7 ms·

What's frightening is that he was actually proud of it - he really believed in it. I wonder how many other powerful families are working towards the "more integ

What's frightening is that he was actually proud of it - he really believed in it. I wonder how many other powerful families are working towards the "more integrated global political and economic structure", consolidating the power of the global elite. Good luck to everybody else... Edit to clarify: in an ideal world what he stands for is right. but we're not in an idea world. where there's power there's often corruption. therefore, sooner or later the power ends up in the wrong hands. the problem is that if the world is too "integrated" and power does inevitably end up in the wrong hands at some point, there is absolutely no recourse.

unityByFreedom 10y ago
Encouraging international cooperation isn't consolidating power. It's learning to live together on the same planet.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- aylmao 10y ago
  "a more integrated global political and economic structure" doesn't mean "international cooperation" though, it just means more free trade policies, and international political regulation instead of national. International cooperation can be achieved without an integrated political and economic structure. My country doesn't need to have the same economic policies and regulations as your country to live in harmony with you, or to take on international projects together like sending aid to some natural disaster, or doctors to communities that need them, or to agree in standards, or to foster academic research. "a more integrated global political and economic structure" means 1. bodies that have political power over national governments, which would make the implementation of standard regulations easier and 2. open borders for trade. Of course a billionaire involved in a number of translational companies wants this. As far as consolidating power goes, the US and China have some pretty big fish because their economies have been on steroids for a while. But other countries rely on national regulation to keep their national companies and local economies from being overrun by these big players. Least you know monopolies wouldn't exist only on the national level, but internationally, and then what do you do? National monopolies are a pain to get rid of, those would only be worse.
  - endisukaj 10y ago
    What is wrong with more free trade policies?
    - sintaxi 10y ago
      To name a few reasons... - It creates tax havens by allowing corps to claim profits in the country of their choosing. (see Apple Inc.) - It forces workers in developed countries to compete with workers in countries that don't have adequate human rights/pay. (see Walmart) - It wreaks havoc on the environment by overproduction and shipping. - People in underdeveloped countries pay the price for pollution created in developed countries. - Corporations become huge very quickly and end up having massive influence in politics of several countries. - Countries ultimately lose their sovereignty to the shareholders of these mega-corps.
- rayiner 10y ago
  > Encouraging international cooperation isn't consolidating power. It's learning to live together on the same planet. Globalization is a big tent with lots of different people in it with different motivations and priorities. The effect is mixed. It undoubtedly has accelerated growth and encouraged stability in the developing world. At the same time, it normalizes non-Western social/economic models and tends to undermine welfare states.
  - unityByFreedom 10y ago
    > tends to undermine welfare states. Not if we realize we share this planet and ought to be collectively interested in its health.
    - rayiner 10y ago
      The modern European welfare state - until robots take over - is all about carving out a local optimum in a sea of scarcity. How do you propose to have cradle-to-grave welfare within a system that encourages labor in developed countries to bitterly compete with desparate people in developing countries?
      - unityByFreedom 10y ago
        Well that was the Westphalian agreement. We're sovereign states and can operate as we see fit. If international policy has some impact on our domestic policy -- so be it. Much the same as we have free will and are also impacted by our environment. There are people in places who are happy with the way things are, and people in other places who wouldn't like it that way.
        rayiner 10y ago
        I don't think I understand your point at all. How do you preserve modern European welfare states in the face of globalization?
        10y ago
paulpauper 10y ago
what's wrong with having conviction to want to make the world better, provided the means ones uses to attain such a goal are ethical.
- Exofunctor 10y ago
  Obviously no one disagrees with "making the world better". The "ethical" qualifier is the tricky part.
- aylmao 10y ago
  "a more integrated global political and economic structure" and a "better world" are independent goals. Billionaires and owners of huge corporations have always preached for weaker borders not in the sense of John Lennon's Imagine, but in the sense of free-trade agreements that allows them to expand their market at the expense of local economies. Take China. China is incredibly protectionist but it has one of the world's biggest markets; its population is huge and lately their purchasing power has been steadily increasing (aka. more disposable income to buy stuff). It's no wonder Apple, for example, has made so many strides to hit the Chinese market, but it has had to go through hoops and I bet unbelievable amounts of red tape. "a more integrated global political and economic structure" would mean less protectionist policy and less friction for overseas expansion.
- rubicon33 10y ago
  I don't think anyone disagrees with the idealized notion of making the world better. But there's tons of room for disagreement in how to do so. I've even heard some argue that prosperity is a limited resource, and that "globalists" naively believe there's enough of it to spread around the entire planet. Obviously if you're already well off (U.S.) then there's only one direction for you to go when the spreading happens: down. FWIW, I don't believe in this line of thinking. But, I think there are some interesting theoretical considerations that I don't fully understand. The idea of prosperity being a limited resource is, at least, interesting to think about.
digi_owl 10y ago
Reminds me of debating the whole EU mess. Yes, it is good for moving tangible products around as you have a predictable base of regulations around them. Moving services around gets iffy. Seen way too many companies use that to pack away profits in low tax nations while maintaining a persistent loss in "high" tax nations. This by spinning up a service company that bills for unspecified services. And moving workers around only really work when dealing with non-industrial jobs, or all that comes out of it is "social dumping". But try to explain that to 20-something with freshly minted degrees, laptops and credit cards.
- elastic_church 10y ago
  The high tax nations should figure out how to fund themselves more competitively. Many low tax countries have democratically elected representatives that looked at their budget and realized "no we dont need to fund roads and schools by taking a piece of other peoples productivity". Despite any pressure from high tax nations they simply realized they dont need it.
  - lovich 10y ago
    For my own curiosity could you point out a single low tax country that has well maintained infrastructure?
    - Strom 10y ago
      Estonia may be a decent example here. Not every tax is low, but corporate income tax is 0% and personal income tax is a flat 20%. However lots of infrastructure upgrades have been done with EU money. So the tax is still there, just not being paid by the locals.
      - lovich 10y ago
        That definitely doesn't fit the criteria of not taking pieces of other people's productivity to fund roads and schools that the parent post mentioned. I'd be interested in hearing of an alternative model to taxes that's actually worked out. Every other example I've seen has fallen to the tragedy of the Commons rather than businesses stepping up and handling common goods well
Florin_Andrei 10y ago
I don't see why globalization must necessarily mean total domination by the "elites". Yes, it's a significant risk factor in that scenario, but the two don't come in a package, bound together with epoxy. It would only happen if we continue to refuse to address the issue of inequality - this time on a global scale. Some form of globalization is actually the best case scenario, the golden path for this world. It must include some form of control mechanisms against inequality spiraling out of control - and that's just one factor among many. A united world is the only way to significantly reduce the risk of global conflict. It's also the only way to ensure that a large fraction of the world is not dying of starvation while another fraction goes swimming in champaign-filled pools. It would also mean pooling up resources on a global scale. It would make large parts of military budgets redundant, freeing that money for other purposes.
- iliketosleep 10y ago
  i don't think inequality can be solved by globalization. if you look at the poor countries, you'll find a multitude of structural problems. until these structural problems are dealt with, globalization is likely to feed corruption. i agree that globalization would reduce the risk of global conflict - there would only be one side. thus, if the wrong people were in power there would be no way to fight them. that's scary.
  - hwillis 10y ago
    >i agree that globalization would reduce the risk of global conflict - there would only be one side. thus, if the wrong people were in power there would be no way to fight them. that's scary. That's not scary, that's the US. The Federal government functions more successfully than state governments in every way. In the Fed we have Trump vs. in states we have literal coups and gerrymandering. The US is better as a federation than individual states in every way. A state is not more able to fight "the wrong people being in charge", but they are significantly more vulnerable to it.
    - Florin_Andrei 10y ago
elastic_church 10y ago
Oh no deeply liquid markets that span borders, the horror Lets bring back a Europe with 27 different bond and stock markets in 27 different volatile currencies
- stanfordkid 10y ago
  It's more complex than that... Debt is denominated in currencies ... so with the current system bad borrowing behavior by one member of the currency union (Greece) would lead to devaluation of the currency to other members of the union (Germany). Having multiple currencies is okay as long as there is liquidity between them. That being said, centralizing currency leads to economic growth as long as the money is well spent (investment) rather than evaporated (excessive social benefits)
  - elastic_church 10y ago
    > Having multiple currencies is okay as long as there is liquidity between them. The bond market in that entire economic region was comparatively underdeveloped and has attracted massive liquidity improvements since 1999 stretch far out down the yield and risk curve But yes we can write a whole dissertation on various aspects of the monetary union
- mythrwy 10y ago
  Sure. Lets tie everything together instead so it can all go down together.
kingkawn 10y ago
global elites or local elites, its still the same ol' pointless domination
- mythrwy 10y ago
  Except local elites have less real power. Corruption or "real motives" of a global elite aside, I look at it as the difference between monolithic code bases and well designed separation of concerns. One is less prone to catastrophic failure and easier to repair when failure does occur. Joseph Tainter I think hits the troubles with centralization right on the head. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0R09YzyuCI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0R09YzyuCI

unityByFreedom 10y ago

Encouraging international cooperation isn't consolidating power. It's learning to live together on the same planet.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
aylmao 10y ago
"a more integrated global political and economic structure" doesn't mean "international cooperation" though, it just means more free trade policies, and international political regulation instead of national. International cooperation can be achieved without an integrated political and economic structure. My country doesn't need to have the same economic policies and regulations as your country to live in harmony with you, or to take on international projects together like sending aid to some natural disaster, or doctors to communities that need them, or to agree in standards, or to foster academic research. "a more integrated global political and economic structure" means 1. bodies that have political power over national governments, which would make the implementation of standard regulations easier and 2. open borders for trade. Of course a billionaire involved in a number of translational companies wants this. As far as consolidating power goes, the US and China have some pretty big fish because their economies have been on steroids for a while. But other countries rely on national regulation to keep their national companies and local economies from being overrun by these big players. Least you know monopolies wouldn't exist only on the national level, but internationally, and then what do you do? National monopolies are a pain to get rid of, those would only be worse.
- endisukaj 10y ago
  What is wrong with more free trade policies?
  - sintaxi 10y ago
    To name a few reasons... - It creates tax havens by allowing corps to claim profits in the country of their choosing. (see Apple Inc.) - It forces workers in developed countries to compete with workers in countries that don't have adequate human rights/pay. (see Walmart) - It wreaks havoc on the environment by overproduction and shipping. - People in underdeveloped countries pay the price for pollution created in developed countries. - Corporations become huge very quickly and end up having massive influence in politics of several countries. - Countries ultimately lose their sovereignty to the shareholders of these mega-corps.
rayiner 10y ago
> Encouraging international cooperation isn't consolidating power. It's learning to live together on the same planet. Globalization is a big tent with lots of different people in it with different motivations and priorities. The effect is mixed. It undoubtedly has accelerated growth and encouraged stability in the developing world. At the same time, it normalizes non-Western social/economic models and tends to undermine welfare states.
- unityByFreedom 10y ago
  > tends to undermine welfare states. Not if we realize we share this planet and ought to be collectively interested in its health.
  - rayiner 10y ago
    The modern European welfare state - until robots take over - is all about carving out a local optimum in a sea of scarcity. How do you propose to have cradle-to-grave welfare within a system that encourages labor in developed countries to bitterly compete with desparate people in developing countries?
    - unityByFreedom 10y ago
      Well that was the Westphalian agreement. We're sovereign states and can operate as we see fit. If international policy has some impact on our domestic policy -- so be it. Much the same as we have free will and are also impacted by our environment. There are people in places who are happy with the way things are, and people in other places who wouldn't like it that way.
      - rayiner 10y ago
        I don't think I understand your point at all. How do you preserve modern European welfare states in the face of globalization?
        10y ago

paulpauper 10y ago

what's wrong with having conviction to want to make the world better, provided the means ones uses to attain such a goal are ethical.

Exofunctor 10y ago
Obviously no one disagrees with "making the world better". The "ethical" qualifier is the tricky part.
aylmao 10y ago
"a more integrated global political and economic structure" and a "better world" are independent goals. Billionaires and owners of huge corporations have always preached for weaker borders not in the sense of John Lennon's Imagine, but in the sense of free-trade agreements that allows them to expand their market at the expense of local economies. Take China. China is incredibly protectionist but it has one of the world's biggest markets; its population is huge and lately their purchasing power has been steadily increasing (aka. more disposable income to buy stuff). It's no wonder Apple, for example, has made so many strides to hit the Chinese market, but it has had to go through hoops and I bet unbelievable amounts of red tape. "a more integrated global political and economic structure" would mean less protectionist policy and less friction for overseas expansion.
rubicon33 10y ago
I don't think anyone disagrees with the idealized notion of making the world better. But there's tons of room for disagreement in how to do so. I've even heard some argue that prosperity is a limited resource, and that "globalists" naively believe there's enough of it to spread around the entire planet. Obviously if you're already well off (U.S.) then there's only one direction for you to go when the spreading happens: down. FWIW, I don't believe in this line of thinking. But, I think there are some interesting theoretical considerations that I don't fully understand. The idea of prosperity being a limited resource is, at least, interesting to think about.

digi_owl 10y ago

Reminds me of debating the whole EU mess. Yes, it is good for moving tangible products around as you have a predictable base of regulations around them. Moving services around gets iffy. Seen way too many companies use that to pack away profits in low tax nations while maintaining a persistent loss in "high" tax nations. This by spinning up a service company that bills for unspecified services. And moving workers around only really work when dealing with non-industrial jobs, or all that comes out of it is "social dumping". But try to explain that to 20-something with freshly minted degrees, laptops and credit cards.

elastic_church 10y ago
The high tax nations should figure out how to fund themselves more competitively. Many low tax countries have democratically elected representatives that looked at their budget and realized "no we dont need to fund roads and schools by taking a piece of other peoples productivity". Despite any pressure from high tax nations they simply realized they dont need it.
- lovich 10y ago
  For my own curiosity could you point out a single low tax country that has well maintained infrastructure?
  - Strom 10y ago
    Estonia may be a decent example here. Not every tax is low, but corporate income tax is 0% and personal income tax is a flat 20%. However lots of infrastructure upgrades have been done with EU money. So the tax is still there, just not being paid by the locals.
    - lovich 10y ago
      That definitely doesn't fit the criteria of not taking pieces of other people's productivity to fund roads and schools that the parent post mentioned. I'd be interested in hearing of an alternative model to taxes that's actually worked out. Every other example I've seen has fallen to the tragedy of the Commons rather than businesses stepping up and handling common goods well

Florin_Andrei 10y ago

I don't see why globalization must necessarily mean total domination by the "elites". Yes, it's a significant risk factor in that scenario, but the two don't come in a package, bound together with epoxy. It would only happen if we continue to refuse to address the issue of inequality - this time on a global scale. Some form of globalization is actually the best case scenario, the golden path for this world. It must include some form of control mechanisms against inequality spiraling out of control - and that's just one factor among many. A united world is the only way to significantly reduce the risk of global conflict. It's also the only way to ensure that a large fraction of the world is not dying of starvation while another fraction goes swimming in champaign-filled pools. It would also mean pooling up resources on a global scale. It would make large parts of military budgets redundant, freeing that money for other purposes.

iliketosleep 10y ago
i don't think inequality can be solved by globalization. if you look at the poor countries, you'll find a multitude of structural problems. until these structural problems are dealt with, globalization is likely to feed corruption. i agree that globalization would reduce the risk of global conflict - there would only be one side. thus, if the wrong people were in power there would be no way to fight them. that's scary.
- hwillis 10y ago
  >i agree that globalization would reduce the risk of global conflict - there would only be one side. thus, if the wrong people were in power there would be no way to fight them. that's scary. That's not scary, that's the US. The Federal government functions more successfully than state governments in every way. In the Fed we have Trump vs. in states we have literal coups and gerrymandering. The US is better as a federation than individual states in every way. A state is not more able to fight "the wrong people being in charge", but they are significantly more vulnerable to it.
  - Florin_Andrei 10y ago

elastic_church 10y ago

Oh no deeply liquid markets that span borders, the horror Lets bring back a Europe with 27 different bond and stock markets in 27 different volatile currencies

stanfordkid 10y ago
It's more complex than that... Debt is denominated in currencies ... so with the current system bad borrowing behavior by one member of the currency union (Greece) would lead to devaluation of the currency to other members of the union (Germany). Having multiple currencies is okay as long as there is liquidity between them. That being said, centralizing currency leads to economic growth as long as the money is well spent (investment) rather than evaporated (excessive social benefits)
- elastic_church 10y ago
  > Having multiple currencies is okay as long as there is liquidity between them. The bond market in that entire economic region was comparatively underdeveloped and has attracted massive liquidity improvements since 1999 stretch far out down the yield and risk curve But yes we can write a whole dissertation on various aspects of the monetary union
mythrwy 10y ago
Sure. Lets tie everything together instead so it can all go down together.

kingkawn 10y ago

global elites or local elites, its still the same ol' pointless domination

mythrwy 10y ago
Except local elites have less real power. Corruption or "real motives" of a global elite aside, I look at it as the difference between monolithic code bases and well designed separation of concerns. One is less prone to catastrophic failure and easier to repair when failure does occur. Joseph Tainter I think hits the troubles with centralization right on the head. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0R09YzyuCI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0R09YzyuCI