|
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 13 2015 06:14 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2015 02:21 Faust852 wrote:On December 12 2015 22:41 xM(Z wrote: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. Well, tell me how much you don't rely on globalization and open market. Sure, you are actually writing stuff on a computer assembled in China, with a processor made in USA and a graphic card made in Taiwan. You are wearing clothes coming from Bengladesh and Thailand while eating pork from Netherlands with milk from Poland. You are writing stuff on the internet, which come from everywhere all at once. You are eating fruit coming from south america and spain, because gl getting banana or olive oil in Romania in mid december. At least 90% of the product you consume comes from another country, and that's good because you can't ask for a country to offer all the good possible while keeping them at reasonable cost. That's why globalization is the best thing ever. The only issue is the lack of rules, standard and rules which lead to corporation making billion by selling Polo at 50€ while it cost 30c to make in Bengladesh. That is the issue that need to be tackled on, not some retarded nationalism that would only lead to aweful living standard like cold war USSR or North Korea. i have no idea what you have going there, but globalization did not invent the trading. ~7000 years ago, people from China were trading with people from SE-Europe. once you factor in that tidbit, your whole wall of text becomes - but globalization is better at exploiting slaves and drive costs down ... ps: bananas should've gone extinct decades ago; they're not even fruits. @Yoav - that's just progressive taxation and it's pretty much universally accepted as a framework principle, is a pretty bold statement; not only that is not accepted but it's also fought against.
Like seriously ? Globalization is mainly due to increase in trading, because transport of goods and informations got much faster.
Trading goods 7000yo ago from Europe to Asia helped Asia and Europe to the path globalization, because where there is trade, there is culture exchange.
Globalisation, as in international trading help reducing cost down, but that's like economy 101 and this is in no way a bad thing, like fuck it's been known for 2 century already. I mean heck, you'd deal without basic ressource like oil, steel, energy ?
Ofc I despite exploitation of people, but that's merely, as i said, because of the lack of goverment control, and international standard, but that has nothing to do with globalization. Look at closed market in history and tell me how good they had it there. Goulag in USSR, or North Korea. If USSR couldn't do it with all of its raw ressource, I don't know how a smaller country could manage to live in a protectionist state. Hell, look at how France took a huge blow recently with agriculture, they had so many protection and subside that they just never evolved past small farm and low production, but now the only thing they can do is destroying good from foreign country because "muh close market is better".
ps : 1st line of wikipedia
The banana is an edible fruit
|
"Globalization is the shit."
There, I found a sentence you can all agree on, it's solved. 
|
On December 13 2015 02:21 Faust852 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2015 22:41 xM(Z wrote: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. Well, tell me how much you don't rely on globalization and open market.Sure, you are actually writing stuff on a computer assembled in China, with a processor made in USA and a graphic card made in Taiwan. You are wearing clothes coming from Bengladesh and Thailand while eating pork from Netherlands with milk from Poland. You are writing stuff on the internet, which come from everywhere all at once. You are eating fruit coming from south america and spain, because gl getting banana or olive oil in Romania in mid december. At least 90% of the product you consume comes from another country, and that's good because you can't ask for a country to offer all the good possible while keeping them at reasonable cost. That's why globalization is the best thing ever.The only issue is the lack of rules, standard and rules which lead to corporation making billion by selling Polo at 50€ while it cost 30c to make in Bengladesh. That is the issue that need to be tackled on, not some retarded nationalism that would only lead to aweful living standard like cold war USSR or North Korea.
Wait wait wait, i think that should be the other way around:
Globalization is the natural development from capitalism/'free market', you must go globalization to continue the 'reign of capitalism' otherwise it is dead (ie US is fucked). And the whole point of capitalism is to keep exploiting the 2/3 of the lower level of the pyramid, there will be always be the bottom class people that are poor as fuck. And the stuffs you mentioned that we should praise globalization for, are exactly the proof that how we exploit the lower classes people in the world economy pyramid in the past 100+ years.
I will never say i hate capitalism/globalization (because my good life is based on them) but saying that it is the best thing ever is wrong on every fundamental levels.
|
On December 13 2015 05:32 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2015 02:56 Acrofales wrote:On December 13 2015 01:58 WhiteDog wrote:On December 13 2015 01:56 RvB wrote:A lot of the reduction in poverty in the last years was in China. With an export led economy I don't see how you can make the argument that the reduction in poverty that globalisation has a small/no role. Though technology also obviously has a big role. On December 13 2015 01:41 Simberto wrote:
That last argument is bad. The retirement age rising could either mean what you are saying, or that we just get older on average. While in 1950, someone who was retiring at 65 might have another 5 years or so to live on average, nowadays it is more along the lines of 10-20+ years or so. A lot of people don't realise how expensive even 1 year of retirement really is. Especially with these low interest rates it's getting unbearably expensive. Because China is an exemple of a globalized country to you ? It is its state, the action of the state, and not the opening of borders, that is at the core of China's success. Even the corruption is a barrier in China. If you want to seek the archetype globalized country, again, look at africa : just a quick search and I see that China's imports as part of GDP is half that of the ivory coast or congo for exemple. Most notably, China's imports as % of GDP has been declining recently, as it entered into the fray of developped countries. Just saying, there is a reason as to why Gaza is more globalized (in % of GDP) than Israel. Your beautiful and happy vision of the globalization is the vision of the dominant, happy few that profit (for a moment, only until another country find a flaw and eat you alive, which is what china is doing right now) from what the poor should actually call a dependancy on international trade. Look at data here. http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NE.IMP.GNFS.ZS?order=wbapi_data_value_2014 wbapi_data_value wbapi_data_value-last&sort=desc China is an example of a globalized economy par excellence. That they hardly import has nothing to do with it at all (it's also not true, they import VAST quantities of commodities, mainly to fuel their cheap factories from which they subsequently export shit all over the world). China's resurgent economy may be planned and the internal market protected, but that doesn't mean they are not an exponent of the globalized economy: the very fact that half of the stuff in your house says "made in china" on it is a clear sign to the contrary. Your idea that production is returning to Europe (which I don't see happening at all, except for highly specialized technological production) is also not a counterexample: if conditions are profitable for production in Europe, countries will take their production there. Just as they moved it to Asia in the first place. The very fact that they are capable of moving their production wherever they like is one of the best examples of globalization you could have given. It is funny that you completly passed by most of my argument, most notably that trading in developped countries is usually less than in poor countries, an thus that an increase globalization is more ofté than not a state of dependancy. There is huge difference between importing what you need but can't produce yourself, and importing things that you can produce but do not due to various imbalance. If globalization is the openess to countries towards production made elsewhere, then we can measure it through the ratio of exports and imports as % of GDP, and according to this, the most globalized countries are poorer and the globalization is the result of a forced process more akin to modern colonialism than to the research of global economic efficiency. As for relocalization, I don't have any english sources, but in french, if you can read, I suggest reading some of El Mouhoud Mouhoub's work, economist and specialist of the question. Show nested quote +On December 13 2015 04:08 Nyxisto wrote:On December 13 2015 02:39 WhiteDog wrote:On December 13 2015 02:37 Nyxisto wrote:On December 13 2015 02:28 WhiteDog wrote:On December 13 2015 02:21 Faust852 wrote:On December 12 2015 22:41 xM(Z wrote: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. Well, tell me how much you don't rely on globalization and open market. Sure, you are actually writing stuff on a computer assembled in China, with a processor made in USA and a graphic card made in Taiwan. You are wearing clothes coming from Bengladesh and Thailand while eating pork from Netherlands with milk from Poland. You are writing stuff on the internet, which come from everywhere all at once. You are eating fruit coming from south america and spain, because gl getting banana or olive oil in Romania in mid december. At least 90% of the product you consume comes from another country, and that's good because you can't ask for a country to offer all the good possible while keeping them at reasonable cost. That's why globalization is the best thing ever. The only issue is the lack of rules, standard and rules which lead to corporation making billion by selling Polo at 50€ while it cost 30c to make in Bengladesh. That is the issue that need to be tackled on, not some retarded nationalism that would only lead to aweful living standard like cold war USSR or North Korea. Cold war USSR had astonishing good growth result, and many famous economists believed back then that it would necessarily pass the US as the first GDP. The reason was that labor is pretty cheap in goulag (and numbers pretty good when manipulated). But just saying, it was not a complete economic fiasco, it assured full employment and a very good growth - the main problem was that it was plagued by crisis of offer (which are less frequent but more dangerous than the crisis of under employment of the production capabilities that we suffer in our capitalists societies). A page ago you criticsed people for looking at stupid GDP numbers and now you're defending a government that achieved growth by using people as firewood and having everybody who didn't live in Moscow starve It's exactly what I said, the USSR was very much like the globalization, an economic "success" from a gdp perspective, that created a few crisis of under production (of offer = starving people to death) and that used modern slaves in goulag. I was not, at all, saying the USSR was great. But the USSR was also heavily nationalized and lacked in all the things those types of closed up economies always lack. Bad consumer products, falling farther and farther technological behind as time goes on, corruption getting bigger, little checks and balances and so on. It's maybe a valid strategy for a country that goes from having no economy to establishing one, but as soon as you're halfway okay it seems like almost any nation profits more from free trade than it does from protectionism. All those countries growing under these state dominated economies also have young populations and completely different demographic situations. And in the context of Europe there is basically no country which would fall in the first category. If your point is that globalization is beneficial for developped countries from a pure economic perspective, I agree - but there are no rules that sayd that it will always be, nor that it beneficial for every citizens and every class in developped countries : slavery was very beneficial for white rich and even for some slaves to a certain extent... So yeah, it is a topic we can discuss democratically, it is à ambivalent process, and not the perfect process not up to any debate like some suggested jere.
Ah, I never said it was a perfect process. I guess I can describe it in three theses.
Thesis number one: globalization is intricately linked with technological progess and therefore unstoppable. It is a consequence of the technology that makes transport of both goods and information increasingly fast and cheap. Now you can complain that the true cost of transport is hidden in the externalities, and that we should include them in the actual cost of transport, but even taking the externalities into account, transportation is increasingly cheap, fast, and reliable. Where international trade used to rely on perilous caravan routes, we now have railway lines and trucks doing those same routes in about 1/20th of the time, at virtually no risk. Whereas intercontinental trade relied on extremely hazardous ship journeys (or equally hazardous caravans), modern freight ships transport 5 times the cargo in about 1/10th of the time, and due to engineering works like the Suez and Panama canal can skip the most dangerous parts of the route. And I haven't even talked about flight routes and the internet, trivializing people transport and information sharing.
Thesis number two: globalization speeds up technological evolution. The very fact that people can travel and mix (increasingly throughout the 20th century) and ideas can travel instantly around the world (21st century) is one of the main causes for technological speedup. While scientists historically have been one of the few groups of people to travel and correspond internationally (the others being traders and royalty), their ability to do so with increasing ease and at decreasing costs has led to new ideas spreading at unprecedented speeds. The internet is the culmination of this process. Given that science and engineering are mostly an incremental process, this means that the faster an idea spreads the quicker someone else can incorporate it into their new idea.
Finally, thesis number three: globalization has an overall positive effect on the world (and not just developed nations). If we were a little bit better at wealth distribution, hunger would have been eradicated, as would the death toll from some of the world's most treatable diseases. However, as it is, hunger will still be eradicated in the near future, and while some diseases are gaining resistance to antibiotics and will cause all manner of resurging problems later on in this century if we don't figure something out, the basic forms are increasingly easier to deal with in increasingly remote places. The agricultural revolution of the 20th century is still very much ongoing, with modern agricultural techniques revolutionizing the way crops are produced in developing nations. Obviously globalization has plenty of downsides. Whether you point to the spread of fundamentalists, some of the problems with specific policies aimed at furthering globalization for its own sake (such as a number of illadvised EU policies), or modern slavery in sweatshops in Bangladesh, there are plenty of problems. However, specifically in reference to the latter: the reason these people work in modern sweatshops is because it is STILL preferrable to the alternative, which is abject squalor. And don't take my word for the decrease in world poverty. Here it is in pretty graphs:
http://ourworldindata.org/data/growth-and-distribution-of-prosperity/world-poverty/
Now as I said before: many of the positive effects are not necessarily due to globalization, but due to the way increased globalization and technological advancement are intricately linked, decoupling a market from the globalized economy will also bar it from many of the advances available, and ultimately slow down the overall speed of this advancement (if enough people throw up enough walls). And this will have overall negative effects on the world's population.
|
On December 13 2015 02:28 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2015 02:21 Faust852 wrote:On December 12 2015 22:41 xM(Z wrote: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. Well, tell me how much you don't rely on globalization and open market. Sure, you are actually writing stuff on a computer assembled in China, with a processor made in USA and a graphic card made in Taiwan. You are wearing clothes coming from Bengladesh and Thailand while eating pork from Netherlands with milk from Poland. You are writing stuff on the internet, which come from everywhere all at once. You are eating fruit coming from south america and spain, because gl getting banana or olive oil in Romania in mid december. At least 90% of the product you consume comes from another country, and that's good because you can't ask for a country to offer all the good possible while keeping them at reasonable cost. That's why globalization is the best thing ever. The only issue is the lack of rules, standard and rules which lead to corporation making billion by selling Polo at 50€ while it cost 30c to make in Bengladesh. That is the issue that need to be tackled on, not some retarded nationalism that would only lead to aweful living standard like cold war USSR or North Korea. Cold war USSR had astonishing good growth result, and many famous economists believed back then that it would necessarily pass the US as the first GDP. The reason was that labor is pretty cheap in goulag (and numbers pretty good when manipulated). But just saying, it was not a complete economic fiasco, it assured full employment and a very good growth - the main problem was that it was plagued by crisis of offer (which are less frequent but more dangerous than the crisis of under employment of the production capabilities that we suffer in our capitalists societies).
Your hability to ignore reality is mind baffling. How about the 30 million people slaugthered by the government?
PD; Continous technological improvement is a direct result of globalization. It's called the free flow of information, goods and capital.
How on earth would south american countries do anything if they couldn't buy computer chips abroad. Or learn how to build a damn power plant.
|
On December 13 2015 10:42 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2015 02:28 WhiteDog wrote:On December 13 2015 02:21 Faust852 wrote:On December 12 2015 22:41 xM(Z wrote: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. Well, tell me how much you don't rely on globalization and open market. Sure, you are actually writing stuff on a computer assembled in China, with a processor made in USA and a graphic card made in Taiwan. You are wearing clothes coming from Bengladesh and Thailand while eating pork from Netherlands with milk from Poland. You are writing stuff on the internet, which come from everywhere all at once. You are eating fruit coming from south america and spain, because gl getting banana or olive oil in Romania in mid december. At least 90% of the product you consume comes from another country, and that's good because you can't ask for a country to offer all the good possible while keeping them at reasonable cost. That's why globalization is the best thing ever. The only issue is the lack of rules, standard and rules which lead to corporation making billion by selling Polo at 50€ while it cost 30c to make in Bengladesh. That is the issue that need to be tackled on, not some retarded nationalism that would only lead to aweful living standard like cold war USSR or North Korea. Cold war USSR had astonishing good growth result, and many famous economists believed back then that it would necessarily pass the US as the first GDP. The reason was that labor is pretty cheap in goulag (and numbers pretty good when manipulated). But just saying, it was not a complete economic fiasco, it assured full employment and a very good growth - the main problem was that it was plagued by crisis of offer (which are less frequent but more dangerous than the crisis of under employment of the production capabilities that we suffer in our capitalists societies). Your hability to ignore reality is mind baffling. How about the 30 million people slaugthered by the government? PD; Continous technological improvement is a direct result of globalization. It's called the free flow of information, goods and capital. How on earth would south american countries do anything if they couldn't buy computer chips abroad. Or learn how to build a damn power plant.
Your inhability to read is quite a feat. I never said the USSR was better.
On December 13 2015 09:47 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2015 05:32 WhiteDog wrote:On December 13 2015 02:56 Acrofales wrote:On December 13 2015 01:58 WhiteDog wrote:On December 13 2015 01:56 RvB wrote:A lot of the reduction in poverty in the last years was in China. With an export led economy I don't see how you can make the argument that the reduction in poverty that globalisation has a small/no role. Though technology also obviously has a big role. On December 13 2015 01:41 Simberto wrote:
That last argument is bad. The retirement age rising could either mean what you are saying, or that we just get older on average. While in 1950, someone who was retiring at 65 might have another 5 years or so to live on average, nowadays it is more along the lines of 10-20+ years or so. A lot of people don't realise how expensive even 1 year of retirement really is. Especially with these low interest rates it's getting unbearably expensive. Because China is an exemple of a globalized country to you ? It is its state, the action of the state, and not the opening of borders, that is at the core of China's success. Even the corruption is a barrier in China. If you want to seek the archetype globalized country, again, look at africa : just a quick search and I see that China's imports as part of GDP is half that of the ivory coast or congo for exemple. Most notably, China's imports as % of GDP has been declining recently, as it entered into the fray of developped countries. Just saying, there is a reason as to why Gaza is more globalized (in % of GDP) than Israel. Your beautiful and happy vision of the globalization is the vision of the dominant, happy few that profit (for a moment, only until another country find a flaw and eat you alive, which is what china is doing right now) from what the poor should actually call a dependancy on international trade. Look at data here. http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NE.IMP.GNFS.ZS?order=wbapi_data_value_2014 wbapi_data_value wbapi_data_value-last&sort=desc China is an example of a globalized economy par excellence. That they hardly import has nothing to do with it at all (it's also not true, they import VAST quantities of commodities, mainly to fuel their cheap factories from which they subsequently export shit all over the world). China's resurgent economy may be planned and the internal market protected, but that doesn't mean they are not an exponent of the globalized economy: the very fact that half of the stuff in your house says "made in china" on it is a clear sign to the contrary. Your idea that production is returning to Europe (which I don't see happening at all, except for highly specialized technological production) is also not a counterexample: if conditions are profitable for production in Europe, countries will take their production there. Just as they moved it to Asia in the first place. The very fact that they are capable of moving their production wherever they like is one of the best examples of globalization you could have given. It is funny that you completly passed by most of my argument, most notably that trading in developped countries is usually less than in poor countries, an thus that an increase globalization is more ofté than not a state of dependancy. There is huge difference between importing what you need but can't produce yourself, and importing things that you can produce but do not due to various imbalance. If globalization is the openess to countries towards production made elsewhere, then we can measure it through the ratio of exports and imports as % of GDP, and according to this, the most globalized countries are poorer and the globalization is the result of a forced process more akin to modern colonialism than to the research of global economic efficiency. As for relocalization, I don't have any english sources, but in french, if you can read, I suggest reading some of El Mouhoud Mouhoub's work, economist and specialist of the question. On December 13 2015 04:08 Nyxisto wrote:On December 13 2015 02:39 WhiteDog wrote:On December 13 2015 02:37 Nyxisto wrote:On December 13 2015 02:28 WhiteDog wrote:On December 13 2015 02:21 Faust852 wrote:On December 12 2015 22:41 xM(Z wrote:On December 12 2015 22:09 Faust852 wrote:On December 12 2015 21:56 xM(Z wrote:
[quote]
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. Well, tell me how much you don't rely on globalization and open market. Sure, you are actually writing stuff on a computer assembled in China, with a processor made in USA and a graphic card made in Taiwan. You are wearing clothes coming from Bengladesh and Thailand while eating pork from Netherlands with milk from Poland. You are writing stuff on the internet, which come from everywhere all at once. You are eating fruit coming from south america and spain, because gl getting banana or olive oil in Romania in mid december. At least 90% of the product you consume comes from another country, and that's good because you can't ask for a country to offer all the good possible while keeping them at reasonable cost. That's why globalization is the best thing ever. The only issue is the lack of rules, standard and rules which lead to corporation making billion by selling Polo at 50€ while it cost 30c to make in Bengladesh. That is the issue that need to be tackled on, not some retarded nationalism that would only lead to aweful living standard like cold war USSR or North Korea. Cold war USSR had astonishing good growth result, and many famous economists believed back then that it would necessarily pass the US as the first GDP. The reason was that labor is pretty cheap in goulag (and numbers pretty good when manipulated). But just saying, it was not a complete economic fiasco, it assured full employment and a very good growth - the main problem was that it was plagued by crisis of offer (which are less frequent but more dangerous than the crisis of under employment of the production capabilities that we suffer in our capitalists societies). A page ago you criticsed people for looking at stupid GDP numbers and now you're defending a government that achieved growth by using people as firewood and having everybody who didn't live in Moscow starve It's exactly what I said, the USSR was very much like the globalization, an economic "success" from a gdp perspective, that created a few crisis of under production (of offer = starving people to death) and that used modern slaves in goulag. I was not, at all, saying the USSR was great. But the USSR was also heavily nationalized and lacked in all the things those types of closed up economies always lack. Bad consumer products, falling farther and farther technological behind as time goes on, corruption getting bigger, little checks and balances and so on. It's maybe a valid strategy for a country that goes from having no economy to establishing one, but as soon as you're halfway okay it seems like almost any nation profits more from free trade than it does from protectionism. All those countries growing under these state dominated economies also have young populations and completely different demographic situations. And in the context of Europe there is basically no country which would fall in the first category. If your point is that globalization is beneficial for developped countries from a pure economic perspective, I agree - but there are no rules that sayd that it will always be, nor that it beneficial for every citizens and every class in developped countries : slavery was very beneficial for white rich and even for some slaves to a certain extent... So yeah, it is a topic we can discuss democratically, it is à ambivalent process, and not the perfect process not up to any debate like some suggested jere. Ah, I never said it was a perfect process. I guess I can describe it in three theses. Thesis number one: globalization is intricately linked with technological progess and therefore unstoppable. It is a consequence of the technology that makes transport of both goods and information increasingly fast and cheap. Now you can complain that the true cost of transport is hidden in the externalities, and that we should include them in the actual cost of transport, but even taking the externalities into account, transportation is increasingly cheap, fast, and reliable. Where international trade used to rely on perilous caravan routes, we now have railway lines and trucks doing those same routes in about 1/20th of the time, at virtually no risk. Whereas intercontinental trade relied on extremely hazardous ship journeys (or equally hazardous caravans), modern freight ships transport 5 times the cargo in about 1/10th of the time, and due to engineering works like the Suez and Panama canal can skip the most dangerous parts of the route. And I haven't even talked about flight routes and the internet, trivializing people transport and information sharing. Thesis number two: globalization speeds up technological evolution. The very fact that people can travel and mix (increasingly throughout the 20th century) and ideas can travel instantly around the world (21st century) is one of the main causes for technological speedup. While scientists historically have been one of the few groups of people to travel and correspond internationally (the others being traders and royalty), their ability to do so with increasing ease and at decreasing costs has led to new ideas spreading at unprecedented speeds. The internet is the culmination of this process. Given that science and engineering are mostly an incremental process, this means that the faster an idea spreads the quicker someone else can incorporate it into their new idea. Finally, thesis number three: globalization has an overall positive effect on the world (and not just developed nations). If we were a little bit better at wealth distribution, hunger would have been eradicated, as would the death toll from some of the world's most treatable diseases. However, as it is, hunger will still be eradicated in the near future, and while some diseases are gaining resistance to antibiotics and will cause all manner of resurging problems later on in this century if we don't figure something out, the basic forms are increasingly easier to deal with in increasingly remote places. The agricultural revolution of the 20th century is still very much ongoing, with modern agricultural techniques revolutionizing the way crops are produced in developing nations. Obviously globalization has plenty of downsides. Whether you point to the spread of fundamentalists, some of the problems with specific policies aimed at furthering globalization for its own sake (such as a number of illadvised EU policies), or modern slavery in sweatshops in Bangladesh, there are plenty of problems. However, specifically in reference to the latter: the reason these people work in modern sweatshops is because it is STILL preferrable to the alternative, which is abject squalor. And don't take my word for the decrease in world poverty. Here it is in pretty graphs: http://ourworldindata.org/data/growth-and-distribution-of-prosperity/world-poverty/Now as I said before: many of the positive effects are not necessarily due to globalization, but due to the way increased globalization and technological advancement are intricately linked, decoupling a market from the globalized economy will also bar it from many of the advances available, and ultimately slow down the overall speed of this advancement (if enough people throw up enough walls). And this will have overall negative effects on the world's population.
I gave you specific argument that you seem unable to respond to. I gave you even a possible way to measure and define globalization, and you continue with your "thesis". You're right, it look like a good "economic" discussion : if the globalization is good and irreversible, then it's good and irreversible, that's the basis of your arguments. I specifically pointed out that the poorest countries are more open to international trade than developped, and you brushed that like it was of no concern.
How did globalization speed up the technological process ? Explain me how please ? Technology today is not going faster than during bretton woods - when capital flows were restricted. In fact, and quite the opposite, today's world is more defined by a deep desire to protect innovation and research, through pattern and various strategies. You make it seem like globalization is the end of private property of some sort, it is just the increase of global trade, permitted by the lessen of national barriers and of transports costs (effectively paid for by firms).
What happen is that some countries effectively buy the capital, and thus still own the property, creating a state of dependancy, far from development. You continue to refuse talking about reality, and bring out some numbers, like the poverty, like it has anything to do with globalization. I already showed you how wrong you were : poverty actually lessen in countries that have a strong national state, to direct financial flux towards what actually help the people and to defend what needs to be defended from the globalization : it is not the opening of frontiers that permitted poverty to be reduced, but rather the hability of some state to invest in health, education and to preserve an economic sector stable and diverse enough to fill the belly of its population.
The most globalized countries, who don't possess such important national institutions, are unable to defend from the negative effect of the globalization, and are robbed by other country, of their national ressource, of their life labor, of their potentiality. China, you say is an exemple of globalized country, it is in fact an exemple of a strong national government, and of the possibility for such institution to use the globalization as it wants and grow out of it oftentime at the expense of the weakers countries who are unable to do so.
|
On December 13 2015 06:59 lord_nibbler wrote:" Globalization is the shit." There, I found a sentence you can all agree on, it's solved.
that's wishful thinking. will argue on whether or not it stinks and then how bad it stinks; the pro-globalizers will talk about how good are their odor sprays.
the pro-globalization people in here are just uttering words for the sake of hearing them.
they'd call native-americans globalized and doing way better than before because they have internet and bananas.
|
On December 13 2015 07:23 BurningSera wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2015 02:21 Faust852 wrote:On December 12 2015 22:41 xM(Z wrote: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. Well, tell me how much you don't rely on globalization and open market.Sure, you are actually writing stuff on a computer assembled in China, with a processor made in USA and a graphic card made in Taiwan. You are wearing clothes coming from Bengladesh and Thailand while eating pork from Netherlands with milk from Poland. You are writing stuff on the internet, which come from everywhere all at once. You are eating fruit coming from south america and spain, because gl getting banana or olive oil in Romania in mid december. At least 90% of the product you consume comes from another country, and that's good because you can't ask for a country to offer all the good possible while keeping them at reasonable cost. That's why globalization is the best thing ever.The only issue is the lack of rules, standard and rules which lead to corporation making billion by selling Polo at 50€ while it cost 30c to make in Bengladesh. That is the issue that need to be tackled on, not some retarded nationalism that would only lead to aweful living standard like cold war USSR or North Korea. Wait wait wait, i think that should be the other way around: Globalization is the natural development from capitalism/'free market', you must go globalization to continue the 'reign of capitalism' otherwise it is dead (ie US is fucked). And the whole point of capitalism is to keep exploiting the 2/3 of the lower level of the pyramid, there will be always be the bottom class people that are poor as fuck. And the stuffs you mentioned that we should praise globalization for, are exactly the proof that how we exploit the lower classes people in the world economy pyramid in the past 100+ years. I will never say i hate capitalism/globalization (because my good life is based on them) but saying that it is the best thing ever is wrong on every fundamental levels.
That's wrong, Europe is the perfect exemple. There is a free market and free trade in the EU, it's one of the major step of the WW globalization. Yet the EU is at the highest in the world in term of wealth, health and freedom.
What caused that ? Good standard, international supervision, agreement between countries.
I pretty like capitalism, because it offers good competition, leading to great innovations and cheap price. The issue is again the lack of control and stupid stuff that you see on the news with the USA everyday that can"t happen here in Europe.
And I am pretty sure there won't be anymore poor people in the West in 50y, or there will be only poor people in the world.
Because automatization will make everything cheap but remove 3/4 of every job ever, if there isn't some kind of Universal Basic Income or any way to keep people fed and well, civil wars definitly gonna get us there.
|
On December 13 2015 19:50 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2015 06:59 lord_nibbler wrote:" Globalization is the shit." There, I found a sentence you can all agree on, it's solved. that's wishful thinking. will argue on whether or not it stinks and then how bad it stinks. the pro-globalization people in here are just uttering words for the sake of hearing them. they'd call native-americans globalized and doing way better than before.
Tell me how Romania would do in a closed market right now ?
Tell me how good Romania evolved since 89' compare to its past ? How its economy has boosted since 2007 ? Ofc there was 2009 but it was worldwide, and if you had kept your closed market, you would still be 3rd world tier
|
On December 13 2015 19:58 Faust852 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2015 07:23 BurningSera wrote:On December 13 2015 02:21 Faust852 wrote:On December 12 2015 22:41 xM(Z wrote: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. Well, tell me how much you don't rely on globalization and open market.Sure, you are actually writing stuff on a computer assembled in China, with a processor made in USA and a graphic card made in Taiwan. You are wearing clothes coming from Bengladesh and Thailand while eating pork from Netherlands with milk from Poland. You are writing stuff on the internet, which come from everywhere all at once. You are eating fruit coming from south america and spain, because gl getting banana or olive oil in Romania in mid december. At least 90% of the product you consume comes from another country, and that's good because you can't ask for a country to offer all the good possible while keeping them at reasonable cost. That's why globalization is the best thing ever.The only issue is the lack of rules, standard and rules which lead to corporation making billion by selling Polo at 50€ while it cost 30c to make in Bengladesh. That is the issue that need to be tackled on, not some retarded nationalism that would only lead to aweful living standard like cold war USSR or North Korea. Wait wait wait, i think that should be the other way around: Globalization is the natural development from capitalism/'free market', you must go globalization to continue the 'reign of capitalism' otherwise it is dead (ie US is fucked). And the whole point of capitalism is to keep exploiting the 2/3 of the lower level of the pyramid, there will be always be the bottom class people that are poor as fuck. And the stuffs you mentioned that we should praise globalization for, are exactly the proof that how we exploit the lower classes people in the world economy pyramid in the past 100+ years. I will never say i hate capitalism/globalization (because my good life is based on them) but saying that it is the best thing ever is wrong on every fundamental levels. That's wrong, Europe is the perfect exemple. There is a free market and free trade in the EU, it's one of the major step of the WW globalization. Yet the EU is at the highest in the world in term of wealth, health and freedom. What caused that ? Good standard, international supervision, agreement between countries. I pretty like capitalism, because it offers good competition, leading to great innovations and cheap price. The issue is again the lack of control and stupid stuff that you see on the news with the USA everyday that can"t happen here in Europe. And I am pretty sure there won't be anymore poor people in the West in 50y, or there will be only poor people in the world. Because automatization will make everything cheap but remove 3/4 of every job ever, if there isn't some kind of Universal Basic Income or any way to keep people fed and well, civil wars definitly gonna get us there.
So it's the european free trade agreement that permitted EU to be at the "highest in the world in term of wealth" ? In fact, europe's growth is lackluster in comparaison to other countries and has been for the last twenty to thirty years. What made europe is its history, the fact that it used some invention to violently take over the world and used the ressources belonging to others to grow, until 1970, at rates almost never seen anywhere else, aside from the US.
|
On December 13 2015 20:07 Faust852 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2015 19:50 xM(Z wrote:On December 13 2015 06:59 lord_nibbler wrote:" Globalization is the shit." There, I found a sentence you can all agree on, it's solved. that's wishful thinking. will argue on whether or not it stinks and then how bad it stinks. the pro-globalization people in here are just uttering words for the sake of hearing them. they'd call native-americans globalized and doing way better than before. Tell me how Romania would do in a closed market right now ? Tell me how good Romania evolved since 89' compare to its past ? How its economy has boosted since 2007 ? Ofc there was 2009 but it was worldwide, and if you had kept your closed market, you would still be 3rd world tier
dude, you're not getting it. i'll repeat, globalization did not invent the trading, but now let me also translate it for you:
- trade(maybe even free, through gifts) existed before globalization and it will exist before globalization. mind blown, right?.
what the hell don't you get?. i'd be eating bananas without your damn free trades, which are not fucking free anyway; you still pay for shit.
or just define globalization so i'd disagree and move on.
|
On December 13 2015 20:17 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2015 20:07 Faust852 wrote:On December 13 2015 19:50 xM(Z wrote:On December 13 2015 06:59 lord_nibbler wrote:" Globalization is the shit." There, I found a sentence you can all agree on, it's solved. that's wishful thinking. will argue on whether or not it stinks and then how bad it stinks. the pro-globalization people in here are just uttering words for the sake of hearing them. they'd call native-americans globalized and doing way better than before. Tell me how Romania would do in a closed market right now ? Tell me how good Romania evolved since 89' compare to its past ? How its economy has boosted since 2007 ? Ofc there was 2009 but it was worldwide, and if you had kept your closed market, you would still be 3rd world tier dude, you're not getting it. i'll repeat, globalization did not invent the trading, but now let me also translate it for you now: - trade(maybe even free, through gifts) existed before globalization and it will exist before globalization. mind blown, right?. what the hell don't you get?. i'd be eating bananas without your damn free trades, which are not fucking free anyway; you still pay for shit. or just define globalization so i'd disagree and move on.
Globalization is a process of interaction and integration among the people, companies, and governments of different nations, a process driven by international trade and investment and aided by information technology. This process has effects on the environment, on culture, on political systems, on economic development and prosperity, and on human physical well-being in societies around the world.
|
On December 13 2015 18:48 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2015 09:47 Acrofales wrote:On December 13 2015 05:32 WhiteDog wrote:On December 13 2015 02:56 Acrofales wrote:On December 13 2015 01:58 WhiteDog wrote:On December 13 2015 01:56 RvB wrote:A lot of the reduction in poverty in the last years was in China. With an export led economy I don't see how you can make the argument that the reduction in poverty that globalisation has a small/no role. Though technology also obviously has a big role. On December 13 2015 01:41 Simberto wrote:
That last argument is bad. The retirement age rising could either mean what you are saying, or that we just get older on average. While in 1950, someone who was retiring at 65 might have another 5 years or so to live on average, nowadays it is more along the lines of 10-20+ years or so. A lot of people don't realise how expensive even 1 year of retirement really is. Especially with these low interest rates it's getting unbearably expensive. Because China is an exemple of a globalized country to you ? It is its state, the action of the state, and not the opening of borders, that is at the core of China's success. Even the corruption is a barrier in China. If you want to seek the archetype globalized country, again, look at africa : just a quick search and I see that China's imports as part of GDP is half that of the ivory coast or congo for exemple. Most notably, China's imports as % of GDP has been declining recently, as it entered into the fray of developped countries. Just saying, there is a reason as to why Gaza is more globalized (in % of GDP) than Israel. Your beautiful and happy vision of the globalization is the vision of the dominant, happy few that profit (for a moment, only until another country find a flaw and eat you alive, which is what china is doing right now) from what the poor should actually call a dependancy on international trade. Look at data here. http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NE.IMP.GNFS.ZS?order=wbapi_data_value_2014 wbapi_data_value wbapi_data_value-last&sort=desc China is an example of a globalized economy par excellence. That they hardly import has nothing to do with it at all (it's also not true, they import VAST quantities of commodities, mainly to fuel their cheap factories from which they subsequently export shit all over the world). China's resurgent economy may be planned and the internal market protected, but that doesn't mean they are not an exponent of the globalized economy: the very fact that half of the stuff in your house says "made in china" on it is a clear sign to the contrary. Your idea that production is returning to Europe (which I don't see happening at all, except for highly specialized technological production) is also not a counterexample: if conditions are profitable for production in Europe, countries will take their production there. Just as they moved it to Asia in the first place. The very fact that they are capable of moving their production wherever they like is one of the best examples of globalization you could have given. It is funny that you completly passed by most of my argument, most notably that trading in developped countries is usually less than in poor countries, an thus that an increase globalization is more ofté than not a state of dependancy. There is huge difference between importing what you need but can't produce yourself, and importing things that you can produce but do not due to various imbalance. If globalization is the openess to countries towards production made elsewhere, then we can measure it through the ratio of exports and imports as % of GDP, and according to this, the most globalized countries are poorer and the globalization is the result of a forced process more akin to modern colonialism than to the research of global economic efficiency. As for relocalization, I don't have any english sources, but in french, if you can read, I suggest reading some of El Mouhoud Mouhoub's work, economist and specialist of the question. On December 13 2015 04:08 Nyxisto wrote:On December 13 2015 02:39 WhiteDog wrote:On December 13 2015 02:37 Nyxisto wrote:On December 13 2015 02:28 WhiteDog wrote:On December 13 2015 02:21 Faust852 wrote:On December 12 2015 22:41 xM(Z wrote:On December 12 2015 22:09 Faust852 wrote:[quote] 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. Well, tell me how much you don't rely on globalization and open market. Sure, you are actually writing stuff on a computer assembled in China, with a processor made in USA and a graphic card made in Taiwan. You are wearing clothes coming from Bengladesh and Thailand while eating pork from Netherlands with milk from Poland. You are writing stuff on the internet, which come from everywhere all at once. You are eating fruit coming from south america and spain, because gl getting banana or olive oil in Romania in mid december. At least 90% of the product you consume comes from another country, and that's good because you can't ask for a country to offer all the good possible while keeping them at reasonable cost. That's why globalization is the best thing ever. The only issue is the lack of rules, standard and rules which lead to corporation making billion by selling Polo at 50€ while it cost 30c to make in Bengladesh. That is the issue that need to be tackled on, not some retarded nationalism that would only lead to aweful living standard like cold war USSR or North Korea. Cold war USSR had astonishing good growth result, and many famous economists believed back then that it would necessarily pass the US as the first GDP. The reason was that labor is pretty cheap in goulag (and numbers pretty good when manipulated). But just saying, it was not a complete economic fiasco, it assured full employment and a very good growth - the main problem was that it was plagued by crisis of offer (which are less frequent but more dangerous than the crisis of under employment of the production capabilities that we suffer in our capitalists societies). A page ago you criticsed people for looking at stupid GDP numbers and now you're defending a government that achieved growth by using people as firewood and having everybody who didn't live in Moscow starve It's exactly what I said, the USSR was very much like the globalization, an economic "success" from a gdp perspective, that created a few crisis of under production (of offer = starving people to death) and that used modern slaves in goulag. I was not, at all, saying the USSR was great. But the USSR was also heavily nationalized and lacked in all the things those types of closed up economies always lack. Bad consumer products, falling farther and farther technological behind as time goes on, corruption getting bigger, little checks and balances and so on. It's maybe a valid strategy for a country that goes from having no economy to establishing one, but as soon as you're halfway okay it seems like almost any nation profits more from free trade than it does from protectionism. All those countries growing under these state dominated economies also have young populations and completely different demographic situations. And in the context of Europe there is basically no country which would fall in the first category. If your point is that globalization is beneficial for developped countries from a pure economic perspective, I agree - but there are no rules that sayd that it will always be, nor that it beneficial for every citizens and every class in developped countries : slavery was very beneficial for white rich and even for some slaves to a certain extent... So yeah, it is a topic we can discuss democratically, it is à ambivalent process, and not the perfect process not up to any debate like some suggested jere. Ah, I never said it was a perfect process. I guess I can describe it in three theses. Thesis number one: globalization is intricately linked with technological progess and therefore unstoppable. It is a consequence of the technology that makes transport of both goods and information increasingly fast and cheap. Now you can complain that the true cost of transport is hidden in the externalities, and that we should include them in the actual cost of transport, but even taking the externalities into account, transportation is increasingly cheap, fast, and reliable. Where international trade used to rely on perilous caravan routes, we now have railway lines and trucks doing those same routes in about 1/20th of the time, at virtually no risk. Whereas intercontinental trade relied on extremely hazardous ship journeys (or equally hazardous caravans), modern freight ships transport 5 times the cargo in about 1/10th of the time, and due to engineering works like the Suez and Panama canal can skip the most dangerous parts of the route. And I haven't even talked about flight routes and the internet, trivializing people transport and information sharing. Thesis number two: globalization speeds up technological evolution. The very fact that people can travel and mix (increasingly throughout the 20th century) and ideas can travel instantly around the world (21st century) is one of the main causes for technological speedup. While scientists historically have been one of the few groups of people to travel and correspond internationally (the others being traders and royalty), their ability to do so with increasing ease and at decreasing costs has led to new ideas spreading at unprecedented speeds. The internet is the culmination of this process. Given that science and engineering are mostly an incremental process, this means that the faster an idea spreads the quicker someone else can incorporate it into their new idea. Finally, thesis number three: globalization has an overall positive effect on the world (and not just developed nations). If we were a little bit better at wealth distribution, hunger would have been eradicated, as would the death toll from some of the world's most treatable diseases. However, as it is, hunger will still be eradicated in the near future, and while some diseases are gaining resistance to antibiotics and will cause all manner of resurging problems later on in this century if we don't figure something out, the basic forms are increasingly easier to deal with in increasingly remote places. The agricultural revolution of the 20th century is still very much ongoing, with modern agricultural techniques revolutionizing the way crops are produced in developing nations. Obviously globalization has plenty of downsides. Whether you point to the spread of fundamentalists, some of the problems with specific policies aimed at furthering globalization for its own sake (such as a number of illadvised EU policies), or modern slavery in sweatshops in Bangladesh, there are plenty of problems. However, specifically in reference to the latter: the reason these people work in modern sweatshops is because it is STILL preferrable to the alternative, which is abject squalor. And don't take my word for the decrease in world poverty. Here it is in pretty graphs: http://ourworldindata.org/data/growth-and-distribution-of-prosperity/world-poverty/Now as I said before: many of the positive effects are not necessarily due to globalization, but due to the way increased globalization and technological advancement are intricately linked, decoupling a market from the globalized economy will also bar it from many of the advances available, and ultimately slow down the overall speed of this advancement (if enough people throw up enough walls). And this will have overall negative effects on the world's population. I gave you specific argument that you seem unable to respond to. I gave you even a possible way to measure and define globalization, and you continue with your "thesis". You're right, it look like a good "economic" discussion : if the globalization is good and irreversible, then it's good and irreversible, that's the basis of your arguments. I specifically pointed out that the poorest countries are more open to international trade than developped, and you brushed that like it was of no concern. How did globalization speed up the technological process ? Explain me how please ? Technology today is not going faster than during bretton woods - when capital flows were restricted. In fact, and quite the opposite, today's world is more defined by a deep desire to protect innovation and research, through pattern and various strategies. You make it seem like globalization is the end of private property of some sort, it is just the increase of global trade, permitted by the lessen of national barriers and of transports costs (effectively paid for by firms). What happen is that some countries effectively buy the capital, and thus still own the property, creating a state of dependancy, far from development. You continue to refuse talking about reality, and bring out some numbers, like the poverty, like it has anything to do with globalization. I already showed you how wrong you were : poverty actually lessen in countries that have a strong national state, to direct financial flux towards what actually help the people and to defend what needs to be defended from the globalization : it is not the opening of frontiers that permitted poverty to be reduced, but rather the hability of some state to invest in health, education and to preserve an economic sector stable and diverse enough to fill the belly of its population. The most globalized countries, who don't possess such important national institutions, are unable to defend from the negative effect of the globalization, and are robbed by other country, of their national ressource, of their life labor, of their potentiality. China, you say is an exemple of globalized country, it is in fact an exemple of a strong national government, and of the possibility for such institution to use the globalization as it wants and grow out of it oftentime at the expense of the weakers countries who are unable to do so.
Yup, i was going to reply him but you basically put everything out already,i'd use an example here (regarding how globalization doesn't speed up technology by the other way around):
We would have gottern flying cars by now if it wasn't because of the fact that producing flying cars will crumble the whole current car manufacturing industry in one night.
|
On December 13 2015 20:12 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2015 19:58 Faust852 wrote:On December 13 2015 07:23 BurningSera wrote:On December 13 2015 02:21 Faust852 wrote:On December 12 2015 22:41 xM(Z wrote: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. Well, tell me how much you don't rely on globalization and open market.Sure, you are actually writing stuff on a computer assembled in China, with a processor made in USA and a graphic card made in Taiwan. You are wearing clothes coming from Bengladesh and Thailand while eating pork from Netherlands with milk from Poland. You are writing stuff on the internet, which come from everywhere all at once. You are eating fruit coming from south america and spain, because gl getting banana or olive oil in Romania in mid december. At least 90% of the product you consume comes from another country, and that's good because you can't ask for a country to offer all the good possible while keeping them at reasonable cost. That's why globalization is the best thing ever.The only issue is the lack of rules, standard and rules which lead to corporation making billion by selling Polo at 50€ while it cost 30c to make in Bengladesh. That is the issue that need to be tackled on, not some retarded nationalism that would only lead to aweful living standard like cold war USSR or North Korea. Wait wait wait, i think that should be the other way around: Globalization is the natural development from capitalism/'free market', you must go globalization to continue the 'reign of capitalism' otherwise it is dead (ie US is fucked). And the whole point of capitalism is to keep exploiting the 2/3 of the lower level of the pyramid, there will be always be the bottom class people that are poor as fuck. And the stuffs you mentioned that we should praise globalization for, are exactly the proof that how we exploit the lower classes people in the world economy pyramid in the past 100+ years. I will never say i hate capitalism/globalization (because my good life is based on them) but saying that it is the best thing ever is wrong on every fundamental levels. That's wrong, Europe is the perfect exemple. There is a free market and free trade in the EU, it's one of the major step of the WW globalization. Yet the EU is at the highest in the world in term of wealth, health and freedom. What caused that ? Good standard, international supervision, agreement between countries. I pretty like capitalism, because it offers good competition, leading to great innovations and cheap price. The issue is again the lack of control and stupid stuff that you see on the news with the USA everyday that can"t happen here in Europe. And I am pretty sure there won't be anymore poor people in the West in 50y, or there will be only poor people in the world. Because automatization will make everything cheap but remove 3/4 of every job ever, if there isn't some kind of Universal Basic Income or any way to keep people fed and well, civil wars definitly gonna get us there. So it's the european free trade agreement that permitted EU to be at the "highest in the world in term of wealth" ? In fact, europe's growth is lackluster in comparaison to other countries and has been for the last twenty to thirty years. What made europe is its history, the fact that it used some invention to violently take over the world and used the ressources belonging to others to grow, until 1970, at rates almost never seen anywhere else, aside from the US.
Well, we are still n°1 in term of GDP.
And what is preventing a bigger growth is again a lack of agreement and of a true centralized federal EU government. And it's also harder to grow when you are at the top if you don't have a big incentive on innovation
Technology today is not going faster than during bretton woods - when capital flows were restricted. In fact, and quite the opposite
Seriously ? We already live in a sciencefiction movie where innovation are huge, we are just blind and refuse to accept it because there isn't neon color on every angle of every street and flying car. We have smartphone 10x faster than computer that are 10yo, you have GPS that allow you to localized yourself everywhere in the world, internet allow you to learn about everything at a Ph.D level. You can travel anywhere in the world in less than 2 days. You are more likely to live >100yo than not. The first stellerator is working. Seriously think back 25yo ago and remember how hard it was to even get a single information on a trivia because you didn't have internet. How hard it was to keep contact with friends if they went aboard, how stupid people were because common knowledge wasn't that accessible.
But yeah, we didn't evolve at all since WW2.
|
On December 13 2015 20:22 Faust852 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2015 20:17 xM(Z wrote:On December 13 2015 20:07 Faust852 wrote:On December 13 2015 19:50 xM(Z wrote:On December 13 2015 06:59 lord_nibbler wrote:" Globalization is the shit." There, I found a sentence you can all agree on, it's solved. that's wishful thinking. will argue on whether or not it stinks and then how bad it stinks. the pro-globalization people in here are just uttering words for the sake of hearing them. they'd call native-americans globalized and doing way better than before. Tell me how Romania would do in a closed market right now ? Tell me how good Romania evolved since 89' compare to its past ? How its economy has boosted since 2007 ? Ofc there was 2009 but it was worldwide, and if you had kept your closed market, you would still be 3rd world tier dude, you're not getting it. i'll repeat, globalization did not invent the trading, but now let me also translate it for you now: - trade(maybe even free, through gifts) existed before globalization and it will exist before globalization. mind blown, right?. what the hell don't you get?. i'd be eating bananas without your damn free trades, which are not fucking free anyway; you still pay for shit. or just define globalization so i'd disagree and move on. Show nested quote +Globalization is a process of interaction and integration among the people, companies, and governments of different nations, a process driven by international trade and investment and aided by information technology. This process has effects on the environment, on culture, on political systems, on economic development and prosperity, and on human physical well-being in societies around the world.
You seem unable to understand that the core of globalization is not the existence of international trade, but rather the lifting of all barriers to trade at the international level. It is completly different, trading existed way before the idea of globalization. Globalization is a rather recent process, started under the guidance of the ex GATT after the second world war (altho it had, back then, many restrictions most notably on capital flows) and afterwards with the WTO (and the lifting of restriction on capital flow around 1970 with the end of Bretton Woods).
On December 13 2015 20:27 Faust852 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2015 20:12 WhiteDog wrote:On December 13 2015 19:58 Faust852 wrote:On December 13 2015 07:23 BurningSera wrote:On December 13 2015 02:21 Faust852 wrote:On December 12 2015 22:41 xM(Z wrote: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. Well, tell me how much you don't rely on globalization and open market.Sure, you are actually writing stuff on a computer assembled in China, with a processor made in USA and a graphic card made in Taiwan. You are wearing clothes coming from Bengladesh and Thailand while eating pork from Netherlands with milk from Poland. You are writing stuff on the internet, which come from everywhere all at once. You are eating fruit coming from south america and spain, because gl getting banana or olive oil in Romania in mid december. At least 90% of the product you consume comes from another country, and that's good because you can't ask for a country to offer all the good possible while keeping them at reasonable cost. That's why globalization is the best thing ever.The only issue is the lack of rules, standard and rules which lead to corporation making billion by selling Polo at 50€ while it cost 30c to make in Bengladesh. That is the issue that need to be tackled on, not some retarded nationalism that would only lead to aweful living standard like cold war USSR or North Korea. Wait wait wait, i think that should be the other way around: Globalization is the natural development from capitalism/'free market', you must go globalization to continue the 'reign of capitalism' otherwise it is dead (ie US is fucked). And the whole point of capitalism is to keep exploiting the 2/3 of the lower level of the pyramid, there will be always be the bottom class people that are poor as fuck. And the stuffs you mentioned that we should praise globalization for, are exactly the proof that how we exploit the lower classes people in the world economy pyramid in the past 100+ years. I will never say i hate capitalism/globalization (because my good life is based on them) but saying that it is the best thing ever is wrong on every fundamental levels. That's wrong, Europe is the perfect exemple. There is a free market and free trade in the EU, it's one of the major step of the WW globalization. Yet the EU is at the highest in the world in term of wealth, health and freedom. What caused that ? Good standard, international supervision, agreement between countries. I pretty like capitalism, because it offers good competition, leading to great innovations and cheap price. The issue is again the lack of control and stupid stuff that you see on the news with the USA everyday that can"t happen here in Europe. And I am pretty sure there won't be anymore poor people in the West in 50y, or there will be only poor people in the world. Because automatization will make everything cheap but remove 3/4 of every job ever, if there isn't some kind of Universal Basic Income or any way to keep people fed and well, civil wars definitly gonna get us there. So it's the european free trade agreement that permitted EU to be at the "highest in the world in term of wealth" ? In fact, europe's growth is lackluster in comparaison to other countries and has been for the last twenty to thirty years. What made europe is its history, the fact that it used some invention to violently take over the world and used the ressources belonging to others to grow, until 1970, at rates almost never seen anywhere else, aside from the US. Well, we are still n°1 in term of GDP. And what is preventing a bigger growth is again a lack of agreement and of a true centralized federal EU government. And it's also harder to grow when you are at the top if you don't have a big incentive on innovation
Tell that to the US, who are at the top, and still get higher growth than us despite being, overall, less dependant on international trade.
https://www.ecb.europa.eu/mopo/eaec/html/index.en.html
Europe / US / Japan / China
Exports of goods % of GDP 19.5 / 9.4 / 15.2 / 21.6
Exports of goods and services % of GDP 26.4 / 13.5 / 18.7 / 23.8
Import of goods % of GDP 17.0 / 13.7 / 17.3 / 17.4
Import of goods and services % of GDP 23.2 / 16.4 / 21.5 / 21.1
Exports (share of world exports, including intra-euro area trade) % 24.8 / 8.8 / 3.7 / 12.7
Exports (share of world exports, excluding intra-euro area trade) % 15.8 / 10.0 / 4.2 / 14.4
|
On December 13 2015 20:29 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2015 20:22 Faust852 wrote:On December 13 2015 20:17 xM(Z wrote:On December 13 2015 20:07 Faust852 wrote:On December 13 2015 19:50 xM(Z wrote:On December 13 2015 06:59 lord_nibbler wrote:" Globalization is the shit." There, I found a sentence you can all agree on, it's solved. that's wishful thinking. will argue on whether or not it stinks and then how bad it stinks. the pro-globalization people in here are just uttering words for the sake of hearing them. they'd call native-americans globalized and doing way better than before. Tell me how Romania would do in a closed market right now ? Tell me how good Romania evolved since 89' compare to its past ? How its economy has boosted since 2007 ? Ofc there was 2009 but it was worldwide, and if you had kept your closed market, you would still be 3rd world tier dude, you're not getting it. i'll repeat, globalization did not invent the trading, but now let me also translate it for you now: - trade(maybe even free, through gifts) existed before globalization and it will exist before globalization. mind blown, right?. what the hell don't you get?. i'd be eating bananas without your damn free trades, which are not fucking free anyway; you still pay for shit. or just define globalization so i'd disagree and move on. Globalization is a process of interaction and integration among the people, companies, and governments of different nations, a process driven by international trade and investment and aided by information technology. This process has effects on the environment, on culture, on political systems, on economic development and prosperity, and on human physical well-being in societies around the world. You seem unable to understand that the core of globalization is not the existence of international trade, but rather the lifting of all barriers to trade at the international level. It is completly different, trading existed way before the idea of globalization. Globalization is a rather recent process, started under the guidance of the ex GATT after the second world war (altho it had, back then, many restrictions most notably on capital flows) and afterwards with the WTO (and the lifting of restriction on capital flow around 1970 with the end of Bretton Woods). Show nested quote +On December 13 2015 20:27 Faust852 wrote:On December 13 2015 20:12 WhiteDog wrote:On December 13 2015 19:58 Faust852 wrote:On December 13 2015 07:23 BurningSera wrote:On December 13 2015 02:21 Faust852 wrote:On December 12 2015 22:41 xM(Z wrote: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. Well, tell me how much you don't rely on globalization and open market.Sure, you are actually writing stuff on a computer assembled in China, with a processor made in USA and a graphic card made in Taiwan. You are wearing clothes coming from Bengladesh and Thailand while eating pork from Netherlands with milk from Poland. You are writing stuff on the internet, which come from everywhere all at once. You are eating fruit coming from south america and spain, because gl getting banana or olive oil in Romania in mid december. At least 90% of the product you consume comes from another country, and that's good because you can't ask for a country to offer all the good possible while keeping them at reasonable cost. That's why globalization is the best thing ever.The only issue is the lack of rules, standard and rules which lead to corporation making billion by selling Polo at 50€ while it cost 30c to make in Bengladesh. That is the issue that need to be tackled on, not some retarded nationalism that would only lead to aweful living standard like cold war USSR or North Korea. Wait wait wait, i think that should be the other way around: Globalization is the natural development from capitalism/'free market', you must go globalization to continue the 'reign of capitalism' otherwise it is dead (ie US is fucked). And the whole point of capitalism is to keep exploiting the 2/3 of the lower level of the pyramid, there will be always be the bottom class people that are poor as fuck. And the stuffs you mentioned that we should praise globalization for, are exactly the proof that how we exploit the lower classes people in the world economy pyramid in the past 100+ years. I will never say i hate capitalism/globalization (because my good life is based on them) but saying that it is the best thing ever is wrong on every fundamental levels. That's wrong, Europe is the perfect exemple. There is a free market and free trade in the EU, it's one of the major step of the WW globalization. Yet the EU is at the highest in the world in term of wealth, health and freedom. What caused that ? Good standard, international supervision, agreement between countries. I pretty like capitalism, because it offers good competition, leading to great innovations and cheap price. The issue is again the lack of control and stupid stuff that you see on the news with the USA everyday that can"t happen here in Europe. And I am pretty sure there won't be anymore poor people in the West in 50y, or there will be only poor people in the world. Because automatization will make everything cheap but remove 3/4 of every job ever, if there isn't some kind of Universal Basic Income or any way to keep people fed and well, civil wars definitly gonna get us there. So it's the european free trade agreement that permitted EU to be at the "highest in the world in term of wealth" ? In fact, europe's growth is lackluster in comparaison to other countries and has been for the last twenty to thirty years. What made europe is its history, the fact that it used some invention to violently take over the world and used the ressources belonging to others to grow, until 1970, at rates almost never seen anywhere else, aside from the US. Well, we are still n°1 in term of GDP. And what is preventing a bigger growth is again a lack of agreement and of a true centralized federal EU government. And it's also harder to grow when you are at the top if you don't have a big incentive on innovation Tell that to the US, who are at the top, and still get higher growth than us despite being, overall, less dependant on international trade.
How hard is it to believe that a single entity with plenty of natural ressources (especially oil) would do better than a group of different, sometime opposite people gathered together while not being at the same level to beging with ?
Ofc EU would evolve slower than the US, especially when the US don't mind lowering standard to benefit its economy in the detriment of its population.
|
On December 13 2015 20:22 Faust852 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2015 20:17 xM(Z wrote:On December 13 2015 20:07 Faust852 wrote:On December 13 2015 19:50 xM(Z wrote:On December 13 2015 06:59 lord_nibbler wrote:" Globalization is the shit." There, I found a sentence you can all agree on, it's solved. that's wishful thinking. will argue on whether or not it stinks and then how bad it stinks. the pro-globalization people in here are just uttering words for the sake of hearing them. they'd call native-americans globalized and doing way better than before. Tell me how Romania would do in a closed market right now ? Tell me how good Romania evolved since 89' compare to its past ? How its economy has boosted since 2007 ? Ofc there was 2009 but it was worldwide, and if you had kept your closed market, you would still be 3rd world tier dude, you're not getting it. i'll repeat, globalization did not invent the trading, but now let me also translate it for you now: - trade(maybe even free, through gifts) existed before globalization and it will exist before globalization. mind blown, right?. what the hell don't you get?. i'd be eating bananas without your damn free trades, which are not fucking free anyway; you still pay for shit. or just define globalization so i'd disagree and move on. Show nested quote +Globalization is a process of interaction and integration among the people, companies, and governments of different nations, a process driven by international trade and investment and aided by information technology. This process has effects on the environment, on culture, on political systems, on economic development and prosperity, and on human physical well-being in societies around the world.
and?, it is driven by means that trading happened anyway; with or without it(actually what globalization does is prevent states from making trade agreements of their own and open free markets with the neighbor of their choosing).
seriously dude, just get it. the only argument you have here is that said banana would've cost me more without your free trade.
this shit is morally legalized colonialism.
|
On December 13 2015 20:37 Faust852 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2015 20:29 WhiteDog wrote:On December 13 2015 20:22 Faust852 wrote:On December 13 2015 20:17 xM(Z wrote:On December 13 2015 20:07 Faust852 wrote:On December 13 2015 19:50 xM(Z wrote:On December 13 2015 06:59 lord_nibbler wrote:" Globalization is the shit." There, I found a sentence you can all agree on, it's solved. that's wishful thinking. will argue on whether or not it stinks and then how bad it stinks. the pro-globalization people in here are just uttering words for the sake of hearing them. they'd call native-americans globalized and doing way better than before. Tell me how Romania would do in a closed market right now ? Tell me how good Romania evolved since 89' compare to its past ? How its economy has boosted since 2007 ? Ofc there was 2009 but it was worldwide, and if you had kept your closed market, you would still be 3rd world tier dude, you're not getting it. i'll repeat, globalization did not invent the trading, but now let me also translate it for you now: - trade(maybe even free, through gifts) existed before globalization and it will exist before globalization. mind blown, right?. what the hell don't you get?. i'd be eating bananas without your damn free trades, which are not fucking free anyway; you still pay for shit. or just define globalization so i'd disagree and move on. Globalization is a process of interaction and integration among the people, companies, and governments of different nations, a process driven by international trade and investment and aided by information technology. This process has effects on the environment, on culture, on political systems, on economic development and prosperity, and on human physical well-being in societies around the world. You seem unable to understand that the core of globalization is not the existence of international trade, but rather the lifting of all barriers to trade at the international level. It is completly different, trading existed way before the idea of globalization. Globalization is a rather recent process, started under the guidance of the ex GATT after the second world war (altho it had, back then, many restrictions most notably on capital flows) and afterwards with the WTO (and the lifting of restriction on capital flow around 1970 with the end of Bretton Woods). On December 13 2015 20:27 Faust852 wrote:On December 13 2015 20:12 WhiteDog wrote:On December 13 2015 19:58 Faust852 wrote:On December 13 2015 07:23 BurningSera wrote:On December 13 2015 02:21 Faust852 wrote:On December 12 2015 22:41 xM(Z wrote:On December 12 2015 22:09 Faust852 wrote:On December 12 2015 21:56 xM(Z wrote:
[quote]
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. Well, tell me how much you don't rely on globalization and open market.Sure, you are actually writing stuff on a computer assembled in China, with a processor made in USA and a graphic card made in Taiwan. You are wearing clothes coming from Bengladesh and Thailand while eating pork from Netherlands with milk from Poland. You are writing stuff on the internet, which come from everywhere all at once. You are eating fruit coming from south america and spain, because gl getting banana or olive oil in Romania in mid december. At least 90% of the product you consume comes from another country, and that's good because you can't ask for a country to offer all the good possible while keeping them at reasonable cost. That's why globalization is the best thing ever.The only issue is the lack of rules, standard and rules which lead to corporation making billion by selling Polo at 50€ while it cost 30c to make in Bengladesh. That is the issue that need to be tackled on, not some retarded nationalism that would only lead to aweful living standard like cold war USSR or North Korea. Wait wait wait, i think that should be the other way around: Globalization is the natural development from capitalism/'free market', you must go globalization to continue the 'reign of capitalism' otherwise it is dead (ie US is fucked). And the whole point of capitalism is to keep exploiting the 2/3 of the lower level of the pyramid, there will be always be the bottom class people that are poor as fuck. And the stuffs you mentioned that we should praise globalization for, are exactly the proof that how we exploit the lower classes people in the world economy pyramid in the past 100+ years. I will never say i hate capitalism/globalization (because my good life is based on them) but saying that it is the best thing ever is wrong on every fundamental levels. That's wrong, Europe is the perfect exemple. There is a free market and free trade in the EU, it's one of the major step of the WW globalization. Yet the EU is at the highest in the world in term of wealth, health and freedom. What caused that ? Good standard, international supervision, agreement between countries. I pretty like capitalism, because it offers good competition, leading to great innovations and cheap price. The issue is again the lack of control and stupid stuff that you see on the news with the USA everyday that can"t happen here in Europe. And I am pretty sure there won't be anymore poor people in the West in 50y, or there will be only poor people in the world. Because automatization will make everything cheap but remove 3/4 of every job ever, if there isn't some kind of Universal Basic Income or any way to keep people fed and well, civil wars definitly gonna get us there. So it's the european free trade agreement that permitted EU to be at the "highest in the world in term of wealth" ? In fact, europe's growth is lackluster in comparaison to other countries and has been for the last twenty to thirty years. What made europe is its history, the fact that it used some invention to violently take over the world and used the ressources belonging to others to grow, until 1970, at rates almost never seen anywhere else, aside from the US. Well, we are still n°1 in term of GDP. And what is preventing a bigger growth is again a lack of agreement and of a true centralized federal EU government. And it's also harder to grow when you are at the top if you don't have a big incentive on innovation Tell that to the US, who are at the top, and still get higher growth than us despite being, overall, less dependant on international trade. How hard is it to believe that a single entity with plenty of natural ressources (especially oil) would do better than a group of different, sometime opposite people gathered together while not being at the same level to beging with ? Ofc EU would evolve slower than the US, especially when the US don't mind lowering standard to benefit its economy in the detriment of its population.
And you're putting aside, again, the fact that they import and export less as % of GDP, which mean that they are doing better despite being less "globalized".... Exports as GDP represent 10 points of % less in the US than in Europe, isn't it telling you anything ?
You are basically agreeing with me when you respond that the reason for success is in national (or regional for europe) government, and not in international trade.
Seriously ? We already live in a sciencefiction movie where innovation are huge, we are just blind and refuse to accept it because there isn't neon color on every angle of every street and flying car. We have smartphone 10x faster than computer that are 10yo, you have GPS that allow you to localized yourself everywhere in the world, internet allow you to learn about everything at a Ph.D level. You can travel anywhere in the world in less than 2 days. You are more likely to live >100yo than not. The first stellerator is working. Seriously think back 25yo ago and remember how hard it was to even get a single information on a trivia because you didn't have internet. How hard it was to keep contact with friends if they went aboard, how stupid people were because common knowledge wasn't that accessible.
But yeah, we didn't evolve at all since WW2.
You have the historical blindness. In fact, empirical data suggest that modern innovations are more costly, give less of a monopoly rent during a shorter time and are more incremental than radical. Innovation during the XIXth and XXth century were astonishing : electricity, nuclear power, development and democratisation of cars.
We can also see the effect of innovation in the evolution of productivity, that are not at all glorious since 1970, but in fact pretty lackluster. It is actually a big discussion in the economic sphere : why is it that, to quote Solow, we see computer everywhere except in the productivity and GDP numbers ? The innovations that we are now witnessing, around communication and whatnot, are not superior to the innovation that appeared before, quite the opposite (but since it's a cumulative reality, of course we are better off than our ancestors).
Another exemple, in his last book (brilliant btw), called "Bureaucracy", Graeber argue that for most of its history, mankind has been able to increase its mobility and speed through innovation but that, since the end of the USSR (and the competition between the west and the east), most research has redirected toward social control and he argue that we are now pretty stable. If you look at the conquest of space, innovations are now pretty scarce indeed and we are basically not that far from the point that we were when we first set foot on the moon.
|
On December 13 2015 20:12 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2015 19:58 Faust852 wrote:On December 13 2015 07:23 BurningSera wrote:On December 13 2015 02:21 Faust852 wrote:On December 12 2015 22:41 xM(Z wrote: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. Well, tell me how much you don't rely on globalization and open market.Sure, you are actually writing stuff on a computer assembled in China, with a processor made in USA and a graphic card made in Taiwan. You are wearing clothes coming from Bengladesh and Thailand while eating pork from Netherlands with milk from Poland. You are writing stuff on the internet, which come from everywhere all at once. You are eating fruit coming from south america and spain, because gl getting banana or olive oil in Romania in mid december. At least 90% of the product you consume comes from another country, and that's good because you can't ask for a country to offer all the good possible while keeping them at reasonable cost. That's why globalization is the best thing ever.The only issue is the lack of rules, standard and rules which lead to corporation making billion by selling Polo at 50€ while it cost 30c to make in Bengladesh. That is the issue that need to be tackled on, not some retarded nationalism that would only lead to aweful living standard like cold war USSR or North Korea. Wait wait wait, i think that should be the other way around: Globalization is the natural development from capitalism/'free market', you must go globalization to continue the 'reign of capitalism' otherwise it is dead (ie US is fucked). And the whole point of capitalism is to keep exploiting the 2/3 of the lower level of the pyramid, there will be always be the bottom class people that are poor as fuck. And the stuffs you mentioned that we should praise globalization for, are exactly the proof that how we exploit the lower classes people in the world economy pyramid in the past 100+ years. I will never say i hate capitalism/globalization (because my good life is based on them) but saying that it is the best thing ever is wrong on every fundamental levels. That's wrong, Europe is the perfect exemple. There is a free market and free trade in the EU, it's one of the major step of the WW globalization. Yet the EU is at the highest in the world in term of wealth, health and freedom. What caused that ? Good standard, international supervision, agreement between countries. I pretty like capitalism, because it offers good competition, leading to great innovations and cheap price. The issue is again the lack of control and stupid stuff that you see on the news with the USA everyday that can"t happen here in Europe. And I am pretty sure there won't be anymore poor people in the West in 50y, or there will be only poor people in the world. Because automatization will make everything cheap but remove 3/4 of every job ever, if there isn't some kind of Universal Basic Income or any way to keep people fed and well, civil wars definitly gonna get us there. So it's the european free trade agreement that permitted EU to be at the "highest in the world in term of wealth" ? In fact, europe's growth is lackluster in comparaison to other countries and has been for the last twenty to thirty years. What made europe is its history, the fact that it used some invention to violently take over the world and used the ressources belonging to others to grow, until 1970, at rates almost never seen anywhere else, aside from the US.
This is more directed to Faust but Whitedog made some good points in this discussion so i included your post.
@Faust
you know, being proud about cultures/freedom/history/regulations about EU is one thing, but when you are talking about wealth/capitalism/globalization US is the leader in them since WW2 (well, since WW1 technically but thats arguable).
And again globalization happens because it is needed for the growth of 'free market', not because it is a kind/humanity act that 'lets spread our culture/technology' to the other parts of the world. You do realize that the wealth of EU is highly based on the fact that we colonized/stole/exploited many parts of the world in the past 200 years, and those are not globalization, they were pure salvaging of useful resources for our own use.
Globalization is when, for example, Nike wants to sell a pair of their shoes in every US household, but when every house hold actually bought a pair of Nike shoes, Nike sales have gone downhill (because lets say every household will less likely to get 2nd or 3rd pair Nike shoes after the first pair) while their production process cannot be reduced (or they will go bankrupt or firing people), they have to spread their business outside of US, thats globalization.
In EU case thats why we limit our production of fixed amount of Ferrari car produced each year, is one of the method to deal with the highly saturated market in the west. So no, i really wouldn't say EU have the "highest in the world in term of wealth", we have been behind in the past 30-50 years now in term of growth and it doesnt look good in the future either.
Not long ago UK immediately joined the china train without consulting US says alot about the current world affairs.
|
On December 13 2015 20:38 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2015 20:22 Faust852 wrote:On December 13 2015 20:17 xM(Z wrote:On December 13 2015 20:07 Faust852 wrote:On December 13 2015 19:50 xM(Z wrote:On December 13 2015 06:59 lord_nibbler wrote:" Globalization is the shit." There, I found a sentence you can all agree on, it's solved. that's wishful thinking. will argue on whether or not it stinks and then how bad it stinks. the pro-globalization people in here are just uttering words for the sake of hearing them. they'd call native-americans globalized and doing way better than before. Tell me how Romania would do in a closed market right now ? Tell me how good Romania evolved since 89' compare to its past ? How its economy has boosted since 2007 ? Ofc there was 2009 but it was worldwide, and if you had kept your closed market, you would still be 3rd world tier dude, you're not getting it. i'll repeat, globalization did not invent the trading, but now let me also translate it for you now: - trade(maybe even free, through gifts) existed before globalization and it will exist before globalization. mind blown, right?. what the hell don't you get?. i'd be eating bananas without your damn free trades, which are not fucking free anyway; you still pay for shit. or just define globalization so i'd disagree and move on. Globalization is a process of interaction and integration among the people, companies, and governments of different nations, a process driven by international trade and investment and aided by information technology. This process has effects on the environment, on culture, on political systems, on economic development and prosperity, and on human physical well-being in societies around the world. and?, it is driven by means that trading happened anyway; with or without it(actually what globalization does is prevent states from making trade agreements of their own and open free markets with the neighbor of their choosing). seriously dude, just get it. the only argument you have here is that said banana would've cost me more without your free trade. this shit is morally legalized colonialism.
You can't have trading without globalization nowadays. How you'd do that ? Banning international corporation ? Banning non-citizen entrepreneur ? Banning tourism ?
On December 13 2015 20:46 BurningSera wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2015 20:12 WhiteDog wrote:On December 13 2015 19:58 Faust852 wrote:On December 13 2015 07:23 BurningSera wrote:On December 13 2015 02:21 Faust852 wrote:On December 12 2015 22:41 xM(Z wrote: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. Well, tell me how much you don't rely on globalization and open market.Sure, you are actually writing stuff on a computer assembled in China, with a processor made in USA and a graphic card made in Taiwan. You are wearing clothes coming from Bengladesh and Thailand while eating pork from Netherlands with milk from Poland. You are writing stuff on the internet, which come from everywhere all at once. You are eating fruit coming from south america and spain, because gl getting banana or olive oil in Romania in mid december. At least 90% of the product you consume comes from another country, and that's good because you can't ask for a country to offer all the good possible while keeping them at reasonable cost. That's why globalization is the best thing ever.The only issue is the lack of rules, standard and rules which lead to corporation making billion by selling Polo at 50€ while it cost 30c to make in Bengladesh. That is the issue that need to be tackled on, not some retarded nationalism that would only lead to aweful living standard like cold war USSR or North Korea. Wait wait wait, i think that should be the other way around: Globalization is the natural development from capitalism/'free market', you must go globalization to continue the 'reign of capitalism' otherwise it is dead (ie US is fucked). And the whole point of capitalism is to keep exploiting the 2/3 of the lower level of the pyramid, there will be always be the bottom class people that are poor as fuck. And the stuffs you mentioned that we should praise globalization for, are exactly the proof that how we exploit the lower classes people in the world economy pyramid in the past 100+ years. I will never say i hate capitalism/globalization (because my good life is based on them) but saying that it is the best thing ever is wrong on every fundamental levels. That's wrong, Europe is the perfect exemple. There is a free market and free trade in the EU, it's one of the major step of the WW globalization. Yet the EU is at the highest in the world in term of wealth, health and freedom. What caused that ? Good standard, international supervision, agreement between countries. I pretty like capitalism, because it offers good competition, leading to great innovations and cheap price. The issue is again the lack of control and stupid stuff that you see on the news with the USA everyday that can"t happen here in Europe. And I am pretty sure there won't be anymore poor people in the West in 50y, or there will be only poor people in the world. Because automatization will make everything cheap but remove 3/4 of every job ever, if there isn't some kind of Universal Basic Income or any way to keep people fed and well, civil wars definitly gonna get us there. So it's the european free trade agreement that permitted EU to be at the "highest in the world in term of wealth" ? In fact, europe's growth is lackluster in comparaison to other countries and has been for the last twenty to thirty years. What made europe is its history, the fact that it used some invention to violently take over the world and used the ressources belonging to others to grow, until 1970, at rates almost never seen anywhere else, aside from the US. This is more directed to Faust but Whitedog made some good points in this discussion so i included your post. @Faust you know, being proud about cultures/freedom/history/regulations about EU is one thing, but when you are talking about wealth/capitalism/globalization US is the leader in them since WW2 (well, since WW1 technically but thats arguable). And again globalization happens because it is needed for the growth of 'free market', not because it is a kind/humanity act that 'lets spread our culture/technology' to the other parts of the world. You do realize that the wealth of EU is highly based on the fact that we colonized/stole/exploited many parts of the world in the past 200 years, and those are not globalization, they were pure salvaging of useful resources for our own use. Globalization is when, for example, Nike wants to sell a pair of their shoes in every US household, but when every house hold actually bought a pair of Nike shoes, Nike sales have gone downhill (because lets say every household will less likely to get 2nd or 3rd pair Nike shoes after the first pair) while their production process cannot be reduced (or they will go bankrupt or firing people), they have to spread their business outside of US, thats globalization. In EU case thats why we limit our production of fixed amount of Ferrari car produced each year, is one of the method to deal with the highly saturated market in the west. So no, i really wouldn't say EU have the "highest in the world in term of wealth", we have been behind in the past 30-50 years now in term of growth and it doesnt look good in the future either. Not long ago UK immediately joined the china train without consulting US says alot about the current world affairs.
And what is the problem with Nike selling shoes in Europe or Asia ? As long as it doesn't enslave people to produce their goods, it provides a bigger panel of goods for the consumer, and it creates competition.
We colonized and stole and exploided many part of the world, maybe. But it's not really my fault is it ? And I'm pretty sure, aside from the massive death we've done, those country would have been in a worst state than it is right now.
AFAIK the US also used slaves to grow.
When I talk about wealth and health, I'm obviously talking for individuals. The poverty line is lower in EU, social security allow people not to leave on the street and dying because they fear to go bankrupt in an hospital. I'd trade the US growth for social security at all time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
