6 ms·

The end of internationalism: Are rich nations turning their back on the world?

39 points by hooch 10y ago

gonvaled 10y ago
The rich nations have exploited the world for hundreds of years. It is becoming increasingly difficult to exploit resources, since low hanging fruits are already gone and there is much more concurrence in exploiting; even a reverse movement in which the developing world is claiming its share in the world product - even leading to emerging powers. No wonder the rich world is retracting, there is little to gain and much to lose: now the strategy is closed borders, strong security policies, withdrawing from international programs, and fight by proxy with the existing and upcoming world powers for areas of influence, without being directly involved in order to avoid the backslash that the increasingly harsh policies that will be required in order to continue exploiting world resources will cause. The rich voter demands from its government only one thing: increase our standard of living, whatever it takes.
- throwaway1974 10y ago
  Yadda yadda yadda How is this for a simpler theory China is the one doing the exploiting and manufacturing now, in turn exporting their goods to the rest of the world in exchange for IOUs
  - gonvaled 10y ago
    China is certainly doing its share, but much less than the west, simply because of the inertia of a system working for decades. Correcting for population, China's inference is much less than the West's. Correcting for cumulative historical inference, China's does not even register compared to the West.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
hclivess 10y ago
Yes, the article comes with a premise that there was no slavery or exploitation. Only based on the post WWII sentiment.
3princip 10y ago
Good. This top-down world governance project needs to be abandoned. It's hegemony wrapped in a nice package of development aid (and military interventionism under the surface) >there is a gap at the global governance level. Who's in charge of that? Where do you address yourself, you know? What is it with the international elite, looking down at the world from their quaint old chateaus and cushy jobs, who believe all the worlds problems will be solved if someone could give them more money for their advice and add another layer of government/bureaucracy on top? Why is the ICRC pushing this agenda? Stop it, firstly stop the interventionism! Military and economic. Stop bombing the ME, stop acting holier than thou and imposing this narrow globalist set of ethics onto the world. Stop trying to grab power and pretend it has some altruistic component. It's causing chaos. These problems are not going to be solved by a world government. Quite contrary to the opinion expressed in the article that Brexit and Trump are symptoms of a problem, I consider them symptoms of a public trying to stop these crazy globalist agendas.
- throwaway1974 10y ago
  Some rant there not based on reality Unless you have been living on a different planet, US and Europe (The West) have pretty much withdrawn from the Middle East. The ones doing the bombing now in the middle east are Russia and various Muslim factions killing each other. The west has withdrawn from the quagmire and also is the one accommodating refugees for some reason, unlike the like of rich Arab countries like Saudi and UAE who share the same religion and cultures.
  - 3princip 10y ago
    The west is still supporting and arming rebels in Syria.
    - throwaway1974 10y ago
      So is Saudi and Qatar and UAE, I do not see queues of refugees fleeing there despite sharing the same climate, religion and culture.
coldtea 10y ago
>Are rich nations turning their back on the world? Compared to the era where they carpet bombed the world, had 2/3 of the global population as slaves in their colonies, etc?
chatmasta 10y ago
It seems contradictory that the hive mind of HN argues for decentralized technology and Internet governance, while also arguing for a globalist agenda and top-down international cooperation. If you believe in the principles of decentralization as they relate to technology, can you not apply the same axioms to the world? To me it seems intuitive that the world is better off governed as a web of many different institutions (nation states) with varying interests, as opposed to hierarchically under a singular power attempting to coalesce around an impossible consensus. Of course, not all the "nodes" (states) are equal, which is why we have "spheres of influence." Western powers as of late seem to be pushing for a singular sphere of influence, as opposed to accepting the bipolar or tripolar world that has naturally developed after World War II. You don't see China or Russia trying to export their hegemony onto the rest of the world, yet the United States continues its attempts to "export democracy" into areas like the Middle East. Why not let the Middle East develop into its own pole of power along with the US (the "West"), Russia, and China (the "East")? The world would be much better off if the global elites allowed the spheres of influence to develop naturally and peacefully, without trying to push those in the middle one way or another. Some cultural differences are simply impossible to overcome, and any attempt to ameliorate them only ends in violence. One might argue it's not even in the world's best interest to "overcome" cultural differences. One of the great tragedies of globalization is the emergence of a monoculture (go to any club in the world, for example, and you hear only American music) that could cause people to sleep walk into the control of a single world power.
- hx87 10y ago
  > It seems contradictory that the hive mind of HN argues for decentralized technology and Internet governance, while also arguing for a globalist agenda and top-down international cooperation. You and I must read very different parts of HN, since in every article concerning globalism, the top comment, or one of the top comments criticizes globalism. If there is one phenomena that does permeate HN, it's 2edgy4me contrarianism-for-the-sake-of-contrarianism, and even that isn't very strong here.
- ethbro 10y ago
  > Western powers as of late seem to be pushing for a singular sphere of influence, as opposed to accepting the bipolar or tripolar world that has naturally developed after World War II I wouldn't say there was anything natural about the bipolar post-WWII world. It was the result of both sides striving to be dominant, coupled with nuclear weapons. You'll never have a country willingly cede advantage to another -- only transient configurations of alliances, agendas, and resources that lead to temporarily stable multipolar scenarios.

39 points by hooch 10y ago

The rich nations have exploited the world for hundreds of years. It is becoming increasingly difficult to exploit resources, since low hanging fruits are already gone and there is much more concurrence in exploiting; even a reverse movement in which the developing world is claiming its share in the world product - even leading to emerging powers. No wonder the rich world is retracting, there is little to gain and much to lose: now the strategy is closed borders, strong security policies, withdrawing from international programs, and fight by proxy with the existing and upcoming world powers for areas of influence, without being directly involved in order to avoid the backslash that the increasingly harsh policies that will be required in order to continue exploiting world resources will cause. The rich voter demands from its government only one thing: increase our standard of living, whatever it takes.

throwaway1974 10y ago
Yadda yadda yadda How is this for a simpler theory China is the one doing the exploiting and manufacturing now, in turn exporting their goods to the rest of the world in exchange for IOUs
- gonvaled 10y ago
  China is certainly doing its share, but much less than the west, simply because of the inertia of a system working for decades. Correcting for population, China's inference is much less than the West's. Correcting for cumulative historical inference, China's does not even register compared to the West.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]

hclivess 10y ago

Yes, the article comes with a premise that there was no slavery or exploitation. Only based on the post WWII sentiment.

3princip 10y ago

Good. This top-down world governance project needs to be abandoned. It's hegemony wrapped in a nice package of development aid (and military interventionism under the surface) >there is a gap at the global governance level. Who's in charge of that? Where do you address yourself, you know? What is it with the international elite, looking down at the world from their quaint old chateaus and cushy jobs, who believe all the worlds problems will be solved if someone could give them more money for their advice and add another layer of government/bureaucracy on top? Why is the ICRC pushing this agenda? Stop it, firstly stop the interventionism! Military and economic. Stop bombing the ME, stop acting holier than thou and imposing this narrow globalist set of ethics onto the world. Stop trying to grab power and pretend it has some altruistic component. It's causing chaos. These problems are not going to be solved by a world government. Quite contrary to the opinion expressed in the article that Brexit and Trump are symptoms of a problem, I consider them symptoms of a public trying to stop these crazy globalist agendas.

throwaway1974 10y ago
Some rant there not based on reality Unless you have been living on a different planet, US and Europe (The West) have pretty much withdrawn from the Middle East. The ones doing the bombing now in the middle east are Russia and various Muslim factions killing each other. The west has withdrawn from the quagmire and also is the one accommodating refugees for some reason, unlike the like of rich Arab countries like Saudi and UAE who share the same religion and cultures.
- 3princip 10y ago
  The west is still supporting and arming rebels in Syria.
  - throwaway1974 10y ago
    So is Saudi and Qatar and UAE, I do not see queues of refugees fleeing there despite sharing the same climate, religion and culture.

coldtea 10y ago

>Are rich nations turning their back on the world? Compared to the era where they carpet bombed the world, had 2/3 of the global population as slaves in their colonies, etc?

chatmasta 10y ago

It seems contradictory that the hive mind of HN argues for decentralized technology and Internet governance, while also arguing for a globalist agenda and top-down international cooperation. If you believe in the principles of decentralization as they relate to technology, can you not apply the same axioms to the world? To me it seems intuitive that the world is better off governed as a web of many different institutions (nation states) with varying interests, as opposed to hierarchically under a singular power attempting to coalesce around an impossible consensus. Of course, not all the "nodes" (states) are equal, which is why we have "spheres of influence." Western powers as of late seem to be pushing for a singular sphere of influence, as opposed to accepting the bipolar or tripolar world that has naturally developed after World War II. You don't see China or Russia trying to export their hegemony onto the rest of the world, yet the United States continues its attempts to "export democracy" into areas like the Middle East. Why not let the Middle East develop into its own pole of power along with the US (the "West"), Russia, and China (the "East")? The world would be much better off if the global elites allowed the spheres of influence to develop naturally and peacefully, without trying to push those in the middle one way or another. Some cultural differences are simply impossible to overcome, and any attempt to ameliorate them only ends in violence. One might argue it's not even in the world's best interest to "overcome" cultural differences. One of the great tragedies of globalization is the emergence of a monoculture (go to any club in the world, for example, and you hear only American music) that could cause people to sleep walk into the control of a single world power.

hx87 10y ago
> It seems contradictory that the hive mind of HN argues for decentralized technology and Internet governance, while also arguing for a globalist agenda and top-down international cooperation. You and I must read very different parts of HN, since in every article concerning globalism, the top comment, or one of the top comments criticizes globalism. If there is one phenomena that does permeate HN, it's 2edgy4me contrarianism-for-the-sake-of-contrarianism, and even that isn't very strong here.
ethbro 10y ago
> Western powers as of late seem to be pushing for a singular sphere of influence, as opposed to accepting the bipolar or tripolar world that has naturally developed after World War II I wouldn't say there was anything natural about the bipolar post-WWII world. It was the result of both sides striving to be dominant, coupled with nuclear weapons. You'll never have a country willingly cede advantage to another -- only transient configurations of alliances, agendas, and resources that lead to temporarily stable multipolar scenarios.