7 ms·
Globalization is not at all designed to exploit inequalities, it is in fact the exact opposite. The purpose of globalization is to increase the efficiency of th
by AmericanChopper 2y ago
Globalization is not at all designed to exploit inequalities, it is in fact the exact opposite. The purpose of globalization is to increase the efficiency of the global economy, and the effect that has is to minimize inequality. Which is how China has ended up with the worlds largest middle class, Mexico has ended up with a very respectable middle class, and the middle class in India is growing at quite an impressive rate, despite all the other problems those countries have. It is also the reason that hunger/malnutrition and deprivation in general have been on a rather steady downwards trend over the past 80 years, "the 99%" are the primary benefactors of the improvements in quality of life that it has brought with it.
None of this would be possible without the security provided by the militaries of the western democracies. Strong militaries don't cause this outcome, but they are 100% required if you are trying to create it. The only way to prevent all of those bad things that you have the described western militaries doing from happening where you live is to have the protection of a strong military yourself. This is such a plainly obvious fact, denying it is about on par with the "defund the police" rationale. Sure they can do bad things, and that can be addressed, but society needs the military possibly even more than it needs the police.
- mptest 2y ago>Globalization is not at all designed to exploit inequalities, it is in fact the exact opposite. The purpose of globalization is to increase the efficiency of the global economy That's the way they sell it, we agree about that. >the effect that has is to minimize inequality. So that's why we have worse than gilded age inequality?[0] Seems they haven't done too much of that despite their sales pitch. See trickle down economics. >the 99%" are the primary benefactors of the improvements in quality of life that it has brought with it. Not what the math says. I agree, in general starvation and what not are technically down. But shouldn't we have aspirations a little greater than "less people are starving to death in a world we drop?" I just don't see what evidence you have other than a correlation [0]https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/wealth-inequality-billionaires-piketty-report/ https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/wealth-inequality-billionai...