3 ms·

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 feeli

by 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.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
kelnos 10y ago
Oh c'mon, principle of charity, please. That is not at all what the parent said or even implied. It is fact that humanity is heading in the right direction over the long term (based on tracking standard of living and the standard deviation of such). It is also fact that there are bumps and regressions along the way. We shouldn't support the TPP; it sucks (the only good thing Trump has done so far is pull out of it). We shouldn't support the concentration of economic and political power. We should support things that make sense and promote the reduction of income inequality. That need not be at odds with globalization, though many businesspeople tend to push it that way since it's cheaper and good for them.
- Florin_Andrei 10y ago
  > principle of charity, please Exactly, thank you. The exchange felt like the opposite of it.
- gph 10y ago
  >We should support things that make sense and promote the reduction of income inequality. That need not be at odds with globalization, though many businesspeople tend to push it that way since it's cheaper and good for them. Doesn't need to be at odds with globalization, and yet all the evidence so far seems to point that way. Society is a nebulous construct of many actors. Some will try to build a more equitable future, others will not. The others are undoubtedly those who can figure out how to rise to the top. They are the ones controlling globalization efforts. The neo-liberal dream is just that, a dream. When push comes to shove most people aren't actually for equality, they just say they are.

by gph 10y ago

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.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

kelnos 10y ago

Oh c'mon, principle of charity, please. That is not at all what the parent said or even implied. It is fact that humanity is heading in the right direction over the long term (based on tracking standard of living and the standard deviation of such). It is also fact that there are bumps and regressions along the way. We shouldn't support the TPP; it sucks (the only good thing Trump has done so far is pull out of it). We shouldn't support the concentration of economic and political power. We should support things that make sense and promote the reduction of income inequality. That need not be at odds with globalization, though many businesspeople tend to push it that way since it's cheaper and good for them.

Florin_Andrei 10y ago
> principle of charity, please Exactly, thank you. The exchange felt like the opposite of it.
gph 10y ago
>We should support things that make sense and promote the reduction of income inequality. That need not be at odds with globalization, though many businesspeople tend to push it that way since it's cheaper and good for them. Doesn't need to be at odds with globalization, and yet all the evidence so far seems to point that way. Society is a nebulous construct of many actors. Some will try to build a more equitable future, others will not. The others are undoubtedly those who can figure out how to rise to the top. They are the ones controlling globalization efforts. The neo-liberal dream is just that, a dream. When push comes to shove most people aren't actually for equality, they just say they are.