Hence I object to the populism that the only winners are the (corporate) elite and the politicians and the (only?) losers are the regular folks. Sorry, but anybody talking about the benign "regular folks", the "common people" as these people who are the suffering losers uses populist rhetoric. You and I know that in the West the majority of the people have it OK. They are not starving. They have it reasonably well. It is a minority, the underclass, who really are poor. In the US or in Western Europe, they don't make up a majority. — ssu
The real problem is that far too many things that globalization has given us we take for granted, while we are too eager to focus on the downsides. Perhaps it's just a matter of rhetoric: we simply don't want make an argument like this and that is good, but here we have problem. Far better to say only that here we have a problem. — ssu
Seems pretty interesting that Germany and Japan still kept robust high quality manufacturing in their countries.
— synthesis
They have been far more better export oriented countries than many. And here we get onto thin ice, if we really want to look at why some countries have been more successful than others. Some can argue about a worse starting point, poverty or war or having been colonies, but sometimes, as in the case of Argentina, the real reason why they have been failures is quite puzzling, when they have had all the cards stacked for them. — ssu
And it is totalitarianism. — NOS4A2
especially if new variants arise — Jack Cummins
even if the ideas of digital passports or biometrics were introduced as a temporary measure, is it really likely that this would ever end? — Jack Cummins
One idea which I have come across in Britain is the possibility of sugar tax, with restrictions on what food people can buy. — Jack Cummins
Also, bearing in mind that we are a long way from totalitarianism now, if that was a direction in the futue, would we even have the freedom to express ourselves on sites like this? — Jack Cummins
However, I do think that everything is in such a state of confusion in Britain that it may result in draconian measures being introduced eventually. — Jack Cummins
I do not believe a "social contract" exists in any case, and is little more than statist apologetics, so maybe our differences here lie in the general principles. — NOS4A2
Every restriction on freedom has been implemented by those in power who believe they know what's best for everyone else, and is therefor the consequence of their actions, not of the free man — NOS4A2
Freedom can be bridled by choice and responsibility, — NOS4A2
if we hand off these choices and responsibilities to some central authority we do so at our peril. — NOS4A2
Those who whine about totalitarianism have often brought it upon themselves through their exercise of unbridled freedom, a lack of enlightenment in their pursuit of self-interest, and their externalization of costs onto the backs of others, without supporting those others politically or in some other form. — James Riley
The EU, composed of a population of something like 440 million, seems to have served people well with regulation, systems, organization, etc. Pulling out of the EU was so stupid... but what's done is done, at least for now. — Bitter Crank
That should be kept in mind when deciding whether or not one wants to externalize the costs of his actions upon the backs of everyone else. — James Riley
The answer is ALWAYS more freedom and transparency. Those advocating the opposite are attempting to protect their dirty system. — synthesis
the only people I have ever known from there seem fairly wounded by so much unrest there — Jack Cummins
Globalization didn't start in 1980, it might be called an era of de-regulation.Let's look at three periods, post WWII (say, 1950), the beginning of globalization and financialization (1980), and forty years later (2021). And let's just take the U.S. as an example. — synthesis
Indeed, I think this more because of monetary policy than because of globalization. Going off the gold standard and having a fiat system was the crucial thing. Other countries, like mine, would quite quickly face a current account crisis and a run on their foreign reserves, but not the US. When the Saudis were OK with just getting dollars for their oil, why not? (And then are things like that Americans simply want to pay the most for a mediocre health care system, I guess.)The lasting legacy of globalization has been monetary inflation which has gutted the American middle class. This is a product of monetary policy and (by far) the winners are those who profited by the corporate bonanza in cheap manufacturing in Asia, the ramp-up in stock prices, ,and the political class (and it's employees who in 1950 made 50% of what the average private-sector worker made, and now makes double what the average makes in this country!). — synthesis
Well, some export oriented countries like Germany have done quite well and don't have such wealth inequality. Even if I'm not a leftist, I think one important issue is that Americans aren't in labor unions, hence the employers can do nearly whatever they want. I think this also more of a domestic issue than just globalization.Despite access to your yellow tropical fruit, this past 50 years has been a disaster the average American worker and a bonanza for the average corporate exex. and all federal employees. It's the exact opposite of what you want in a healthy economy and another example of how socialism destroys everything it touches. — synthesis
Isn't this the entire point of every social institution that ever was, that is, getting something for nothing (somebody else footing the bill). — synthesis
The answer is ALWAYS more freedom and transparency. Those advocating the opposite are attempting to protect their dirty system. — synthesis
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.