Globalism and the Future

[Nadiru]

As I mentioned early on, adapt.

You are - or rather, he is - implying that globalization is this linear unstoppable force. History doesn't bear that particular argument out, even a little bit. In fact, globalism routinely goes through cycles of advancement and regression, the oldest being Alexander of Macedon. There have been many more attempts at globalism since. With every increase in globalism has come a countercultural movement designed to restore a basic understanding of identity without requiring years of schooling.

These countercultures end up becoming extremely powerful because what globalization, at its essence, is asking of people, is to shed their tribal identity. Mass media and advancements in communications technology have allowed for increasing normalization of globalization, but with each increase, some mixture of these two ideologies rise up to counteract globalization. It would seem that human DNA has a powerful aversion to schemes that purport to eliminate their tribal identity.

Assuming that these unverified assumptions of human neurosociology are completely incorrect, we still live in a world where the elite absolutely rely on the leverage provided by the labor arbitrage that only globalism (and floating exchange rates) can provide. Take the European Union, for example. Each member of the European Union can print bonds in their nation’s name, but they cannot print currency to pay the coupon of those bonds. Furthermore, these nations cannot raise their taxes to pay the coupon either, as they are high-tax socialist paradises, thus, any increase in taxes will cut directly into consumption, which directly affects their imports/export agreements. There is only one way in which European nations can pay off these coupon: labor arbitrage.

Importing massive amounts of cheaper immigrants, especially in export-heavy nations like Sweden and Germany, is a conceit that Europe must now follow the American/Ford model of labor arbitrage: Import labor to do that which is too complex to outsource, and then outsource the rest. In short, Europe is engaging in a variation of Gresham’s Law regarding labor: Hoard complexity, liquefy simplicity. That means human organizations have a propensity to hoard those who can resolve complexity and expend those who are tasked to resolve simplicity. The profits generated from cheap labor arbitrage will extend the politically popular (and expensive) socialist policies of human care that an export nation must provide to be competitive. As gains in labor arbitrage occur, tax revenue increase, and stable bond issuance can increase to allow socialist nations to engage in production expansion. (Taxation being collateral) The loyal socialists who labored for years are replaced by a configuration of cheaper labor. Their complaints and frustrations are dismissed as nothing more than racist reactions or tone deaf nationalism since the imported labor heralds from a variety of different races and/or nationalities.

The inevitable response to this automatic dismissal is populist nationalism. To counter this evolution, the Americans have developed a very effective model in destroying populist nationalism when they engaged in their transition to global labor arbitrage back in the 1960s. The American solution is that as long as those who benefit from the labor arbitrage (Fortune 500s, bond issuers, and Wall Street) are allowed to invest in and/or financially control media outlets, then nationalist impulses can be defused without unpopular and overt government heavy-handedness. How? In this setup, for-profit news and clickbait peddlers are driven by profit motive that undermines, waters down, harasses, lies about, and ultimately destroys countercultural nationalist upstarts. This profit motive is very powerful and has achieved countless victories over the past ten years.

[Techno-Druid]

This is something I need a source on before I believe it. I promote nature conservation but I am realistic enough to know it will simply be a means to and end.

It's more accurately a mix of globalization and people abandoning rural lives to live in cities.

The authors suggest that traditional agriculture practices were not necessarily environmentally friendly, that globalization has created a “circle of decline” in marginal agricultural areas, especially in the mountain regions, where lack of services and opportunities for education and employment cause massive out-migration.

The European Common Agriculture Policy subsidies are not enough to keep the old system going and land abandonment is estimated to continue for decades. At least 10 million ha land will be released from agriculture between 2000 and 2030.

https://www.rewildingeurope.com/news...eas-in-europe/

This is just one source, but since my phone is close to dying, I'll find more later if that's alright with you.

[Bollocks]

We? Yes some people benefited, Others were ruined, but we deemed their ruin to be less important than cheaper iPhones.

- - - Updated - - -

Globalism also has the serious problem of resting on the core assumptions that Liberal Free Market Capitalism is the Last and Final order of things, the perfect culmination of all things and thus should be pushed upon the whole world by hook or crook. Especially when we can't realistically debate these tenants in an open way or in a way that has consequences.

Globalism is a road to the grave IMHO.

IPhones are largely made in china and the us has no FTAs with. Furthermore the benefits of free trade are not felt in job creation but rather in increasing purchasing power of the middle-classa and poor. Though I agree that free trade or trade in general is not a pareto improvement but rather a pareto efficiency process and it affects the people, the solution is not obstruction towards FTAs but rather a change in which the economy of that particular country works.

[Theodarzna]

You are - or rather, he is - implying that globalization is this linear unstoppable force. History doesn't bear that particular argument out, even a little bit. In fact, globalism routinely goes through cycles of advancement and regression, the oldest being Alexander of Macedon. There have been many more attempts at globalism since. With every increase in globalism has come a countercultural movement designed to restore a basic understanding of identity without requiring years of schooling.

These countercultures end up becoming extremely powerful because what globalization, at its essence, is asking of people, is to shed their tribal identity. Mass media and advancements in communications technology have allowed for increasing normalization of globalization, but with each increase, some mixture of these two ideologies rise up to counteract globalization. It would seem that human DNA has a powerful aversion to schemes that purport to eliminate their tribal identity.

Assuming that these unverified assumptions of human neurosociology are completely incorrect, we still live in a world where the elite absolutely rely on the leverage provided by the labor arbitrage that only globalism (and floating exchange rates) can provide. Take the European Union, for example. Each member of the European Union can print bonds in their nation’s name, but they cannot print currency to pay the coupon of those bonds. Furthermore, these nations cannot raise their taxes to pay the coupon either, as they are high-tax socialist paradises, thus, any increase in taxes will cut directly into consumption, which directly affects their imports/export agreements. There is only one way in which European nations can pay off these coupon: labor arbitrage.

Importing massive amounts of cheaper immigrants, especially in export-heavy nations like Sweden and Germany, is a conceit that Europe must now follow the American/Ford model of labor arbitrage: Import labor to do that which is too complex to outsource, and then outsource the rest. In short, Europe is engaging in a variation of Gresham’s Law regarding labor: Hoard complexity, liquefy simplicity. That means human organizations have a propensity to hoard those who can resolve complexity and expend those who are tasked to resolve simplicity. The profits generated from cheap labor arbitrage will extend the politically popular (and expensive) socialist policies of human care that an export nation must provide to be competitive. As gains in labor arbitrage occur, tax revenue increase, and stable bond issuance can increase to allow socialist nations to engage in production expansion. (Taxation being collateral) The loyal socialists who labored for years are replaced by a configuration of cheaper labor. Their complaints and frustrations are dismissed as nothing more than racist reactions or tone deaf nationalism since the imported labor heralds from a variety of different races and/or nationalities.

The inevitable response to this automatic dismissal is populist nationalism. To counter this evolution, the Americans have developed a very effective model in destroying populist nationalism when they engaged in their transition to global labor arbitrage back in the 1960s. The American solution is that as long as those who benefit from the labor arbitrage (Fortune 500s, bond issuers, and Wall Street) are allowed to invest in and/or financially control media outlets, then nationalist impulses can be defused without unpopular and overt government heavy-handedness. How? In this setup, for-profit news and clickbait peddlers are driven by profit motive that undermines, waters down, harasses, lies about, and ultimately destroys countercultural nationalist upstarts. This profit motive is very powerful and has achieved countless victories over the past ten years.

Of course the inevitable crisis of modernity is going to be the plummeting birth rates in these countries. Eventual pandemic disease since Neo-Liberal forces can't seem to handle Antibiotics ect.

Everyone dies eventually, including countries and systems.

[Nadiru]

IPhones are largely made in china and the us has no FTAs with. Furthermore the benefits of free trade are not felt in job creation but rather in increasing purchasing power of the middle-classa and poor. Though I agree that free trade or trade in general is not a pareto improvement but rather a pareto efficiency process and it affects the people, the solution is not obstruction towards FTAs but rather a change in which the economy of that particular country works.

The gap between global production and global consumption is skewed heavily towards production. Getting China, Japan, and Germany to reduce their exports and increase their domestic consumption is politically non-viable to some extent for all of those countries. Unfortunately, a common outcome of this configuration is war; a lack of political capital to rebase an economy leads to international tensions, which increase the likelihood of escalation, which increases the likelihood of armed conflict.

- - - Updated - - -

Of course the inevitable crisis of modernity is going to be the plummeting birth rates in these countries. Eventual pandemic disease since Neo-Liberal forces can't seem to handle Antibiotics ect.

Everyone dies eventually, including countries and systems.

People eventually figure out to make babies, if only because they become so poor there's nothing left to do but fuck.

[kail]

You are - or rather, he is - implying that globalization is this linear unstoppable force. History doesn't bear that particular argument out, even a little bit. In fact, globalism routinely goes through cycles of advancement and regression, the oldest being Alexander of Macedon. There have been many more attempts at globalism since. With every increase in globalism has come a countercultural movement designed to restore a basic understanding of identity without requiring years of schooling.

Maybe you missed Hitler's attempt at making his own empire? Conquering others and trying to establish a single identity is not globalizing, that is called imperialism. No agreements or trade is done with those examples you posted, which is the general idea of globalization. Tribal identity is not shredded if anything, it's expanded beyond the originating territory.

[Bollocks]

The gap between global production and global consumption is skewed heavily towards production. Getting China, Japan, and Germany to reduce their exports and increase their domestic consumption is politically non-viable to some extent for all of those countries. Unfortunately, a common outcome of this configuration is war; a lack of political capital to rebase an economy leads to international tensions, which increase the likelihood of escalation, which increases the likelihood of armed conflict.

- - - Updated - - -



People eventually figure out to make babies, if only because they become so poor there's nothing left to do but fuck.

Could you explain better your point please ? I'm having trouble trying to understand. Its not you, I'm a little tired right now.

[Techno-Druid]

Of course the inevitable crisis of modernity is going to be the plummeting birth rates in these countries. Eventual pandemic disease since Neo-Liberal forces can't seem to handle Antibiotics ect.

Everyone dies eventually, including countries and systems.

Lower birthrates may actually be a positive thing to the automation and robotics industry. Although it will definitely be painful on a societal scale and it will definitely have a negative impact on jobs centered around child-care or teaching.

Robots may also be a objectively more efficient than low-paid migrant workers. Why spend a lot of money over a long period of time on workers, when you can shove out one large investment and have a worker that rarely if ever makes an error, never gets sick, never compromises the workplace through arrogance or personal ties.

It's the whole Humans Need Not Apply video that CGP Grey did.


We certainly need to come up with creative solutions in the future...and to get people from less developed nations to stop fucking as much (or at least wear a condom).

I mean, not to go off on a tangent, but I was talking to this West African chick who ACTUALLY BRAGGED about her mother having eleven children!

[Deleted]

It's shit.

[truckboattruck]

globalism is just a nice way of saying "flood western civilization with non westerners"

when all is said an done....
africa will be african
asia will be asian
but we will be gone

[Elegiac]

globalism is just a nice way of saying "flood western civilization with non westerners"

when all is said an done....
africa will be african
asia will be asian
but we will be gone

Which is precisely why the Big Mac index isn't actually a thing due to Western culture's pervasive influence in Africa and Asia.

[truckboattruck]

Which is precisely why the Big Mac index isn't actually a thing due to Western culture's pervasive influence in Africa and Asia.

i agree, cut all aid to africa
no more food, medicine, technology or infrastructure
EVIL,EVIL stuff

[eschatological]

Globalism and capitalism are not mutual to each other, despite what some may think. Wealth can still be regulated, and if taxation laws can reach beyond our country then corporates would not be able to evade taxes as easily. In case I haven't mentioned it before, globalism is such a broad term, with many interpreted definitions, that you can find many good and bad out of the concept.

Ultimately, we have been a trading and consuming country for a long time and isolating ourselves will only do us harm.

Political globalism won't happen any time soon - no one is willing to give up their national sovereignty to be equal partners with other nations. We are still stuck in nationalist mindsets.

Economic globalism, if its continued mode is capitalism, will fail. Globalization (a totally different word) has been, so far, very laissez-faire capitalist for the same reason political globalism is not feasible - because no country is willing to cede authority over themselves to a world regulatory system. For economic globalism to succeed, you need some sort of overarching regulatory scheme. I think the late 20th century is proof positive that unchecked capitalism is not feasible for the middle classes.

Also, to address the alt-right view that globalization has only made the uber-rich richer - not true. Globalization has lifted more people out of abject poverty than any other system. The issue to the alt-right people is that those poor people aren't Americans. To the left, the issue is that those people have escaped abject poverty into not the middle class, but a type of indentured servitude - certainly it's better than abject poverty, but it's not good enough, and more importantly, it's still low enough that the American worker cannot compete with them.

Ultimately, economic globalism isn't going to go away. The question is going to become: do we want to continue with the laissez-faire capitalist model, or do we want to try and regulate it? Assuming we want the latter, how do we regulate it? If countries aren't willing to cede authority to some world regulatory system (AKA, a world gov't), then the only way is voluntary change through trade incentives. Which is what we're trying to do now, and which is what the EU has tried and done fairly successfully in the past 20 years. I say "fairly successfully" because it'll always require some sacrifice from the more powerful economic powers, like Germany, the UK, the U.S., and the political will for that is sometimes lacking (as we've seen in BREXIT recently).

- - - Updated - - -

That is a random question you just asked. Globalism has never exactly equaled migration, but it is one of the main parts.

There are many people who believe that if one is to accept the free movement of capital, one has to accept the free movement of labor as a balance against companies dumpster diving.

[Ryme]

It's an inevitability, I think most people accept that.

My general issues with it are how it's going to be handled, not that it's happening. There's a whole host of things to consider in a global society that don't work or translate well from a national society. Things such as tax and what it pays for, welfare, employment, social security, medical services, immigration becomes an entirely new issue that we're not too experienced in yet.

[Zarc]

Just like Liberals are filled with their delusional fantasies as well. Globalism is not bad, but it can be if executed POORLY. See what is happening to Europe? That plan was done POORLY. You have to be fucking clever, and careful about Globalism. And you CANNOT force it, but Liberals are forcing everything. Hence, you see Alt-Right rising. I am Right-winged (I was left winged about 5 years ago), but there are some things I honestly dont agree with Alt Right. Personally I do hate Modern Age Liberalism (its why I leaned to Right wings). It turned to such toxic, cancerous minds.

How is it liberals that execute things poorly when the deregulation and lowering of taxes was done by right-wingers in the 80's (Reagan, Thatcher, etc) and then not corrected by the Third Way governments that followed (Clinton, Blair) which is what built up to cause the Great Recession and the massive income inequality we have now that is turning people against free trade and immigrants? How is it the liberals fault that the right-wing Bush administration backed up by a Third Way Blair government lied to Congress to start an unnecessary war that has had unintended consequences?

[Alydael]

I am anti globalism. Look at the corruption in most governments. Do we really want all these governments so closely working together that we get some big wad of corruption at the top? It is hard enough to reign in the corruption of your own government, imagine how much harder it will be when that corruption is "globalized."

There is also no need for globalization, it is just a scam by our politicians to get even more money, power and control.

In the past, we needed government to make international deals for business etc. Technology has advanced to a point where we don't need that anymore. I can set up my own business and sell internationally over the net. All in my pj's from my house, without ever even going outside. Why do we need governments to get involved in this?

[Hammerfest]

In order for there to be globalism, there must first be... a globe.

[Techno-Druid]

i agree, cut all aid to africa
no more food, medicine, technology or infrastructure
EVIL,EVIL stuff

A good amount of infrastructure and technology in Africa comes from China. China has invested billions into Africa in building roads, railrays and buildings. The President of China pledged to invest sixty-billion dollars in Africa. There are also Chinese workers and poorer Chinese that have set up their own businesses, they now number one million strong and growing.

The issue with that is that there are isn't a lot of knowledge being dispersed among the people. The more intelligent countries like Kenya have caught on and are very critical of Chinese development.

[eschatological]

Let's be clear, when one says "neo-liberal capitalism," that isn't a liberal position. Liberal positions are pro-union and rather protectionist, socialists have been notoriously protectionist. "Neo-liberal" in re: capitalism/globalization simply means unfettered (IE, liberal, unchecked, laissez-faire), and is a rather Ayn Randian, conservative/libertarian position.


There's a viewpoint in this thread that globalism is not inevitable, that we can simply shut it down because we created it as humans. The same is true for war, poverty, and hunger, but those things still exist. Economic globalism is here, and it's not going away, and it's because it creates wealth across the world.

edit: My argument is that we do need globalization. We cannot be isolationist in the world any more - we simply wouldn't survive. If we shut down trade right now, manufactured everything we needed, inflation would destroy our economy. Is that what the alt-right wants? Do you want to pay $10 for milk? Or do you want to simply roll back worker rights and protections to pre-Industrial Revolution levels to keep prices down? The truth of the matter is this: If you want to mass produce, you need to expand the labor pool to global levels. We simply don't have enough laborers to produce everything we need. Let alone the skilled laborers to make smart phones.

[Theodarzna]

Lower birthrates may actually be a positive thing to the automation and robotics industry. Although it will definitely be painful on a societal scale and it will definitely have a negative impact on jobs centered around child-care or teaching.

Robots may also be a objectively more efficient than low-paid migrant workers. Why spend a lot of money over a long period of time on workers, when you can shove out one large investment and have a worker that rarely if ever makes an error, never gets sick, never compromises the workplace through arrogance or personal ties.

It's the whole Humans Need Not Apply video that CGP Grey did.


We certainly need to come up with creative solutions in the future...and to get people from less developed nations to stop fucking as much (or at least wear a condom).

I mean, not to go off on a tangent, but I was talking to this West African chick who ACTUALLY BRAGGED about her mother having eleven children!

IMHO Low birth rates are a symptom of growing systemic problems that often plague complex systems. A Global world is actually the mother of all complex systems, and indeed we often pay for that complexity by overworking our citizens and with oil, both are things in sharp decline.

The birth rate thing is a curious phenomena with only one real common factor, once even partially integrated into this big thing we call Globalization, the effects of modernity appear to be sterility. However those countries still need young people (Thus the elite fixation with migration and multiculturalism) with the hope of bringing in young fresh laborers and people to keep rents and property values higher. This is the Labour Arbitrage that @Nadiru mentions. So our territories actually are engaged in a contradiction, WE NEED those parts of the world that aren't integrated into global civilization yet, but the logics of globalization and Neo-Liberal capitalism necessitate integration, expansion and new markets. Soon the only places left without a McDonalds will be North Sentinel Island. Nadiru points out that often the Western States have massive obligations in taxes, in the EU its often a generous welfare state, in the US its the sum total cost of being the worlds biggest bully to engage in a kind of Hegemonic Stability Empire. Either way the countries both have declining births and thus needed people, but they also need to expand and keep cash flowing.

What happens when at last even North Sentinel Island has a McDonalds and the new iPhone? Well, likely by then death for the Global world order, because as @kail points out, globalism isn't new and even globalization goes back to the Bronze Age. Of course what he fails to mention is the cost of these systems and how all of the past instances of it have collapsed, often proportionally to how big they are.

As Dr. Tainter notes, we fuel our complexity with oil, I would add we also fuel it with people. But as the Earth greys (97% of the earths people live in countries with Demographic instability/decline) and the black blood that flows through its veins becomes more expensive and more precious, this system will face the great problem, that being the issues caused by past Solutions to other problems. Be it the issues of Climate Change, mass migrations of people caused by climate change and war, domestic instability as Nationalists and Internationalists clash for their countries future, ecological degradation, the class struggle as the owners of those robots don't want to do anything for displaced workers and workers being pissed, likelihood of future pandemic diseases, economic instability caused by demand issues due to demographic decline and the problems of Demographic Decline in general. All will be faced at once and all will end the Globalist world.

Me and @Connal and @Yvaelle frequently go at odds over this, with the two of them having a greater faith in the future than I, Connal especially bets that Humanities technical brilliance will outrun death, I placed most of my chips on black (Death) though a part of me is cautiously hopeful that my bet was wrong and Connal and Yvaelle are right.