Globalism and the Future

[Techno-Druid]

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.

I've had many discussions with Connal on this, although I like his charisma, I do disagree with a few of his points. We're not anywhere within the span of a thousand years in reaching a World Government and we need to have a lot of long talks before we can root out corruption, conserve ecosystems and keep people safe and healthy.

We need to pick as many holes into any system as possible, then find ways to fix those holes and anticipate the unexpected.

[Mafic]

I am 100% against Globalism. We tried it for the last 20 years and it has been a failure. Time to admit our mistakes for a change.

[Vash The Stampede]

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

The Earth isn't flat. Just saying.

[truckboattruck]

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.

right, just not enough knowledge being passed around
lol

[xenogear3]

The current globalization is not a "free market".
For example, China charges an import tax from US, but US doesn't charge one.

Is the US government stupid?
No, it is just been bought by large corporations.

[Techno-Druid]

right, just not enough knowledge being passed around
lol

Uh...yeah, how is that funny? China is building highways and railways throughout West, Central and East Africa and they're not training native workers on maintaining them long term.

A road only lasts so long, especially in a tropical climate.

[Nadiru]

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.

One identity being expanded at the cost of others, to encompass a large area is the functional definition of globalism. With a consolidation of identity, trade follows; even Hitler's nascent empire was founded within the economic framework of "get resources" though it never transitioned to the "trade dominance" stage, largely because it was split in twain by three other empires.

[Theodarzna]

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.

This is completely false in real terms, the effect of globalism has been the gradual expansion of the dominate hegemonic powers culture and language and the destruction and assimilation of smaller localized societies.

[Nadiru]

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

Of the five largest single economies on Earth, only one is a net importer: the USA. Everybody else is a net exporter, and they have been that way for a long time. So long, in fact, that a convincing argument can be made involving these economies that they have artificially weakened domestic household income in order to gain a larger chunk of the global export market.

This is dangerous because exporters are generally weak on the global economic stage: They rely on others to fill their budgets. But the cultural value of thriftiness and efficiency are such - and naturally, net exports must mean that these economies are virtuous - that these exporters believe themselves to be morally superior to "profligate consumers."

Witness Germans roasting Greeks for being consumers, even though Greek membership in the EU is largely to the German's benefit, through providing an outlet for German goods. Also witness Chinese finance officials lambasting American finance officials for potentially lowering the value of American debt notes, even though China's the one which bought them.

So when you have a situation where the weak party believes themselves to be the strong party, you end up with a mis-estimation of one's bargaining power, meanwhile, the actual strong party in negotiation is more likely to get fed up with the negotiation and act punitively.

[Theodarzna]

I've had many discussions with Connal on this, although I like his charisma, I do disagree with a few of his points. We're not anywhere within the span of a thousand years in reaching a World Government and we need to have a lot of long talks before we can root out corruption, conserve ecosystems and keep people safe and healthy.

We need to pick as many holes into any system as possible, then find ways to fix those holes and anticipate the unexpected.

The problem with solutions, is that solutions themselves are the cause of problems. Nothing comes without some form of cost, even costs you cannot predict.

My prediction is globalism will be a thing and then rapidly disintegrate once the Return on Investment declines. Connal has a more optimistic vision, mainly that we will innovate our way out of the death cycle. It is possible, even preferable that the world localize but still remain part of some larger interconnected whole, but I don't know if it is a sustainable model or that human society will be able to harness the energy needed for that.

Basically its a question of "Can we outrun death?" Connal says yes we can, and I say that we probably can't though I hope I am wrong.

- - - Updated - - -

Expanding further on what @kail alludes to, but not intentionally, one is not really free to NOT be globalized or integrated into a world system. Even if we wanted to change course now, when its plausible to do so, the forces arrayed against doing so would be immense, and the chaos it would bring right now would be immense.

Going even further, we tend to punish those who wish to try a different model or exercise more national sovereignty. Namely Russia is the biggest example of this, since the West, headed by the United States has very much an Imperial top down model of the world. Russia wants a more eastern model in which the US may be first, but it is among Equals.

The powers that benefit from the global system as is will not allow changes or rebellion until they are too weak from decay to actually resist and by that time things will be truly grim and dark.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

It is not inevitable, but it now is a trajectory one cannot easily get off from. Both because the dominate hegemonic power wants it, the overbearing weight of elite desire for it is there and anyone who wants a different trajectory is punished.

I argue that globalism and Neo-Liberalism are one in the same, the need for expanding markets and integration into a world system would not exist without Capitalism as its constituted right now. My point is to look at the areas of the world most fully integrated into the world system, and the results of the world system and see that its heading towards its own grave eventually.

Its inevitable, kind of like Death is inevitable.

[Hammerfest]

The Earth isn't flat. Just saying.

Yes it is. Just saying.

[eschatological]

It is not inevitable, but it now is a trajectory one cannot easily get off from. Both because the dominate hegemonic power wants it, the overbearing weight of elite desire for it is there and anyone who wants a different trajectory is punished.

I argue that globalism and Neo-Liberalism are one in the same, the need for expanding markets and integration into a world system would not exist without Capitalism as its constituted right now. My point is to look at the areas of the world most fully integrated into the world system, and the results of the world system and see that its heading towards its own grave eventually.

Its inevitable, kind of like Death is inevitable.

How do you suggest we get off the trajectory then? Isolationism requires a withdrawal to be deleterious on the market being isolated from - but any downtick in the boycotted market would be slight, at best. You'd almost need a coordinated world effort to stop it. I'm a pacifist, and every time I say "Hey, we could stop war tomorrow if we wanted," people critique that (reasonably so) by saying, "Yeah, but if the other guy isn't going to stop, we get screwed if we stop."

So then, maybe a system of tariffs, while requiring no tariffs on our exports - who is going to agree with that outside of this country? The problem with global economics is that protectionism, while it may feel like short term benefit in terms of protecting our job markets, will cause hyperinflation. Even if we have the infrastructure and the labor pool for manufacturing, costs will go up because our labor is real expensive, and the shipping cost associated with imports isn't expensive, even when oil prices are normal-to-high. At the same time, the strength of our currency will disappear, and any isolationism on our part will probably be returned in kind to our investors who like to diversify outside the country.

I think economic globalism is a runaway train at this point, and the question should be more about how do we make the American worker more competitive. I don't know many Americans who would say our standards should dip to match competition, so the question is how do we make other countries conform to our standards. Traditionally, in history, that has been through conquest and hegemony. The neo-conservatives laid out a whole plan for an American hegemony at the end of the last century, and it made us one of the most reviled world powers during the Bush, Jr. presidency that sought to push it. That is no longer acceptable - any economic globalism will be pluralistic and made up of equal, sovereign powers. Thus, the only way to raise these standards is to make the other country agree to them. How do we do that? I think the answer is apparent: through trade agreements which regulate manufacturing and the other mechanisms production, including labor.

[kail]

This is completely false in real terms, the effect of globalism has been the gradual expansion of the dominate hegemonic powers culture and language and the destruction and assimilation of smaller localized societies.

Then your definition of globalism differs from many others consider globalization. None of the major countries in the past decades made attemps to conquer others, yet we call this era heavily globalised. It's not about dominance, but merging. Hitler wanted to dominate, make the world of a single race. Globalism is more about mixing through migrantion and trade.

We can eat food, enjoy media, and use tech developed by outside countries because of our globalized focus.

[Hana Song]

Yes it is. Just saying.

? How can you think that?

[Ulmita]

Globalism is wonderful and its the future, however we need to work things like democracy and most importantly the financial system.
Capitalism wont work.

[Theodarzna]

Then your definition of globalism differs from many others consider globalization. None of the major countries in the past decades made attemps to conquer others, yet we call this era heavily globalised. It's not about dominance, but merging. Hitler wanted to dominate, make the world of a single race. Globalism is more about mixing through migrantion and trade.

We can eat food, enjoy media, and use tech developed by outside countries because of our globalized focus.

Conquest is not a word I used, its a word you used. The worlds languages are quickly being homogenized into just a few, thus spelling the end for legions of various cultures world wide as peoples are assimilated. You call it "merging," most call that assimilation and thus annihilation.

It is about hegemonic culture and dominance, you just put a smile on and colorful language, but in the end you are having the same basic affect, that which is not you is destroyed.

- - - Updated - - -

How do you suggest we get off the trajectory then? Isolationism requires a withdrawal to be deleterious on the market being isolated from - but any downtick in the boycotted market would be slight, at best. You'd almost need a coordinated world effort to stop it. I'm a pacifist, and every time I say "Hey, we could stop war tomorrow if we wanted," people critique that (reasonably so) by saying, "Yeah, but if the other guy isn't going to stop, we get screwed if we stop."

So then, maybe a system of tariffs, while requiring no tariffs on our exports - who is going to agree with that outside of this country? The problem with global economics is that protectionism, while it may feel like short term benefit in terms of protecting our job markets, will cause hyperinflation. Even if we have the infrastructure and the labor pool for manufacturing, costs will go up because our labor is real expensive, and the shipping cost associated with imports isn't expensive, even when oil prices are normal-to-high. At the same time, the strength of our currency will disappear, and any isolationism on our part will probably be returned in kind to our investors who like to diversify outside the country.

I think economic globalism is a runaway train at this point, and the question should be more about how do we make the American worker more competitive. I don't know many Americans who would say our standards should dip to match competition, so the question is how do we make other countries conform to our standards. Traditionally, in history, that has been through conquest and hegemony. The neo-conservatives laid out a whole plan for an American hegemony at the end of the last century, and it made us one of the most reviled world powers during the Bush, Jr. presidency that sought to push it. That is no longer acceptable - any economic globalism will be pluralistic and made up of equal, sovereign powers. Thus, the only way to raise these standards is to make the other country agree to them. How do we do that? I think the answer is apparent: through trade agreements which regulate manufacturing and the other mechanisms production, including labor.

First, you cannot get off the trajectory by any practical means. Fate was sealed the moment we decided to go on that road to ruin, there isn't really an off ramp on the highway to hell. For one, the actors who prefer and profit from globalization will not allow one to peacefully set their own destiny, not a country anyway, or even a significant enough group without as much marginalization as would be expected from someone threatening the preferred order of things. We are, in effect, Locked-In to the death spiral. The point isn't that the whole world needs to cooperate but that the logics of Globalization, Neo-Liberalism and Capitalism in general will not allow such a movement to exist without ferocious attempts to ensure it fails. The need for newer markets, integration, ect, it flows only in one realistic direction. Eventually they will be talking about opening up North Sentinel Island for trade and commerce. XD I jest with that last one, but the point is, we are trapped on the train until it hits the wall, there is no getting off, the conductor would just as soon shoot you then let you jump and tumble off.

You cannot make the American Worker more competitive without severely impoverishing him or her. You can't really do much about that, his and her life was already made worthless so we could have cheaper iPhones. We cannot make other countries conform to our standards because that isn't the point of Globalism, as was mentioned earlier, labor arbitrage is the point here. The ones benefiting most from Globalization like it as is, since they have no loyalty to any country or group they can freely shop for laws as needed and exploit until the well runs dry. And no, fundamentally America as a dominate imperialist power in the world stage will not go away because we still have the biggest army and everyone except for a few still want us to be the one to bleed for the whole system to stay alive.

The answer is you don't, you can't, and you won't. You lost the game the minute you started playing it.

- - - Updated - - -

Getting at an even more core problem with globalism, it is plainly arrogant and the height of hubris, for it assumes we today have found the LAST AND FINAL system, the one and only way, and we must now integrate all into it. It is the ultimate manifestation of Fukuyama's ridiculous "End of History," narrative.

[Vash The Stampede]

Globalism is wonderful and its the future, however we need to work things like democracy and most importantly the financial system.
Capitalism wont work.

Give it 5 years and with anti aging technology you'll rethink retirement, and governments will rethink of pensions and Social Security. In 10 years we're going to have to get serious about jobs since optimizations and automation have reduced jobs to a new low. Democracy will play a huge role in fixing a lot of that broken right there. Financial systems will be controlled by the banks and will hold on to the bitter end. The root of all financial evil is found at banks.

[Theodarzna]

Globalism is wonderful and its the future, however we need to work things like democracy and most importantly the financial system.
Capitalism wont work.

Globalism is the death of Democracy, what need is there for popular will when you have the last and final order of things?

Democracy implies the ability to set any sort of policy change. With all policy of any consequence being determined entirely by trade agreements and the like, there will be no democracy in such a world order. This is why the most celebrated institutions of Globalism put as much distance between the people and actual decision making. I know I'll get flak for it, but its why the EU commissioners aren't directly elected, its why TPP/TTIP will use a tribunal only accessible by business interests and their lawyers, not by labour unions and environmental groups.

If you have the perfect system you don't need input from the proles, only to manage them.

[Hammerfest]

? How can you think that?

Observation and knowing bullshit when I see it (NASA).

[Theodarzna]

Didn't think a discussion on Globalism would involve an actual discussion onto the shape of the Planet Earth. Fascinating.