The ultimate hurdle to globalization is ..

Post Reply New Topic

the people who dont know how to lead want to lead .. if they dont know to lead ,why wont they leave the job ? .. coz inside a system, the first thing they care abt is their own jobs.. thats why they just take a stall and wont leave .. only if we find better leaders the world will become a better place..

(same w/ #maga ..)

"i dont like hillary.. i dont like trump .. i dont even like bernie sanders .. ".



- millennials and gen z

"i can do an equally terrible job ngl .. ".



- millennials and gen z

The Ultimate Hurdle To Globalization Is ..


Me.

the ultimate hurdle to globalization is humans...

The demands of totalizing conformity, dissolving of peoples, beliefs, giving up control to technocrats who provisionally at least wish they were thinking logically and like to tell everyone they are but really just tend politically trendy instead and pick and choose what they'll be for or against based on what's trendy (set out largely by the most emotionally volatile in any culture) - it's the top-down crap that seems to be coming with it.

The other problem - if you're going to gut the west of jobs you have to then acknowledge that you're stripping the gears of capitalism and that there will need to be systemic adjustments such as UBI, comprehensive work placement systems, at least admission that if the governments of western countries are going to have an oursourcing race for profitability and the governements give them free reign of the planet with some small list of rogue nations as exceptions that the government, being complicit in that arrangement, is also equally at fault for the consequences if there are so many unemployed, and then left to dry out as if they'd simply failed at life, that people are seeking an end through opioids.

You also can't have countries with greater than 20% unemployment in this situation, increasing, be tone deaf to valid criticism, and just jeer those topics as backward, malignantly or backwardly conservative, and suggest that they're the product of siblings mating.

It's not that globalism can't or shouldn't be done, I think it's clearly having the intended benefits in many developing countries and that part at least is a good thing. I think if that trend continues we'll likely be in a position where, with a much broader educated populace around the world and a much larger middle class we'll be in a great position to a) have nearly every country not just on board with better environmental laws but able and willing to walk the walk, b) significant drop of birth rate everywhere - down toward replacement rate or lower, and c) far less military and intelligence spending needed - hopefully - in the context of the teeth being taken out of military-grade malcontent in the world.

So it's not a bad idea, it's just that it's been managed *terribly* in the US, Europe, and Aus/NZ. There may be some cases here which have handled better than others but overall it seems like the rules in the west are getting made by the economic victors and they aren't getting that letting infrastructure collapse, letting the working class bottom out and have no possibilities for the future, letting the number of jobs that provide a living wage plummet and give no meaningful offset - it's a great recipe for rather nasty unrest and, quite unfortunately, unraveling the west and possibly worse - giving it to far-right and far-left wing nut populists who come out in reaction to the tone-deafness of the technocrats and tell the person in the street that they see and hear them where their ruling elites write them off or constantly keep giving the same failed promises on repeat.

The title is absurd. Like asking "what hurdles does a bus plunging off of a bridge have to overcome to reach its destination at the bottom of the chasm?"

Technology and economics is forcing the planet to plunge headlong into globalization regardless of what anyone wants.

Not saying that that's either good, or bad. Just that it is.

If you want to stop the trend maybe you could persuade the UN to ban the use of all modern ocean going container cargo ships, and to mandate that all ocean going sea trade be carried on sailing ships. Ban jet airliners as well. People would also have to cross the ocean on sailing ships. That would slow down the international movement of both labor and capital, raise the cost of exports/imports, and would make local industries competitive again. Thus reversing the trend of globalization.

Globalization just does not work if one follows the global world plan and here is why.

Primary Industries.
These are things like mining, farming etc. Without them, ones country will collapse, as it is the primary industry which keeps the whole economic system afloat.

Secondary Industries.
These are your factories large and small that are basically found in two forms. The first will transform ores and materials into other more practical materials to be used (E.g. a steelworks) and the other form is to take the product of the first and make it into something ready for customers to use.

Tertiary Industries.
These are both your shops and your service industries which maintain the products that people buy. Basically any means where the customers buy the products.

Every country has to have both primary and secondustry industries to support the tertiary industries. Any country that has tertiary industries without primary and secondary will collapse and here is why. With tertiary industries, they can only generate income through the first two because otherwize one is just moving money around with the errosion of taxes and other losses and they will eventually collapse. It is basically a recepé for financial collapse. I don't know if any of you know this, but these days Britain relies on the stock markets as its source of income. It gains its wealth through manipulating markets. Under the global plan the UK is the economic centre for trading in this way. It is an extremely risky business as if the stock market collapses down comes the UK with it. There is no financial security as what one is basically doing is trading on a market of nothing but goodwill. One does not tangibly own anything.
Which countries which maybe poor but will become the world leaders and why? (One is basically there already) China and India. For many years China has basically been like a child saving pennies in their piggy banks. Like it or not, they have been so careful to invest in the right things to promote future returns that it is that investment from many years ago and sheer hard work which has generated them to be the global market leaders that they are today. India is also making huge moves now to secure a future position in this way. Now don't believe me? Think of this. the USA does manufacture things. Now living in Britain, well over the majority of all our products do come from the far east and most of these come from China. To buy a product made in the USA is extremely rare here and are nearly all products which one can't get anywhere else due to their uniquness. Products like Harley Davidson motorcycles or John Deere tractors (Though the last 20 years most of UK's John Deeres are made in Spain so there was a noticable drop in quality. Not saying the Spanish made products are no good, but one may as well buy from the competition) along with vehicles from Jeep etc. Nearly all other products here come from either the EU or the Far East. Why did Japan and China become the largest exporters of their products into Britain. They were willing to first become poor to establish and keep investing in new equipment for a very long term goal. They put into play long term stratergies and didn't alter course from them. They recognised the need for primary and tertiary industries to give them future wealth.
India are doing this now. Watch India slowly transform from rags to riches! They have seen how this works and are now heavily investinh to buy out manufacturing companies from other countries to move the production to India.
A note about making a country great again. The secondary industries don't have to make much profits. As long as they survive, a countey will grow in wealth as the primary industries are operating. Wealth has to come from somewhere and once something is made, the profits esculate many times from that product. So though the first two industry types may not be making much money, they are secure forms of money rather like a piggy bank. Put it this way. Coins in a piggy bank are secure gain. Money invested in stock markets is a bit like someone planning their financial security through buying lottery tickets or gambling. One may just hit and make it big but to do that, there are going to be far more losers then winners or it just does not work!

pink conservative ppl started globalization with colonization.

There are still nationalists who won't go for that type of thing.

The issue reminds me of the Late Bronze Age Collapse, in which the entities in the Near East became economically integrated in such a fashion that peaked growth but left each entity dependent on this "international" system as their economies adapted to resource abundance and ease of commerce.

It's unclear what started the collapse (likely war and famine due to war), but I like to think of its unraveling as an integrated global systems failure. Only Egypt survived of those spectacular Bronze Age civilizations in that area, and they were not quite as spectacular after that. The pursuing of this sort of economic model carries serious risks which ought to be safeguarded against.

I'm not suggesting that globalization is either undesirable or even possible to successfully undo, but simply suggesting that there are parallels in history to what is being experienced and the stakes are higher this time around. I hope we as a species proceed more intelligently soon.