6 ms·

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 co

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
    This is single-cell bugs vs multicellular organisms all over again.
- Florin_Andrei 10y ago
  > i don't think inequality can be solved by globalization. No, it's the other way'round. On the way to globalization, we need to make sure inequality stays within reasonable levels, otherwise the whole thing will fail.
  - TheAdamAndChe 10y ago
    Globalization is the exploitation of the lower standard of living in other areas. The reason corporations ship jobs overseas is because it's cheap. This in no way controls inequality, and in fact makes it worse.
    - Florin_Andrei 10y ago
      > Globalization is the exploitation of the lower standard of living in other areas. Yes, I am aware that some people define it that way.
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
    - henrikschroder 10y ago
      Globalization has caused the largest transfer of wealth from rich countries to poor countries in the history of mankind, reducing inequality between countries on an unprecedented scale.
      - TheAdamAndChe 10y ago
        This is true, but it has also strengthened inequality significantly within countries: https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2007/02/pdf/c4.pdf https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2007/02/pdf/c4.pdf
        henrikschroder 10y ago
        Yes, that is bad, but eliminating extreme poverty is really, really good.
- kelnos 10y ago
  No one (including the post you're replying to) is suggesting that globalization can solve inequality. It solves a bunch of other things, presents some new challenges, and makes the consequences of inequality worse.
- gdubs 10y ago
  Take something like Climate Change. Pretty good example if any that global cooperation is needed to solve. Also ultimately the biggest inequality issue looming as it will disproportionately hurt the world's poorest.
- Chris2048 10y ago
  Incidental, this is the main reason I voted for Brexit. I see things like the hunt for Assange, (or Snowden) and am of the opinion that the more collected various governments are, the easier it is for them to prey on the divided populace.
gph 10y ago
But you're describing some kind of theoretical ideal world. We don't live in that world. No one has found a good mechanism for controlling inequality within their own borders and/or ethnic group that scales to anything beyond the size of a village. Yea domination by elites and globalization don't theoretically have to occur together. But looking at history and the current state of the world... what do you think is more likely?
- Florin_Andrei 10y ago
  > But you're describing some kind of theoretical ideal world. We don't live in that world. Everything is "theoretical" and "ideal" and "impossible" before it actually happens. Electronic computers were an impossibility to James Watt era engineers. Steam engines were an impossibility to the architects of the Parthenon. Raising large stone edifices was an impossibility to hunter-gatherers roaming the savanna. Yet all these things happened in due course of time. > But looking at history and the current state of the world... what do you think is more likely? I see a generally ascending arc, with local dips and bumps. The trends look good in the long run, although the short run is always difficult to predict. Of course, that is not an absolute guarantee of success. Nothing is. The best case scenario is not going to happen without a lot of effort, some substantial amount of time, and likely some sacrifices along the way.
  - gph 10y ago
    So you're telling me I should support TPP, globalization efforts, and the subsequent concentration of economic and political power because you have a good feeling that humanity is heading in the right direction and we can invent some effective control on inequality because nothing is impossible the same way we invented the electronic computer?
    - Florin_Andrei 10y ago
      It seems like the meaning of the word "globalization" has been hijacked. It really seems, in the minds of some people at least, to indicate a bundle of very negative outcomes - which in no way I would support. Shifting the center of this discussion would take too long. I'm not here to write a dissertation about the evolution of human society. I think I've hinted at how things could possibly unfold, if we make a consistent effort to better the future of the Earth. Read what I've said and that should provide some indication - unless your mind is set on "winning" a contest of punditry, in which case I wish you good luck. TLDR: I think the best of all possible futures could be achieved through some measure of unity on a global scale, at a higher order of magnitude compared to what we have now. Inequality is one of the many obstacles on the way there. Narrow-minded nationalism is another. It would require massive changes on multiple levels, and it will not happen in a day or two. Call the end result whatever you like. But anything that could bring that future closer is a good cause to support.
skyhust 10y ago
It doesn't have to but globalization is defined as a 7 stage process which ends with- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complete_economic_integration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complete_economic_integration And you can see how that grows from NAFTA, GATT etc- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_integration#Stages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_integration#Stages

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
  This is single-cell bugs vs multicellular organisms all over again.
Florin_Andrei 10y ago
> i don't think inequality can be solved by globalization. No, it's the other way'round. On the way to globalization, we need to make sure inequality stays within reasonable levels, otherwise the whole thing will fail.
- TheAdamAndChe 10y ago
  Globalization is the exploitation of the lower standard of living in other areas. The reason corporations ship jobs overseas is because it's cheap. This in no way controls inequality, and in fact makes it worse.
  - Florin_Andrei 10y ago
    > Globalization is the exploitation of the lower standard of living in other areas. Yes, I am aware that some people define it that way.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
  - henrikschroder 10y ago
    Globalization has caused the largest transfer of wealth from rich countries to poor countries in the history of mankind, reducing inequality between countries on an unprecedented scale.
    - TheAdamAndChe 10y ago
      This is true, but it has also strengthened inequality significantly within countries: https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2007/02/pdf/c4.pdf https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2007/02/pdf/c4.pdf
      - henrikschroder 10y ago
        Yes, that is bad, but eliminating extreme poverty is really, really good.
kelnos 10y ago
No one (including the post you're replying to) is suggesting that globalization can solve inequality. It solves a bunch of other things, presents some new challenges, and makes the consequences of inequality worse.
gdubs 10y ago
Take something like Climate Change. Pretty good example if any that global cooperation is needed to solve. Also ultimately the biggest inequality issue looming as it will disproportionately hurt the world's poorest.
Chris2048 10y ago
Incidental, this is the main reason I voted for Brexit. I see things like the hunt for Assange, (or Snowden) and am of the opinion that the more collected various governments are, the easier it is for them to prey on the divided populace.

gph 10y ago

But you're describing some kind of theoretical ideal world. We don't live in that world. No one has found a good mechanism for controlling inequality within their own borders and/or ethnic group that scales to anything beyond the size of a village. Yea domination by elites and globalization don't theoretically have to occur together. But looking at history and the current state of the world... what do you think is more likely?

Florin_Andrei 10y ago
> But you're describing some kind of theoretical ideal world. We don't live in that world. Everything is "theoretical" and "ideal" and "impossible" before it actually happens. Electronic computers were an impossibility to James Watt era engineers. Steam engines were an impossibility to the architects of the Parthenon. Raising large stone edifices was an impossibility to hunter-gatherers roaming the savanna. Yet all these things happened in due course of time. > But looking at history and the current state of the world... what do you think is more likely? I see a generally ascending arc, with local dips and bumps. The trends look good in the long run, although the short run is always difficult to predict. Of course, that is not an absolute guarantee of success. Nothing is. The best case scenario is not going to happen without a lot of effort, some substantial amount of time, and likely some sacrifices along the way.
- gph 10y ago
  So you're telling me I should support TPP, globalization efforts, and the subsequent concentration of economic and political power because you have a good feeling that humanity is heading in the right direction and we can invent some effective control on inequality because nothing is impossible the same way we invented the electronic computer?
  - Florin_Andrei 10y ago
    It seems like the meaning of the word "globalization" has been hijacked. It really seems, in the minds of some people at least, to indicate a bundle of very negative outcomes - which in no way I would support. Shifting the center of this discussion would take too long. I'm not here to write a dissertation about the evolution of human society. I think I've hinted at how things could possibly unfold, if we make a consistent effort to better the future of the Earth. Read what I've said and that should provide some indication - unless your mind is set on "winning" a contest of punditry, in which case I wish you good luck. TLDR: I think the best of all possible futures could be achieved through some measure of unity on a global scale, at a higher order of magnitude compared to what we have now. Inequality is one of the many obstacles on the way there. Narrow-minded nationalism is another. It would require massive changes on multiple levels, and it will not happen in a day or two. Call the end result whatever you like. But anything that could bring that future closer is a good cause to support.

skyhust 10y ago

It doesn't have to but globalization is defined as a 7 stage process which ends with- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complete_economic_integration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complete_economic_integration And you can see how that grows from NAFTA, GATT etc- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_integration#Stages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_integration#Stages