As communications get better, travel gets cheaper and trade regulations are made less strict the world is with increasing efficiency coming together. This affects everybody in many different ways, and I will point out some of the general results of globalization. Note that I'm not very educated in the subject.
[B]Positive Effects:[/B]
Less discrimination
Better international relations
More opportunities for different trades (scientists, engineers, etc)
Better technology and better access to technology
Better healthcare
Space exploration
[B]Negative Effects:[/B]
Less cultural diversity
Pollution
Greater class-differences
Epidemics can cause greater potential damage
Increased international crime (drug trade etc)
So what do you think? Is globalization good or bad and which of these effects are results of globalization itself and which are happening for other reasons that become more apparent with globalization?
I would also like to add to the negatives list;
Creating a situation where power is utterly consolidated. - All it takes is another sociopath like Hitler and we've fucked ourselves over.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;43680427]I would also like to add to the negatives list;
Creating a situation where power is utterly consolidated. - All it takes is another sociopath like Hitler and we've fucked ourselves over.[/QUOTE]
Hitler had many advantages that are not here today though and people are not as willing to go to war anymore.
[QUOTE=MrJazzy;43680659]Hitler had many advantages that are not here today though and people are not as willing to go to war anymore.[/QUOTE]
True, but people are always willing to believe someone has all the answers. Especially if he is an excellent rhetorician.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;43680918]True, but people are always willing to believe someone has all the answers. Especially if he is an excellent rhetorician.[/QUOTE]
Ofcourse, but I mean the closest you're gonna get to hitler in a modern country is probably something like Putin in Russia, and even that's not as bad - besides russia is a shithole compared to most other westernized countries so I doubt it'll be very easy. Nah I don't think another hitler is very likely.
[QUOTE=MrJazzy;43677165]As communications get better, travel gets cheaper and trade regulations are made less strict the world is with increasing efficiency coming together. This affects everybody in many different ways, and I will point out some of the general results of globalization. Note that I'm not very educated in the subject.
[B]Positive Effects:[/B]
Less discrimination
Better international relations
More opportunities for different trades (scientists, engineers, etc)
Better technology and better access to technology
Better healthcare
Space exploration
[B]Negative Effects:[/B]
Less cultural diversity
Pollution
Greater class-differences
Epidemics can cause greater potential damage
Increased international crime (drug trade etc)
So what do you think? Is globalization good or bad and which of these effects are results of globalization itself and which are happening for other reasons that become more apparent with globalization?[/QUOTE]
I see it as largely good in itself, and as part of an inevitable trend that's been ongoing for centuries.
Most of the perceived problems with it are problems within countries (class differences, pollution, crime, etc can be tackled with strong action by the state) and due to people thinking it will destroy nations. Rather, it will make nations almost irrelevant and divorce them from political power (which they shouldn't have in the first place anyways).
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;43683381]I see it as largely good in itself, and as part of an inevitable trend that's been ongoing for centuries.
Most of the perceived problems with it are problems within countries (class differences, pollution, crime, etc can be tackled with strong action by the state) and due to people thinking it will destroy nations. Rather, it will make nations almost irrelevant and divorce them from political power ([B]which they shouldn't have in the first place anyways[/B]).[/QUOTE]
Who should have political power?
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;43683471]Who should have political power?[/QUOTE]
People obviously. The point is that nationalism and the nation-state should not, for it creates largely arbitrary divisions between peoples.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;43683574]People obviously. The point is that nationalism and the nation-state should not, for it creates largely arbitrary divisions between peoples.[/QUOTE]
How does globalism not cause a giant nationalistic super-state?
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;43683791]How does globalism not cause a giant nationalistic super-state?[/QUOTE]
How do you mean?
Also I think you mean "globalization".
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;43683807]How do you mean?
Also I think you mean "globalization".[/QUOTE]
You're right I did mean that.
And I mean, if nations dissolve and everyone is more-a-less under a global government, how does that not create one massive super-state that spans the whole globe? It would just consolidate power in such a way that 'the people' would have little to no actual say in what goes on.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;43683837]You're right I did mean that.
And I mean, if nations dissolve and everyone is more-a-less under a global government, how does that not create one massive super-state that spans the whole globe? It would just consolidate power in such a way that 'the people' would have little to no actual say in what goes on.[/QUOTE]
I'm not too sure how it just consolidates power. Power can be delegated (in fact it always has to be, even the biggest autocrats must share some power) down to various smaller entities. In the United States, well, that's in the name. States are smaller units which have the power to do various things within their own borders. Within those states are counties, some decentralized to the degree that effectively one county can be markedly different from the one next door.
What's to stop a decentralized world government (with the centralized world government probably managing things like internal trade, space programs, major infrastructural projects, basic human rights, etc) coming into being?
From 2000 to 2010 the amount of people living in the world under extreme poverty (less than 1.25$ a day) has decreased from 47% to 22%, more than doubling the amount of people out of extreme poverty. From 1991 to 2010 the amount of people living with clean drinking water has also doubled, from 24% of the world without clean water to 11%. The immediate reasoning as to why this has happened has been due changes in the world's two most populous countries: China and India. In India, in 1990, 51% of the population lived in absolute poverty. By 2015, it will be lowered to 22%. The figures for China are even more dramatic, 65% of their population lived in absolute poverty in 1981 and by 2007 the amount had been reduced to 4%! This may come as a surprise to some of you.
But, starting in the last three decades, first with China in the 80's, and India in the 90's, and many other countries since 2000, Governments have been removing restrictions and regulations to their economies, away from state-planning and to private property, and thus globalizing and integrating into the free market.
This is great news; the problem is that there are still too many people living in poverty, the amount of people living on 2.00 to 4.00 dollars a day has only been slowly declining in recent times. These are challenges we still face, so we must keep on track of policies of liberalism in markets. What we must avoid at all costs is this idea that governments getting involved in markets will do any help, as evidence from the last three decades has concluded that this is not the case.
Sources:
[URL="http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2009/04/08/000334955_20090408062432/Rendered/PDF/473490SR0CN0P010Disclosed0041061091.pdf"]http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2009/04/08/000334955_20090408062432/Rendered/PDF/473490SR0CN0P010Disclosed0041061091.pdf[/URL]
[URL="http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-07-08/developmental-issues/29751472_1_extreme-poverty-india-and-china-report"]http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-07-08/developmental-issues/29751472_1_extreme-poverty-india-and-china-report[/URL]
[URL="http://mdgs.un.org/unsd/mdg/Resources/Static/Products/Progress2012/English2012.pdf"]http://mdgs.un.org/unsd/mdg/Resources/Static/Products/Progress2012/English2012.pdf[/URL]
[URL="http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/pdf/report-2013/mdg-report-2013-english.pdf"]http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/pdf/report-2013/mdg-report-2013-english.pdf[/URL]
[QUOTE=MrJazzy;43680659]Hitler had many advantages that are not here today though and people are not as willing to go to war anymore.[/QUOTE]
Uuuuhhhhh...the people don't have a say in a dictatorship. If the dictator wants war there will be war, and anyone who disagrees will be taking point in that war. Or sent to the gulags.
[QUOTE=MrJazzy;43680659]Hitler had many advantages that are not here today though and people are not as willing to go to war anymore.[/QUOTE]
Because globalization makes everybody depend on eachother for their economies.
[QUOTE=TestECull;43722053]Uuuuhhhhh...the people don't have a say in a dictatorship. If the dictator wants war there will be war, and anyone who disagrees will be taking point in that war. Or sent to the gulags.[/QUOTE]
Yeah that's true but I mean, good luck starting a dictatorship in, say, Germany today
[QUOTE=MrJazzy;43722925]Yeah that's true but I mean, good luck starting a dictatorship in, say, Germany today[/QUOTE]
I don't think this is that attitude we should adopt because it was more-a-less the attitude of the Germans pre WW2.
If we are going to make some amazing monolithic power structure, we need to make sure that the first, second, third and every damn person we put in that chair will not have it get to their heads.
We could do some sort of council or tiered governmental system, but those often decay to tyranny. Look at Rome. It isn't because someone is a dick, it is because war or famine breaks out and the decisions need to be made quickly, and fewer leaders is favorable under such situations. One guy does his job, and then the next guy is usually clueless.
[QUOTE=TestECull;43722053]Uuuuhhhhh...the people don't have a say in a dictatorship. If the dictator wants war there will be war, and anyone who disagrees will be taking point in that war. Or sent to the gulags.[/QUOTE]
Not necessarily.
Dictatorships consist of powerful competing groups within the state. The dictator may just happen to be the most powerful individual, but a lot of their own actions are often constrained. They can direct a lot and be very influential, but to go to war on their personal whim is unwise at best and downright dangerous to the regime at worst. Dictators are forced to delegate power to underlings, and most dictatorships tend to rot internally or end up being invaded by a state with a better military given enough time.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;43727667]Not necessarily.
Dictatorships consist of powerful competing groups within the state. The dictator may just happen to be the most powerful individual, but a lot of their own actions are often constrained. They can direct a lot and be very influential, but to go to war on their personal whim is unwise at best and downright dangerous to the regime at worst. Dictators are forced to delegate power to underlings, and most dictatorships tend to rot internally or end up being invaded by a state with a better military given enough time.[/QUOTE]
Right, but if the dictatorship in question is the WORLD, what other state would invade it? We would just have to hope that the dictator trips up if he ever gets a foot in power. Tyranny has it's way of getting power.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;43727702]Right, but if the dictatorship in question is the WORLD, what other state would invade it? We would just have to hope that the dictator trips up if he ever gets a foot in power. Tyranny has it's way of getting power.[/QUOTE]
Such as?
A world dictatorship is logistically unfeasible, and in any case, unpopular or bad policies will undermine the regime.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;43727750]Such as?
A world dictatorship is logistically unfeasible, and in any case, unpopular or bad policies will undermine the regime.[/QUOTE]
Why can't you say that about any state? If power in consolidated such that the global government is sovereign over the states(?) it would be akin to the federal over regional government. The problem is that this isn't a win-all as far as assuring dictatorship won't happen. Even if it isn't "Dictatorship" it can still be a government with unfavorable or even orwellian policies, and how would we resolve that?
Look at Ukraine.
The government began going in a direction the people didn't like. They protested. The government didn't want to let them, a few people died. Now they are rioting and taking over the country. But wait, in this case, the international community told the government of Ukraine not to use such force, that their treatment of the situation was bad. In a global governmental situation, who would do that exactly? The martians?
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;43727857]Why can't you say that about any state? If power in consolidated such that the global government is sovereign over the states(?) it would be akin to the federal over regional government. The problem is that this isn't a win-all as far as assuring dictatorship won't happen. Even if it isn't "Dictatorship" it can still be a government with unfavorable or even orwellian policies, and how would we resolve that?[/quote]
Well I suppose the same way we do it in any country. I don't see why a world government is seen as inherently more oppressive or vulnerable to one than a nation state.
[quote]The government began going in a direction the people didn't like. They protested. The government didn't want to let them, a few people died. Now they are rioting and taking over the country. But wait, in this case, the international community told the government of Ukraine not to use such force, that their treatment of the situation was bad. In a global governmental situation, who would do that exactly? The martians?[/QUOTE]
Well it would be different in that case since it would be a single government, but generally if the people were politically conscious enough to support integration with other countries into a single one, then surely they would be conscious and interested enough to maintain the civilization-state.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;43727857]Why can't you say that about any state? If power in consolidated such that the global government is sovereign over the states(?) it would be akin to the federal over regional government. The problem is that this isn't a win-all as far as assuring dictatorship won't happen. Even if it isn't "Dictatorship" it can still be a government with unfavorable or even orwellian policies, and how would we resolve that?
Look at Ukraine.
The government began going in a direction the people didn't like. They protested. The government didn't want to let them, a few people died. Now they are rioting and taking over the country. But wait, in this case, the international community told the government of Ukraine not to use such force, that their treatment of the situation was bad. In a global governmental situation, who would do that exactly? The martians?[/QUOTE]
What exactly would the leader gain from going against the people like that though?
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;43727930]Well I suppose the same way we do it in any country. I don't see why a world government is seen as inherently more oppressive or vulnerable to one than a nation state.
Well it would be different in that case since it would be a single government, but generally if the people were politically conscious enough to support integration with other countries into a single one, then surely they would be conscious and interested enough to maintain the civilization-state.[/QUOTE]
The problem isn't that it is inherently oppressive. It isn't, it could be paradise given the right sovereign.
The problem is that it could be hell given the right regime, and it would be damn near impossible to overthrow. For this reason, we must have more caution in this than any other endeavor. For that reason we shouldn't just let the first rich and powerful guy with a plan have the scepter.
[editline]30th January 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=G-Strogg;43727945]What exactly would the leader gain from going against the people like that though?[/QUOTE]
Power corrupts people. Absolute power corrupts people absolutely. It is only a matter of time before the title of basically "King of the world" gets to someone's head and they start getting ideas about eugenics or prosperity camps or some euphemistic shit like that. Hell one of them might even go Kim-il-Sung on the world and institute leader worship.
The question is, how does the dictator come to power? Hitler came to power because of his popularity and promise of deliverance from the desolation of post-WW1. The Soviets came to power among a popular revolution against the monarchy. Most dictatorships come to power with public support, usually among the local group of people. I don't see how a worldwide government could have enough support from every person in the world to trust them with dictatorial powers.
Ultimately, even in a dictatorship, power comes from the people. The soldiers and cops have to carry out the requests of the government for the dictatorship to function, and they are both people.
Why is 'less cultural diversity' listed as a negative of globalisation? Globalisation may 'blend' together multiple cultures within a single country and make it appear to be similar to another country (an example of this is how today that Australian and US culture is very similar, with similar influences from foreign cultures common to both) but it enhances the culture within the country.
For dinner tonight I could have the 'traditional' bangers and mash, or I could stop in at the local Chinese takeaway to get some Mongolian Beef, get a vindaloo from the nearby Indian restaurant or order a pizza from one of the several pizza places in my area. But it doesn't stop there. The radio stations play a mix of Australian, UK and US artists, I drive a car that was designed in Japan (although built in Australia) and my TV is produced by a South Korean firm. It's hard for any one culture to stand out, but is it necessary for one to do so anyways? And so saying that, I don't see the point to be a disadvantage of globalisation. It would be really boring if everything I could do, that I could only do the traditional Australian way.
[editline]31st January 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=cis.joshb;43729890]The question is, how does the dictator come to power? Hitler came to power because of his popularity and promise of deliverance from the desolation of post-WW1. The Soviets came to power among a popular revolution against the monarchy. Most dictatorships come to power with public support, usually among the local group of people. [B]I don't see how a worldwide government could have enough support from every person in the world to trust them with dictatorial powers[/B].
Ultimately, even in a dictatorship, power comes from the people. The soldiers and cops have to carry out the requests of the government for the dictatorship to function, and they are both people.[/QUOTE]
A worldwide government would only need to convince people that they (the government) are benevolent. Hitler was (in 1933) democratically elected, and what was promised by the Bolsheviks which put them into a position of power was completely different to what actually happened under the iron fist of Stalin. It wouldn't be that the people would have to trust a worldwide government with dictatorial powers; that government would only need to lie to the people and convince them that it won't end up as a dictatorship.
[editline]31st January 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;43683791]How does globalism not cause a giant nationalistic super-state?[/QUOTE]
How the hell did we end up debating about a theoretical worldwide government anyways?
Globalisation is not about a giant super-state. Globalisation is the increased influence of cultures and economies from some parts of the world on the cultures and economies of other parts in the world.
[QUOTE=StickyWicket;43707741]From 2000 to 2010 the amount of people living in the world under extreme poverty (less than 1.25$ a day) has decreased from 47% to 22%, more than doubling the amount of people out of extreme poverty. From 1991 to 2010 the amount of people living with clean drinking water has also doubled, from 24% of the world without clean water to 11%. The immediate reasoning as to why this has happened has been due changes in the world's two most populous countries: China and India. In India, in 1990, 51% of the population lived in absolute poverty. By 2015, it will be lowered to 22%. The figures for China are even more dramatic, 65% of their population lived in absolute poverty in 1981 and by 2007 the amount had been reduced to 4%! This may come as a surprise to some of you.
But, starting in the last three decades, first with China in the 80's, and India in the 90's, and many other countries since 2000, Governments have been removing restrictions and regulations to their economies, away from state-planning and to private property, and thus globalizing and integrating into the free market.
This is great news; the problem is that there are still too many people living in poverty, the amount of people living on 2.00 to 4.00 dollars a day has only been slowly declining in recent times. These are challenges we still face, so we must keep on track of policies of liberalism in markets. What we must avoid at all costs is this idea that governments getting involved in markets will do any help, as evidence from the last three decades has concluded that this is not the case.
Sources:
[URL="http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2009/04/08/000334955_20090408062432/Rendered/PDF/473490SR0CN0P010Disclosed0041061091.pdf"]http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2009/04/08/000334955_20090408062432/Rendered/PDF/473490SR0CN0P010Disclosed0041061091.pdf[/URL]
[URL="http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-07-08/developmental-issues/29751472_1_extreme-poverty-india-and-china-report"]http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-07-08/developmental-issues/29751472_1_extreme-poverty-india-and-china-report[/URL]
[URL="http://mdgs.un.org/unsd/mdg/Resources/Static/Products/Progress2012/English2012.pdf"]http://mdgs.un.org/unsd/mdg/Resources/Static/Products/Progress2012/English2012.pdf[/URL]
[URL="http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/pdf/report-2013/mdg-report-2013-english.pdf"]http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/pdf/report-2013/mdg-report-2013-english.pdf[/URL][/QUOTE]
Notice how this post went by unnoticed....this is extremely important and a point every single damn anti capitalist person ignores
[QUOTE=Antdawg;43730964]
A worldwide government would only need to convince people that they (the government) are benevolent. Hitler was (in 1933) democratically elected, and what was promised by the Bolsheviks which put them into a position of power was completely different to what actually happened under the iron fist of Stalin. It wouldn't be that the people would have to trust a worldwide government with dictatorial powers; that government would only need to lie to the people and convince them that it won't end up as a dictatorship.
[/QUOTE]
You just said exactly what I said. The question is this: How are you going to get the majority of people on Earth to trust you and give you dictatorial powers? It can work with small groups that you can propagandize thoroughly, but I don't think you could successfully convince a majority of people in each region to support a dictatorship that likely goes against the principles of the government in the first place.
[QUOTE=Cutthecrap;43733959]Notice how this post went by unnoticed....this is extremely important and a point every single damn anti capitalist person ignores[/QUOTE]
Perhaps this is the case. Globalism is as much an economic issue as it is a cultural and social one, but economics in places like this are seldom understood. People would rather talk about more exciting ideas like, "What if a dictator rounded the whole world?" Rather than eliminating poverty. This is apparent, seeing as the most threads on here are about topics that are aren't exactly up to debate, like the afterlife or god.
On another note...
Economics evidence has long demonstrated that free trade benefits all nations by increasing their standards of living and wealth. I argue that empirical evidence shows that free trade not only increases prosperity, but promotes world peace.
Trade makes countries more commercially interdependent and provides strong incentives to avoid war. This is known as the capitalist peace theory. Countries that trade a lot with each other have a lot to lose if war breaks out. Free trade and bargaining is the most cost effective way of resolving disputes and obtaining resources, while war is a costly way of doing the same things. Free trade brings more goods and ideas into a country and also promotes tolerance and understanding. Free trade and free exchange of ideas go hand in hand, where ideas compete with each other as much as products do.
Some critics say that WWI happened at a trade flows increase. We now know that trade flows increased due to lower transportation costs coming in at the turn of the century. However, countries like France, Germany, and Russia at the same time increased trade barriers and became more isolationist and less interdependent. The result, is the Great War. Almost predicting this outcome, Frédéric Bastiat (1801-1850) once wrote: [I]if goods can't cross borders, armies will.[/I]
The Global Peace Index measures internal and external peacefulness. Ireland, New Zealand, and the Netherlands are ranked among the highest in the whole world on this index. No coincidence that these are some of the most heavily trading nations in the world as well.
Good. A globalized planet will be able to support a space-based economy far more easily than one filled with arbitrary trade borders.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.