 12 2015 04:30 WhiteDog wrote:On December 11 2015 20:34 oneofthem wrote:
that's entirely ridiculous and inaccurate. i am simply stating that globalization is irreversible via realistic (or desirable) political means. thus you are better off trying to solve problems wtihin this framework. So you are exactly saying that the globalization is not up to discussion, not up to negociation. So yes, it's effectively undemocratic. So is gravity. What's your point? I guess in theory, you could have a referendum to reverse the globalization process in your country. It would entail a North Korea level of retraction from all international treaties, the internet, and trade. It would probably have North Korea level effects on the local economy as well, and plummet your nation into abject poverty. Now I'm not saying that all the poverty in North Korea is due to their isolationism, but I am willing to bet that a large part of it is. You guys are funny. So to you globalization is akin to gravity. You've been so dumbed down by the mainstream media you're even unable to understand what you say anymore. What is so irreversible about globalization ? What's so good about it ? Globalization is buying tomotatoes from spain when you produce enough tomatoes fives kilometers away but somehow sell those in spain, there are tons of things that are not economically efficient, optimal, or even morally acceptable, with our current trading, and there is nothing irreversible about free trade. But yeah you are right, criticizing globalizing NECESSARILY mean that we want to be north korea... And of course going back on things like unrestricted capital flows or effectively limiting social and environmental dumping would necessarily mean that we will have to retract from... the internet. I mean, I get the moral argument against globalization. It's stupid and nationalistic, but I get it. But saying it's economically inefficient? Why the fuck would it happen unless it was all about ruthless optimization of supply chains from an economic standpoint?
Your argument with economic efficency would be true if the economy would function independently from other systems but this is not the case.
One quick example, european meat gets sold to Africa which which pushes local producers out of the market. This doesn't happen because european meat is cheaper to produce it happens because european meat is subsidzed by the european tax payers to lower the price artificially. This wouldn't happen without tax payer money.
The dude has a point, globalization is not somehow god given and happens independently from our doing. Our actions influence the economy (like subsidizing meat which leads the producers to being competitive even in the african market). We could roll globalisation back to a certain degree without becoming north korea number two. The world isn't black or white.
|
On December 12 2015 02:52 AngryMag wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2015 08:14 Sent. wrote:
Slovakia has a left wing government and the new ruling party in Poland is not new or fascist. If you count the votes from our recent elections you can see that our society is still split 50-50 between liberals and conservatives. Your turbonazis won those elections only because they're united and liberals ruled for 10 years so people got "bored" with them. Maybe voters in the West and South are getting more radical but here it was just a normal shift of power.
Iirc UKIP had terrible results in British elections so its not like UK is changing its course drastically either Dude you should see the amount of propaganda the press spits out about those PIS fellas. It is quite embarassing tbh one could think they would be Adolf himself. Btw UKIP didn't do bad in the last election, they went from 3.1% in 2010 to 12.6% in 2015. That is not doing bad, they are growing.
Yes, the only reason UKIP received 1 seat is because of the first past the post system in the UK. They actually got a lot of votes. SNP on the other hand gained 50? or so seats with less votes.
|
On December 12 2015 04:30 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2015 20:34 oneofthem wrote:
that's entirely ridiculous and inaccurate. i am simply stating that globalization is irreversible via realistic (or desirable) political means. thus you are better off trying to solve problems wtihin this framework. So you are exactly saying that the globalization is not up to discussion, not up to negociation. So yes, it's effectively undemocratic.
What's with this obsession of democracy? Keeping the Eiffel Tower was done contrary to popular opinion, thus had it been decided democratically, it wouldn't have been keeped. Same for the abolition of death penalty in France. However, I'm pretty sure that if France entering WW1 would have been voted with universal (male-only or fully universal, your call) suffrage, France would have entered this massacre with enthusiasm, much like tons of Frenchmen fought and died with joy for a Corsican dictator in the early 1800's, in wars that had nothing to do with freedom anymore.
So, is democracy always relevant?
Besides, one could easily argue that globalization is the consequence of variables on which any kind of political regime except totalitarism simply doesn't have effect on, like scientific collaboration, improvement of the means of transports, increase of life expectancy, increase in the importance of studies and diplomas, the Internet, population movements, military alliances, the desire of making more money, etc. We could even say that globalization is not new at all ; and that, in fact, the world is in a constant state of globalization - except when in generalized state of war - since pretty much the dawn of time.
|
On December 12 2015 06:26 Yoav wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2015 06:07 WhiteDog wrote:On December 12 2015 04:53 Acrofales wrote:On December 12 2015 04:30 WhiteDog wrote:On December 11 2015 20:34 oneofthem wrote:
that's entirely ridiculous and inaccurate. i am simply stating that globalization is irreversible via realistic (or desirable) political means. thus you are better off trying to solve problems wtihin this framework. So you are exactly saying that the globalization is not up to discussion, not up to negociation. So yes, it's effectively undemocratic. So is gravity. What's your point? I guess in theory, you could have a referendum to reverse the globalization process in your country. It would entail a North Korea level of retraction from all international treaties, the internet, and trade. It would probably have North Korea level effects on the local economy as well, and plummet your nation into abject poverty. Now I'm not saying that all the poverty in North Korea is due to their isolationism, but I am willing to bet that a large part of it is. You guys are funny. So to you globalization is akin to gravity. You've been so dumbed down by the mainstream media you're even unable to understand what you say anymore. What is so irreversible about globalization ? What's so good about it ? Globalization is buying tomotatoes from spain when you produce enough tomatoes fives kilometers away but somehow sell those in spain, there are tons of things that are not economically efficient, optimal, or even morally acceptable, with our current trading, and there is nothing irreversible about free trade. But yeah you are right, criticizing globalizing NECESSARILY mean that we want to be north korea... And of course going back on things like unrestricted capital flows or effectively limiting social and environmental dumping would necessarily mean that we will have to retract from... the internet. I mean, I get the moral argument against globalization. It's stupid and nationalistic, but I get it. But saying it's economically inefficient? Why the fuck would it happen unless it was all about ruthless optimization of supply chains from an economic standpoint?
Stupid and nationalistic... how ridiculous.
Educate yourself I don't know, read a little about the indirect and greatly under evaluated cost of transport and shipping, about the way some countries use differencies in their welfare state to effectively gain an hedge on others, on how some shit country use shady ruling on capital flows to syphon the fiscal basis of half the world.
There are more than one agent in an economy. An evolution can be beneficial from a purely financial standpoint for a private individual or even a group but still have huge negatives and indirects costs that are not taken into consideration when private business and even local government took the decisions. Look at China, do you think the smog is the most efficient way for cities like Shanghaï to develop themselves ? So why the fuck would it happen ? Unless "ruthless optimization" can actually create negative and suboptimal scenario ?
That's actually one of the few basis in economy, understanding that decision taken at the micro level are not necessarily good when we agregate and think at the macro level...
What's with this obsession of democracy? Keeping the Eiffel Tower was done contrary to popular opinion, thus had it been decided democratically, it wouldn't have been keeped. Same for the abolition of death penalty in France. However, I'm pretty sure that if France entering WW1 would have been voted with universal (male-only or fully universal, your call) suffrage, France would have entered this massacre with enthusiasm, much like tons of Frenchmen fought and died with joy for a Corsican dictator in the early 1800's, in wars that had nothing to do with freedom anymore.
So, is democracy always relevant?
Here is the core of the discussion : the comment is just not democratic. I see democracy as a value in itself for obvious reasons, maybe a good revolution could explain you why, one day.
Democracy is nothing but an institutional way to coordonate the behaviors of people living in a same area, a way to administrate their conflicts of interests, conflicts that are consubstantial to collective societies. When such institutions do not exist, people actually do resolve their conflicts, through other means. I'm sure you'll love it when people who dislike the globalization, or anything else for that matter, will actually show their discontent in the street and not through their votes.
|
To be sure, many countries use protectionist subsidies. These should obviously be gotten rid of, despite how politically hard to do that will be. But that's not globalization; that's an idiotic attempt to fight against it.
But in general, if these things were not efficient, then you could reasonably start your own company based on your theory and drive the others out of business because they are "undervaluing" transport costs. But you couldn't because any company that undervalues costs learns to do better or goes out of business.
Smog is absolutely the most efficient way... a lot cheaper than anything else, but a tragedy of the commons which ought to have been prevented by a government using carbon credits or some other means of forcing businesses to bear the costs they slough off on the community.
|
But in general, if these things were not efficient, then you could reasonably start your own company based on your theory and drive the others out of business because they are "undervaluing" transport costs. But you couldn't because any company that undervalues costs learns to do better or goes out of business.
Smog is absolutely the most efficient way... a lot cheaper than anything else, but a tragedy of the commons which ought to have been prevented by a government using carbon credits or some other means of forcing businesses to bear the costs they slough off on the community.
You can't profit from the fact that some costs are underevaluated because transport costs are underevaluated globally but not paid for by firms, it is an externality - it is not someone who is making a bad calculus, but rather a market failure.
Same for the smog, it is far from the "most efficient way" : it has disastrous effect on life expectancy, it create tons of indirect and negative costs - like the fact that half the city can't go out for a week every year (and thus can't work and can't create value), or the fact that it create many lunger disease that are, afterwards, paid for by the sick. All those reduce the global well being by much, and sometime limiting the smog enough for it not to completly prevent all economic and social activity would cost way less than the actual indirect cost it has on the population and the economy.
What you say about carbon credit (which is a farce market in itself but whatever) is actually a proof of my stance : the market (and thus the idea globalization) as itself does not work, and thus you need to "create" a new market (a market that does not work btw, because the price of carbon emission has no demand and is under evaluated), out of thin air, a market that should take into account the underevaluated cost of the production in order to endogenize those costs.
Let's be clear, the globalization has good effect on consumption (and thus GDP indirectly, altho it is only true for global GDP and not for each countries - there are losers and winners), by reducing prices through economy of scale, that's it. You can value consumption as you want, but it's nothing but an ideological stance.
To be sure, many countries use protectionist subsidies. These should obviously be gotten rid of, despite how politically hard to do that will be. But that's not globalization; that's an idiotic attempt to fight against it.
And why do you think countries use protectionist subsidies ? Because they can, and because there no legal framework to prevent them from doing so, and, more than anything, because they can profit from it, and thus abuse the flaws of the globalized market.
|
What hogwash. You're equating globalization with a certain number of specific policies, such as agricultural subsidies. I completely agree with you that agricultural subsidies are a travesty that serve no purpose except to prop up an unprofitable industry in Europe. I guess they serve a certain purpose in keeping the pastures open and pretty the way people want them, but that is about it. There are cheaper and more efficient ways of keeping the countryside pretty (such as turning it all into national parks).
However, don't equate these specific policies with the process of globalization, which is due to the ever forward plodding technological means of transporting goods and information ever increasing distances for ever decreasing prices. The only way of stopping it is with highly protectionist policies. I recognize North Korea might be a bit extreme, but Argentina under Kirchner was increasingly protectionist, and the people I know from there are not happy at all that the only way to buy imported goods is to travel abroad to buy it. Venezuela is even worse off due to even more extreme policies, but I am hesitant to blame that one purely on isolationism: Chaves had some all around terrible ideas, and Maduro is even worse, because he continues the politics without the vision.
|
fuck globalization, no lube. to me, it's corporatization.
you take the belonging/appartenance feeling that humans naturally have and move it from states to corporations. people living together vs people working together, a simple shift in categorization will fix nothing. people will still die and be miserable(racism, xenophobia, intolerance) but instead of state to state warfare, censorship, fear-mongering, you'll have corporation to corporation warfare, censorship and fear-mongering.
GeefuckingGee men. you solved nothing; nationalism is still there but just playing for a different master.
|
well at least we have cheap cool stuff and we don't live like Cold-War USSR.
|
|
|
On December 12 2015 08:57 Acrofales wrote:
What hogwash. You're equating globalization with a certain number of specific policies, such as agricultural subsidies. I completely agree with you that agricultural subsidies are a travesty that serve no purpose except to prop up an unprofitable industry in Europe. I guess they serve a certain purpose in keeping the pastures open and pretty the way people want them, but that is about it. There are cheaper and more efficient ways of keeping the countryside pretty (such as turning it all into national parks).
However, don't equate these specific policies with the process of globalization, which is due to the ever forward plodding technological means of transporting goods and information ever increasing distances for ever decreasing prices. The only way of stopping it is with highly protectionist policies. I recognize North Korea might be a bit extreme, but Argentina under Kirchner was increasingly protectionist, and the people I know from there are not happy at all that the only way to buy imported goods is to travel abroad to buy it. Venezuela is even worse off due to even more extreme policies, but I am hesitant to blame that one purely on isolationism: Chaves had some all around terrible ideas, and Maduro is even worse, because he continues the politics without the vision.
To me, even relocating production facilities in the countries of origin is indirectly going back on globalization (and we are watching this to a certain degree in most developped countries since some years now, and MOST state in the world value such process).
In fact, the globalization is a process that will most likely stop, there is nothing evolutionary nor irreversible about it, and the more times goes on, the more people will adapt their consumption practice against it. As for the economic part of globalization, if you cut everything that does not goes along with your own vision of what is globalization, sure it's a perfect process... You completly passed the fact that transport is underevaluated due to its extern effect. For exemple, plane transportation as used in the US is absolutly impossible to mimic at the global level because it would necessitate level of consumption of fossil fuels and a production of pollution way higher than anything we can possibly accept or even live through.
|
On December 12 2015 21:04 Faust852 wrote:
well at least we have cheap cool stuff and we don't live like Cold-War USSR.
that has nothing to do with globalization but with capitalism + slavery. wherever there are slaves, there are cost reductions to be exploited.
i don't get why (the)cheapest should be a target for anything anyway. give people more money, done.
|
On December 12 2015 21:56 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2015 21:04 Faust852 wrote:
well at least we have cheap cool stuff and we don't live like Cold-War USSR. that has nothing to do with globalization but with capitalism + slavery. wherever there are slaves, there are cost reductions to be exploited. i don't get why (the)cheapest should be a target for anything anyway. give people more money, done.
Well, I'm kinda glad I can eat banana in mid december, or drink coffee in the morning. I don't know how you'd do without coffee but I'd feel terrible 
I'd also miss having stupid argument on the internet with random stranger.
|
On December 12 2015 22:09 Faust852 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2015 21:56 xM(Z wrote:On December 12 2015 21:04 Faust852 wrote:
well at least we have cheap cool stuff and we don't live like Cold-War USSR. that has nothing to do with globalization but with capitalism + slavery. wherever there are slaves, there are cost reductions to be exploited. i don't get why (the)cheapest should be a target for anything anyway. give people more money, done. Well, I'm kinda glad I can eat banana in mid december, or drink coffee in the morning. I don't know how you'd do without coffee but I'd feel terrible I'd also miss having stupid argument on the internet with random stranger.
well, since you see your whole existence as a product of globalization, the best is to remain a random stranger to you.
|
On December 12 2015 22:41 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2015 22:09 Faust852 wrote:On December 12 2015 21:56 xM(Z wrote:On December 12 2015 21:04 Faust852 wrote:
well at least we have cheap cool stuff and we don't live like Cold-War USSR. that has nothing to do with globalization but with capitalism + slavery. wherever there are slaves, there are cost reductions to be exploited. i don't get why (the)cheapest should be a target for anything anyway. give people more money, done. Well, I'm kinda glad I can eat banana in mid december, or drink coffee in the morning. I don't know how you'd do without coffee but I'd feel terrible I'd also miss having stupid argument on the internet with random stranger. well, since you see your whole existence as a product of globalization, the best is to remain a random stranger to you.
Yeah, globalization and capitalism have nothing to do with the steady reduction in world wide poverty. A steady reduction, despite the continous effort from governments all over the world to stop it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
