Is Globalization a Positive Influence on the World?
Definitions: Globalization - The increasing interconnectedness of the world in terms of technology (eg internet), economy (eg free trade, currency), culture (eg multiculturalism, language), ethnicity (eg immigration), administration (eg world government, UN) and geography (urbanization). Positive - beneficial to the people; furthering the ultimate goals of humanity. the World - Earth, in terms of humans.
Globalization benefits consumers in creating both a wider variety of goods that are available, in addition to lowering prices and stimulating economies, but it is also harmful to the preservation of cultures, traditions, etc. as it displaces populations by creating needed labor in job markets (which can impact religions too, this can be caused by a country needing to import outside talent that is cheaper than local talent). Not to mention that it depletes local resources for the consumption of people in other nations, and it places efficiency above all else (hint: there is another ideology that tries to be the most efficient as possible), which efficiency can affect the aesthetics of a country (modernism, post modernism).
So it's economically beneficial, socially detrimental
Hunter Davis
It's not economically beneficial. It's essentially a case of exporting businesses overseas, enabling archaic and socially unacceptable working conditions that don't benefit the people there at all - automation's implemented before the working class gets a chance to become industrially diverse - and results in the loss of thousands of jobs at home. Economic, as well as social globalisation, is thus far a failure and the root cause behind the BREXIT referendum and Trump's election.
Zachary Rivera
Scratch that - it's very economically beneficial to the business owners. It amounts to jack shit in terms of public welfare.
Mason Carter
Also, I'd recommend for anyone who's interested in the topic to read this article:
I realise I'm talking to a bot, but it's an article worth giving clicks to.
Carter Young
okay heres my own opinion. I contend that no form of globalization is good /except/ for maybe technological globalization. Ill go through this point by point and explain, >Economy Economic globalization is perhaps one of the most destructive factors in the modern world, one way or another, it always leads to exploitation. the larger a market is, the more economic disparity that can (and will) be made under it. This leads to for example free trade between china and the US, which has led not only to exploitation of chinese workers but also to shifting of jobs from the US to china. In a case where economic protectionism was enacted, the chinese economy would be less exploitative due to the incentive to sell to its own people first and the US would keep more of its jobs. oh yeah also, CURRENCY. i hope i dont have to explain why a global centralized currency would be disastrous for the common man. global currency will just feed into the pockets of the international bankers, and world currency is in fact exactly what they want. >Culture cultural globalization is maybe even worse than economic globalization. Cultural globalization is essentially the introduction of consumer culture everywhere, (although it does not HAVE to be consumer culture, see the british empire) not only is this bad due to the ill effects of consumerist society, but lack of unique and distinct cultures in the world will lead to a form of global stagnation, not just in the arts, but also technological advances. this is because culture influences almost every aspect of society and the human brain. If you want examples of good cultures in this regard, see renaissance italy. Without multiple distinct cultures in the world, i cant believe im saying this but the lack of diversity will also lead to a lack of diversity in terms of what technological advances happen. All in all culture is very complex and i couldnt explain it in only one post but this is just a summary.
cont. (writing this as i go)
Samuel Cox
I believe the only true future for humanity is to ultimately discard our borders and our hate for one another and to live as a unified species, united in reaching our potential as a civilization.
with that belief, globalization is as necessity. the cultures and identity of nations can persist for centuries without any need to be tied to economic burdens or whims. globalization breaks economic tethers that we feel we need, which only chain us down.
globalization will also eventually demand a global welfare state as well. we're rush towards a post-scarcity world and we're rushing towards a world where human labor just isn't that valuable anymore. we're going to have to come to terms with the fact that our only true purpose in the future is to lift each other up
Easton Edwards
Naive pipedream
Your utopia is also a dystopia to many others, trying to enforce your shitty naive beliefs on everyone around you will cause more harm and suffering than you think you're preventing.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and you are well on your way down it.
Liam Williams
No.
Jace Russell
>Ethnicity Similar to cultural globalization, ethnic globalization would result in the mixing of ethnicities together throughout a country or the whole world. Ethnic globalization, ie lack of ethnic homogeneity leads to break in social cohesion, in turn increasing crime, anti-social behavior, distrust within society and a plethora of other negative effects. in addition to this mixing of ethnicities leads to lack of national, cultural and in turn personal identity. from purely a wellbeing point of view this can be detrimental to mental health, and cause dependency on the entertainment industry, 'pop culture' >Administration Again this is a big one, having all the control of the world in the hands of a very few people will NEVER lead to good things. with no other nation to balance power with, the world government could exploit the people to no ends. if weaponry became advanced enough it would essentially be game over for the non-elites of earth. Some forms of globalization, namely the UN, i dont find particularly distasteful, mainly because it relies on the free association between the countries it includes, but it is not a step in the right direction; i can see it becoming increasingly more overbearing in years to come.
Noah Miller
>Geography my theory on geographic globalization isnt too fleshed out yet, this is a new concept of mine, so lets just throw it against the wall and see if it sticks. this has happened to a minor extent already, its been happening since the industrial revolution through urbanization, which while not in itself is a form of globalization, creates global 'hubs'. In the modern day, you could visit cities across the world and they, roughly, would look and feel about the same, give or take a few factors. on top of this you could visit rural areas in much of the western world, and you would see fields of farmland. no remnant of the original NATURAL environment. Not only are the types of changes that happen often bad for the environment, but i believe it is also bad for the collective psyche of humanity to live in a world without environmental variations, to live in a world where everywhere you go you have seen before. I shouldve said when i was talking about economic globalization about 'mcdonaldization' which is based on how essentially whatever mcdonalds you go to you get the same experience. this applies to wider things such as the environments we live in, be it city environments, home environments, or natural environments. it is damaging to mental health seeing the same thing and having the same experiences all day every day. i dont see this happening until the far future, but if it did, ie if it ever came to the point where theres no more wilderness, its all either city or rural farmland, with no place else to go, itd be pretty shit to be honest. a lot of this was off the top of my head so critique is welcome
Christian Turner
this sounds like bait, but ill bite for the sake of debate. >discard our borders and live as a unified species, united in reaching our potential as a civilization you mean united in reaching our potential to provide for the global elites? you must realize uniting the world in terms of administration can logically ONLY lead to incredible power centralization. also, the world can be united, while still remaining full of separate nations, this in fact worked quite well if you consider the HRE, there is no need for a central power for the world to work cooperatively.
>the cultures and identity of nations can persist for centuries without any need to be tied to economic burdens or whims this doesnt make any sense.
>globalization breaks economic tethers that we feel we need, which only chain us down what economic tethers does globalization break?
>globalization will also eventually demand a global welfare state as well. we're rush towards a post-scarcity world and we're rushing towards a world where human labor just isn't that valuable anymore. we're going to have to come to terms with the fact that our only true purpose in the future is to lift each other up this sounds more sensible than previous lines, but still is unrealistic, considering the stranglehold that multinational corporations have on us. The value of a human's labour may well be diminishing, but the value of a human as a consumer and as a 'resource' so to speak, is unchanged by automation and post-scarcity.
Josiah Fisher
just realized i havent explained my views on technological globalization here we go >Technology I dont really have a strong opinion on technological globalization, i am somewhat conflicted. i can see how it can benefit humanity. Information is certainly beneficial to be accessible anywhere, so i am supportive of the internet. in terms of technological advances that have caused further interconnectedness though, there are negatives that come with all things like this. Global spying is something i am concerned about, which has been made possible with the internet and other advances. This is something i havent put much thought into though.
i dont see how you can ignore the fact that yes, maybe the general public will have more access to goods from china or india, but that means close to nothing if businesses are moving to foreign countries and (indirectly) endorsing the exploitation of workers that likely happens in those countries. Economic globalization merely means an expansion of the capitalist principle of profit maximization worldwide, which rarely benefits the common man, and ALWAYS benefits the economic elite.
Carter Morales
How does cheaper products not benefit the common man?
Lincoln Johnson
ill the common man... have a job to buy said product? be controlled by external powers? loose culture & society?
>take amazonians out of jungle, give Iphone7 put on welfare.
Jacob Moore
they are only marginally cheaper, i agree yes cheaper products are a benefit, but you arent looking any deeper. Those products are made cheaper through the exploitation of workers, as well as reduction in quality and standards of production. I think you will find that most people would pay a few extra dollars for something made in america or whatever country you are in, and not just for sentimental value, but because when you buy from foreign countries you are buying into this exploitation and poor quality. Not to mention the multinational corporations you are feeding. so to refute your main point, it benefits the common man only on a very shallow level.
Dominic Cook
> Will I have a job? Employment is still close to 90%, so chances are you will. > Be controlled by external powers Your own example, the Iphone, is an American product. Don't see how much more control you could ask for. > Lose culture and society You will have to elaborate on how the Iphone denotes a loss of culture and society
> exploitation of workers, reduction in quality and standard of production.
These are issues you can forego by not choosing to buy the products, but they are not necessarily a given, seeing as a Chinese factory jobs must still be better than the vast majority of other jobs in the country, and they are only part of globalization. Choosing to make cars in Germany, rather than America, for instance, is still an act of globalization but has none of those problems.
Colton Ramirez
of course, once we move past suburban and tribal retardation then we can work as a single nation to conquer the stars.
Adrian Cruz
Guardian is the enemy and is never worthy of clicks faggot
Jeremiah Adams
Listening to all sides of the argument is the only patrician answer.
If you exclude yourself from information you are basically asking to be exploited.
Jason Mitchell
The left algorithm is pretty simple - there is no need to read article after article of idpol intersectionality. The guardian might put one good article here and there to pretent to be non biased but that is it - they still function as a hub for destroying the west and deserve no clicks. Only the archive should be read.
Hunter Brooks
surely as an autonomous individual you can weigh the merit of these arguments rather than simply dismiss them as propaganda?
Jacob Bailey
globalisation wouldn't have been so bad if western countries hadn't decided to suicide themselves by letting any old scumbag from the third world
controlled migration only letting highly skilled people in would have been a good idea as if would increase our IQ without having to impose an IQ based eugenics program
Julian Robinson
Yeah like I wrote you dumb cunt. A true patrician doesnt hang around the cackling of hens. Power rests with those who control communications and narratives. Thus the propaganda is important and civ destroying - regardless how inane it is.
The west is already fucking dead - they are just twisting the knife at this point.
Anthony Bailey
globalization is like midas, but turns everything it touches to shit
Chase Ward
Globalization is good in some aspects and bad in others. The positive side of globalization is that it makes communication easier facilitating the exchange of more ideas. The ugly side is the free movement of people that has accompanied globalism.
Ayden Flores
> dumb cunt > cackling of hen you don't think extremists on the opposite side say the exact same things about you?
How do you expect to find a reasonable compromise if you dehumanize people who disagree with you?
Jonathan Parker
You cannot to dehumanize what is not human to begin with
Joseph Wood
Are you fucking kidding me? They want me dead, my peoples lands defiled, my culture gone, my people's history rewritten. I am evil and have original sin and must bend the knee forever - and they are fucking are in power. You are one dumb cunt if you cant see that.
>inb4 Yeah m8 I am an academic in the heart of the beast and I know them better than you ever will.
Carter Young
So because a few people disagree with you on the direction your country is going you go to those extremes?
You can't just make wildly extreme accusations like that and expect me to believe it. Who is it that want these things and how do they want them?
Concrete examples on a large scale, please. Not just some Guardian blog post.
Brody Reed
I will give you a hint seeing as you don't seem to know jack about marxist based ideologies. Narratives and arguments are a means to an end - the narrative in itself means jack shit. Therefor you look at the end result of what is being pushed and not what they are saying about what is being pushed.
What is the end result of what they are pushing right now in the west?
You will need to have basic math and demographic skill to even start to answer that one. I will not wait around.
Sorry you have such entry level knowledge of demography, economics, genetics, philosophy history, politics etc etc.
Brandon Jones
> I don't have to explain myself, it's obvious to anyone with my intellect, which sadly you lack.
Somehow I doubt whatever narrative you yourself are pushing is ever really going to take off, if that's how you plan to present it.
> What is the end result of what they are pushing?
You still haven't presented a coherent description of who "they" are, nor of what "they" are pushing, so how am I supposed to answer that?
So far, you have presented two articles from the Guardian. Both of them present ideas that I can see how might be seen as provocative and conflicting when presented together; but both of which are nonetheless true: That fewer consumers in the West would lead to less global warming, and that Germany has a problem with an ageing population. None of that is particularly controversial outside of far-right circles, and if you seriously believe that two articles constitute a comprehensive cultural narrative you are definitely not the academic you claim to be.
Juan Mitchell
>These are issues you can forego by not choosing to buy the products yes, one may choose not to buy certain products because they do not believe in it, how many people do you think are aware of how what they are doing contributes to globalization? how many people do you think know that but are manipulated through other ways, be it poverty, mass marketing campaigns or pure laziness? The truth is that people arent smart, you cannot simply trust people to always choose what is best for them and humanity in the long term. >Choosing to make cars in Germany, rather than America this is slightly different, as both germany and america share rather similar economic status and standards. in this case, the case where trade would be balanced, free trade shouldnt be a major problem in terms of exploitation etc etc, there still remains that issue of multinationals, which undermine national sovereignty and expand the principle of profit maximization over the wellbeing of the general public.
Benjamin Taylor
> you cannot trust people to choose what is best for them. On that we agree, but I think it would be a mistake for you or I to automatically assume that we know what's best for others. > Multinationals Certainly, multinationals with the power to direct legislation and undermine national sovereignty is a problem, but the only solution I see is more international cooperation to solve the problem, which I don't think is a popular opinion around here.
Besides, I think people in this thread are failing to address the benefits of globalization. 700m people in China and similar countries being brought out of poverty and famine outweighs a few people in the West having to find different jobs imho, not least because people in the West can easily benefit from this by reeducating themselves to the changing market.
Tyler Rodriguez
>the only solution I see is more international cooperation to solve the problem i agree, but we need free international cooperation, eg not the UN declaring that all countries must do something. >benefits of globalization there are definitely some, but they are far outweighed by the negative effects and the threat that ALL globalization poses to future freedom and self-determination of individuals and countries. it quite literally is a slippery slope, remember that back when the EU was started it was nowhere near as controlling as it is now, it was a simple free trade union, then they began enforcing regulations, and then they forced all the borders to go, and then the maastricht treaty. the thought of all this happening to the whole of north america, or all asia is terrifying to say the least, the geopolitical ramifications of what starts simply as free trade can turn into a nightmare
Aaron Martin
> free international cooperation But that's the problem with international cooperation; if it's not enforced, countries that benefit in the short term from not following suit will simply ignore decrees, to the detriment of the majority. > there are definitely some, but they are far outweighed by the negative effects and the threat that ALL globalization poses to future freedom and self-determination of individuals and countries. it quite literally is a slippery slope, remember that back when the EU was started it was nowhere near as controlling as it is now, it was a simple free trade union, then they began enforcing regulations, and then they forced all the borders to go, and then the maastricht treaty. the thought of all this happening to the whole of north america, or all asia is terrifying to say the least, the geopolitical ramifications of what starts simply as free trade can turn into a nightmare I see your point, but for a free trade union to have any effect, it requires common standards, standards that need to be enforced by a set of rules that all involved must follow. Regards, I think we disagree on what the threat is. As I see it, a common set of rules and regulations, as well as a sense of shared responsibility, is precisely what is needed to handle modern problems. The threats we face from an overly interconnected economy, climate change, mass migration, terrorism and international crime syndicates are all international problems that require international solutions. If we simply let them fester in individual countries, the problems grow larger. Imho the EU had no choice but to spread out the immigration issue across the zone, because otherwise, Italy, Spain and Greece would have been overrun, which would have created far larger problems in the long term. Likewise with the banking crisis; if the economies of Greece, Cyprus, Portugal, Spain, Italy and Ireland then that would have created hotspots of poverty and crime within the EU.
Nathaniel Gomez
Globalization is good when it comes to the internet and the goods, but not good when it comes to human. Free trade means the distribution of jobs and produced goods, for example in Africa they produce trade goods that cannot be found in Europe, and thus the production advances and fares better. From an economic standpoint, I support this for the sake of progress and economic freedom.
But from a social standpoint, globalization is a disease we need to cut down at. Traditions, society as we know it, customs, will all become a blend of different ideas which will turn our society to ruin.
Jackson Bailey
Economically beneficial to corporations, not the native people. Wages inevitably go down with influx of workers, while taxes go up with influx of people who receive social benefits and overload social services. You literally bleed your own to make corporations richer.
Josiah Carter
nobody ever said Americans couldn't increase taxes on these corporations or super rich individuals.
They choose to get cucked all out of their own volition.
Cameron Sanders
Its not "own volition" its ingrained in the system. Globalism inevitably favors corporations over the native people. There's no benefit for them even if you tax corporations, they still lose in wages and quality of life.
Nathaniel Brooks
>countries that benefit in the short term from not following suit will simply ignore decrees in the case that they benefit both short AND long term from following some decree, if they benefit at a greater amount than the potential damage to foreign relations then perhaps this is the situation where they SHOULDNT accept the decree. if it benefits them short term but in the long term they fuck themselves up then that is simple natural selection. the system that i advocate perhaps /requires/ the leadership of nations to be smart enough and cooperative enough to know when long term benefit can be created, perhaps this is a flaw, but i find this is an acceptable compromise considering the dangers of global control, and that much centralized power. >for a free trade union to have any effect, it requires common standards yes, this is something i was trying to get at but i couldnt put it into words. something else also, free trade shouldn't be competitive, countries should not compete with each other in specific markets under free trade, that will either bring both countries to the lowest common denominator, or end up with one country dominating the other in a certain market. >a common set of rules and regulations, as well as a sense of shared responsibility, is precisely what is needed to handle modern problems i fail to see how this could not be done simply by cooperation and good diplomacy between countries. a form of decentralized cooperation. >the EU had no choice but to spread out the immigration issue across the zone well, not really, the EU couldve just let the countries decide how many immigrants they want to take. i assume, though, that you are referring to refugees, which in this case i think the option to accept refugees but send them back after the war should have been explicitly presented as an option. Because in doing what they did, they have negatively and permanently affected the demographics of european countries, a huge mistake. cont.
Joshua Adams
It benefits the upper classes as they have the ability to exploit wage differences, different laws and regulations, resources, etc. The middle-lower classes who can only sell their labour are harmed which is why you have the push back against it almost globally.
Alexander Richardson
sure, but higher taxes can be used to compensate or reeducate the laborers that lose out.
Carson Gonzalez
>Likewise with the banking crisis im not very well versed in the history of the banking crisis, but as far as i understood the problems in greece were created by the switch to the euro, if the greek government could have just issued its own currency instead of taking heaps of loans it would be in a much better position than it is currently. This currency control is really the biggest problem i have with the EU, it is my belief that currency should be issued for the nation, and when issued to cover a whole group of administratively diverse nations it will end in things like greece happening. the euro literally does nothing except play into the hands of the international bankers.
>Globalization is good when it comes to the internet yeah, for things that are information based, i think its very beneficial to have information and knowledge available from everywhere. i dont see how globalized trade is good though, not only is it the starting point for all kinds of other globalization, but it isnt even that beneficial from an economic standpoint. see my previous post about free trade union. trade protectionism can benefit the people of the nation a greater amount, while not risking further globalization and still maintaining a pretty good economy.
if you have higher corporate tax and free trade then those companies will have even more incentive to leave the country. i really dont see how this works.
Jackson Brooks
Saying that is easy enough. But I 'm afraid a lot more shit will go down before we even get there. We're hardly the first people to want that, as I'mentioned sure you know.
Jack Price
look at all the murdering you guys are doing to start it do you think it will be any different when started?
Yeah lets frack the whole planet says the enviromentalist.
Henry Phillips
Oh goddamn autocorrect. Why did I even start phoneposting.
Xavier Ward
> they should benefit both long and short term from following the decrees. But countries can undermine each other simply by not following the rules that others do. Lowering corporate taxes or waving environmental regulations are examples of this. These aren't cases of national culture being undermined, this is a case of gaining competitive advantages strictly by refusing to take responsibility. > cooperation and good diplomacy could solve this. It hasn't done so far. > EU could've let the countries decide how many immigrants or refugees they want to take. Which would lead to a massive overload on the reception centers in Greece, Italy and Spain. > The problems were created by the switch to the Euro. The switch to the euro only prevented the Greeks from using the worst possible solution; devaluation. But if you devalue your currency while your country still has vast systemic problems, as Greece did, all you do is create massive inflation, leading to poverty, which would inevitably lead to even greater problems with migration and crime. Forcing Greece to own up to its systemic problems, unpleasant as it may have been, it the only solution I can see that doesn't lead to bigger problems down the road. > if you have higher corporate tax and free trade then you only give incentive to leave the country. I agree with this, it was probably simplified. The personal income tax, however, could be increased, and countries could make agreements to set the corporate tax on a common level. Likewise, international rules could be set that mean that for a number of years after moving headquarters, you still pay corporate taxes in your previous location.
Countries can only shop for tax benefits if the receiving country allows them to, if this was made impossible, by international agreements, the problem could be solved.
Blake Stewart
>The switch to the euro only prevented the Greeks from using the worst possible solution; devaluation. It's still better than what they have now. The Euro is in itself a systematic problem, it's a single currency that integrates vastly different economic situations without any fiscal adjustment mechanisms, leading to trade imbalances without any possibility of devaluation or even govt. borrowing to compensate (>muh 60% and 3%/year) which in turn leaves private borrowing as the only solution. Greece is far from the only country affected by this, Spain, Italy and most of Eastern Europe are essentially forced to move to Germany to look for work.
Elijah Rodriguez
but if those countries devalued or borrowed to compensate, wouldn't that simply lead to bigger problems down the line?
Hunter Jones
huh, looks like my ID changed.
yep, i think this is pretty much the consensus so far.
GAS THE PHONEPOSTERS
you could probably use a bit of punctuation, i have no idea what you are talking abuot.
in other news i leave my thread to you goys now, i will be back in the morning to read through everything
Evan Nelson
i think we have fundamental disagreements on how things should be run. it seems like you take a more authoritarian stance while i prefer decentralized diplomatic means for cooperation. the way i see it, if countries are undermining each other and refusing to take responsibility that indicates a problem with diplomacy, and perhaps a power imbalance. i see these as the root problems rather than seeing undermining each other as the problem. how to fix these problems i do not know yet. >>EU could've let the countries decide how many immigrants or refugees they want to take. no, i didnt mention refugees when i said that. In the case of refugees i say fine its okay to make the countries spread the load, but its the fact that they didnt make it explicit that they could just send the refugees back after the war. this led to a lot of countries being outraged when they heard they had to push out their native population so that they could let all these foreigners live in their country. i am one of those which are outraged by that situation. >the worst possible solution; devaluation perhaps i dont fully understand, but werent the loans from germany (for example) to prop up the banks and to make sure peoples savings werent vanished into thin air due to bad banking practices? in this case wouldnt printing money to replace money that was lost because of the banks work without causing any inflation, ie no devaluation? >countries could make agreements to set the corporate tax on a common level i like this. also i think perhaps we might have a misunderstanding. you should understand that i believe nations can and should use their influence to ensure other countries hold up their end of the deal. but i believe this power should come from a national level, as in an agreement between nations to boycott other nations that for example do not lower their corporate tax rate
Wyatt Morris
Devaluating in itself isn't necessarily a bad thing, it makes your exports and local products more competitive and while it does lead to higher prices on imports and arguably a decrease in the standards of living it won't directly lead to unemployment, deflation, etc. Borrowing to compensate the fall in private demand during economic crises for example is also not a bad thing, the US, although they did make some mistakes recovered from 2008 much more effectively than the EU did because they had the ability to control their own monetary policy such as dropping the interest rates, injecting cash into the economy and ultimately spending much more than even during the great depression. The EU economies on the other hand don't have any sort of control over their monetary policy and while austerity worked for Germany because of their massive export surpluses, it is not an adequate solution for most other countries in the EU. The projections for when the EU will be back at pre-crisis levels is basically 2030 at this point. >the power to issue its own money, to make drafts on its own central bank, is the main thing which defines national independence. If a country gives up or loses this power, it acquires the status of a local authority or colony. Local authorities and regions obviously cannot devalue. But they also lose the power to finance deficits through money creation while other methods of raising finance are subject to central regulation. Nor can they change interest rates. As local authorities possess none of the instruments of macro-economic policy, their political choice is confined to relatively minor matters of emphasis – a bit more education here, a bit less infrastructure there. lrb.co.uk/v14/n19/wynne-godley/maastricht-and-all-that t. 1992
Oliver Cooper
okay last post for real
>for example do not lower their corporate tax rate i meant increase
not necessarily, increasing the amount of money in supply often doesnt do too much damage to the economy, in fact a lot of the time it does quite the opposite. look it up, low central bank interest rates make the economy grow faster, despite the fact that it causes an inflated money supply. you should see this documentary for more info youtube.com/watch?v=miD_mtAEdRs
Robert Carter
No borders means foreign troops on your streets enforcing police actions.
Austin Rivera
>perhaps i dont fully understand, but werent the loans from germany (for example) to prop up the banks and to make sure peoples savings werent vanished into thin air due to bad banking practices? Bad banking practices are only the tip of the iceberg, the Euro is a systematic issue in itself because it forces a single monetary policy on massively different economies, and devaluation is not inflation, it's the price of your currency vs the price of the currency of your trading partner. For example the CAD fell ~30% vs the USD in about a year or 2, but we did not experience 30% inflation, US goods just became 30% more expensive for me to buy.
Ethan Ward
Humans haven't developed to the point where a global society is possible. What we are seeing is people who have a great deal of power scrambling to create systems which will maintain that power. They don't care about creating a global humanity, this is just a way to shackle us further.
Zachary Bell
They aren't just printing money from nothing. It's being created in the form of debt by taking loans. They are borrowing money from banks which will be repaid by tax to pay for the loss that was incurred by banks (actually they massively benefitted the people who will be paying the tax basically lost their money which is what they are rebuying through bail outs).
Nathaniel Phillips
Globalism = capitalism
Internationalism = communism
Internationalism is better.
Julian Moore
A banker, a worker, and an immigrant are sitting at a table with 20 cookies.
The banker takes 19 cookies, uses those 19 cookies to fund globalism, civil unrest and increased immigration, while the worker has to share the last cookie with the immigrant that considers him more disgusting than a pig and would behead him and rape his daughter if he had the chance.
>the government, a worker and an immigrant are sitting at a table with 20 cookies >Government takes 19 cookies, and then demands from worker to give the last cookie to immigrant the banker takes 19 cookies for himself, he then takes the worker's cookie and breaks it in half and gives half of it to the immigrant that he invited in.
He then says to the worker "if you say a word about what I just did I will tell everybody you are a racist!".
Then he offers to loan the worker a cookie at interest.
Justin Taylor
before globalism: >affordable housing, higher education >plenty job opportunities >quality cheap native goods. cheap petrol etc >no diversity or identity politics >intact communities >stability, prosperity and safety
