15 ms·

Nations exist to protect it's citizens. So yeah, as they should, each country is prioritizing their own needs before exporting any surplus to other countries. T

Nations exist to protect it's citizens. So yeah, as they should, each country is prioritizing their own needs before exporting any surplus to other countries. The challenge is no one really has any idea how much of the supplies they actually need. It's interesting to me that you find this surprising or view it as bad behavior.

TazeTSchnitzel 7y ago
States use serving a “nation” as a retroactive justification for doing what they have always done. In a global crisis, selfish actions help nobody.
- mmm_grayons 7y ago
  Leaders face a rather difficult situation: the governments of nations exist to protect their own citizens. Were they to export supplies to others, citizens wouldn't be happy. Even were it to save twice as many citizens in a foreign nation as it would have saved in the exporting one. Would you be happy with a national government that placed the lives of foreigners above yours? Even if you would, most people wouldn't be. This isn't limited to international relations, of course. The federal stockpiles of PPE are nearly depleted [0]. If the virus situation in America worsens, some states will be extremely pissed that the early states got a large chunk of the federal stockpiles, leaving none later on for them. Were the federal government to reserve supplies for states that were affected later, they would face anger from those that are peaking now. > In a global crisis, selfish actions help nobody. This is untrue. Keeping supplies does help some people, the ones with whom they are kept. It may hurt others, but it does help people. I wonder if this is something like a prisoners' dilemma situation. A co-ordinated global response might be the best option, but it would require a sacrifice from each nation. Even if they might benefit in the end, in the days of non-stop media coverage, no government is willing to take the heat for making that sacrifice. [0]: https://nypost.com/2020/04/09/federal-government-stockpile-of-ppe-nearly-depleted/ https://nypost.com/2020/04/09/federal-government-stockpile-o...
- throw_m239339 7y ago
  > In a global crisis, selfish actions help nobody. Officials are elected to serve the need of their own constituants first and foremost, not foreign interests. There is nothing selfish about that. The American government doesn't have to consult with Canada or Mexico before taking a decision in times of crisis. This is the very core idea behind a representative democracy. Where politicians failed is with their lack of foresight when it comes to stocking masks and ventilators, they didn't fail because they were "selfish" toward other nations.
TeMPOraL 7y ago
> It's interesting to me that you find this surprising or view it as bad behavior. It's not surprising in the sense that it fits the definition of a "nation state". It's surprising because one would think that in XXI century, people understood that global problems require global coordination; competition of selfish actors fails spectacularly in such cases.
- stronglikedan 7y ago
  I think that, in XXI century, we're realizing that the human race is not yet ready for globalization. Heck, we still can't even assimilate into respective cultures properly. People emigrate from places with problems, then insist the place they immigrated to should be like the place they emigrated from.
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    As much as it pains me, I think you might be right. Perhaps we're not ready yet. Then again, who's ready the first time they do something? This pandemic has made obvious a lot of places where our attempt at globalization doesn't work. I hope our societies will learn from it and do better next time.
    - tomrod 7y ago
      Nah. Europe, most of the liberal world, are ready and recognize people add value.
    - xamuel 7y ago
      How would it work if we got globalism "right"? What if instead of a virus, it was an asteroid which instantly destroyed all the factories in Country X, so there's no way for Country X to send supplies overseas even if they wanted to? If we want to be safe from events like that, we better not outsource any critical production to Country X. But if we don't outsource any critical production to any foreign countries, what's even left of globalism then?
      - 7y ago

TazeTSchnitzel 7y ago

States use serving a “nation” as a retroactive justification for doing what they have always done. In a global crisis, selfish actions help nobody.

mmm_grayons 7y ago
Leaders face a rather difficult situation: the governments of nations exist to protect their own citizens. Were they to export supplies to others, citizens wouldn't be happy. Even were it to save twice as many citizens in a foreign nation as it would have saved in the exporting one. Would you be happy with a national government that placed the lives of foreigners above yours? Even if you would, most people wouldn't be. This isn't limited to international relations, of course. The federal stockpiles of PPE are nearly depleted [0]. If the virus situation in America worsens, some states will be extremely pissed that the early states got a large chunk of the federal stockpiles, leaving none later on for them. Were the federal government to reserve supplies for states that were affected later, they would face anger from those that are peaking now. > In a global crisis, selfish actions help nobody. This is untrue. Keeping supplies does help some people, the ones with whom they are kept. It may hurt others, but it does help people. I wonder if this is something like a prisoners' dilemma situation. A co-ordinated global response might be the best option, but it would require a sacrifice from each nation. Even if they might benefit in the end, in the days of non-stop media coverage, no government is willing to take the heat for making that sacrifice. [0]: https://nypost.com/2020/04/09/federal-government-stockpile-of-ppe-nearly-depleted/ https://nypost.com/2020/04/09/federal-government-stockpile-o...
throw_m239339 7y ago
> In a global crisis, selfish actions help nobody. Officials are elected to serve the need of their own constituants first and foremost, not foreign interests. There is nothing selfish about that. The American government doesn't have to consult with Canada or Mexico before taking a decision in times of crisis. This is the very core idea behind a representative democracy. Where politicians failed is with their lack of foresight when it comes to stocking masks and ventilators, they didn't fail because they were "selfish" toward other nations.

TeMPOraL 7y ago

> It's interesting to me that you find this surprising or view it as bad behavior. It's not surprising in the sense that it fits the definition of a "nation state". It's surprising because one would think that in XXI century, people understood that global problems require global coordination; competition of selfish actors fails spectacularly in such cases.

stronglikedan 7y ago
I think that, in XXI century, we're realizing that the human race is not yet ready for globalization. Heck, we still can't even assimilate into respective cultures properly. People emigrate from places with problems, then insist the place they immigrated to should be like the place they emigrated from.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  As much as it pains me, I think you might be right. Perhaps we're not ready yet. Then again, who's ready the first time they do something? This pandemic has made obvious a lot of places where our attempt at globalization doesn't work. I hope our societies will learn from it and do better next time.
  - tomrod 7y ago
    Nah. Europe, most of the liberal world, are ready and recognize people add value.
  - xamuel 7y ago
    How would it work if we got globalism "right"? What if instead of a virus, it was an asteroid which instantly destroyed all the factories in Country X, so there's no way for Country X to send supplies overseas even if they wanted to? If we want to be safe from events like that, we better not outsource any critical production to Country X. But if we don't outsource any critical production to any foreign countries, what's even left of globalism then?
    - 7y ago