The Beneficial Tides of Globalization Advance

[cm husker]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/04/29/six-maps-that-will-make-you-rethink-the-world/

 

The maps are fascinating. The arguments are compelling.

[zoogs]

Great find. Thanks for posting.

 

 

 

All of the feedback I’ve gotten about this map has demonstrated that there is so much frustration with the layers and layers of bureaucracy, for the police and the education system and the government, in large and small states. All we do is duplicate bureaucracy, when we should be regionalizing our coordination of economic affairs.

 

Yeah, I've seen this argument before, probably from the same source. I love the idea.

[knapplc]

That sounds a lot like big, centralized government. Something states-rights advocates would have kittens about.

[cm husker]

That sounds a lot like big, centralized government. Something states-rights advocates would have kittens about.

 

It's kind of like reorganizing football conferences. At a certain point, we need to acknowledge that the haphazard way we drew up state lines may need to be reconsidered as the demographics of the country shift.

 

Personally, I have concerns about some of the "government sponsored infrastructure updates" expressed in the article, but am all for these types of changes if it reduces the imposition of government, whether at the federal or state level.

[TGHusker]

Goes back to one of GWB comments I believe when he was talking about globalization, boarders and NA Union - America is more of place of mind than a physical location. (or some wording like that). This article is most definitely about centralized and eventually one world govt controlling & managing the resources and populations. The rise of the technocrats. (Say BRB can that be the word of the day or did Knapp beat me to it again?)

 

I'd like to just get past this election first.

[cm husker]

TG, what makes you say that? I read the article as being more about tearing down artificial borders that are acting as a barrier to the free flow of economic goods, whether steel, info or people, around the world.

 

I'm curious how you made the jump to "one world order" when most of his comments are about breaking down government control over private economic behavior.

[TGHusker]

TG, what makes you say that? I read the article as being more about tearing down artificial borders that are acting as a barrier to the free flow of economic goods, whether steel, info or people, around the world.

 

I'm curious how you made the jump to "one world order" when most of his comments are about breaking down government control over private economic behavior.

I see where you are coming from CM. Yes the article breaks down the barriers between states and nations and those smaller govt entities (states, and nation states). Yet as I read it, in order to break down those barriers/boarders you have to create a much larger, more controlling and remote super nation with more centralized control. Example: free flow of economic goods in North America could mean a NA Union - abolish boarders between Mexico, Canada and USA and perhaps into Latin America. Have one centralized Govt in DC or Mexico City. So we end up wt a super state. This is part of the reason Brits revolted against the EU last week. Brussels was controlling so much of their national life.

[cm husker]

I take your point.

 

But Im not sure we have to go to a global government just because we go to a global economy.

 

But I see how that would be tempting to people.

 

I'm all for local policitics and control, as long as trade and movement aren't restricted.

 

I would be curious to see the top 10 complainants that Brexiters had about Brussels. My sense is it was more around immigration and trade protectionism than anything. Clearly, in retrospect, many of them loved the subsidies from the EU.

[cm husker]

I guess what I mean is there is no problem with global government or local government, as long as it's small government.

[TGHusker]

I guess what I mean is there is no problem with global government or local government, as long as it's small government.

Yes, I still want local control as it affects our day to day life - local govt is best govt in that way. Our national govts can work together to foster greater trade partnerships, access to more goods and services etc without erasing our distinctive boarders and cultural identity.

[cm husker]

 

I guess what I mean is there is no problem with global government or local government, as long as it's small government.

Yes, I still want local control as it affects our day to day life - local govt is best govt in that way. Our national govts can work together to foster greater trade partnerships, access to more goods and services etc without erasing our distinctive boarders and cultural identity.

 

 

 

Yeah, it's an interesting debate.

 

A buddy of mine, who is first generation greek in the US (NY cop), raised a point that I had to admit was a good one. Basically, he said that as an immigrant, a person should understand that he/she moved to a country because it's doing something better than the home country, and therefore, the immigrant should assimilate and adopt the economic and overall government/cultural parts of that new country. That said, he also acknowledged that immigrants can and should retain their own cultural heritage - like the Irish have, like he has with teach greek to his kids and like even muslims should be encouraged to - to the extent it doesn't step on our economic and political culture.

 

Maybe that's the distinction. The US has always been about individualism and individual culture. As long as you adopt our political culture (natural rights based democracy) and economic culture (free market capitalism), then anyone should feel welcome to retain as much as their heritage culture as they can without imposing on those first two elements.

[TGHusker]

I think this is an excellent article talking about the differences between globalization and globalism.

 

https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/07/globalization-not-globalism-improves-human-lives

[cm husker]

Clinton adopts Trumps rhetoric:

 

http://money.cnn.com/2016/08/11/news/economy/hillary-clinton-trade/index.html

 

Wants to protect manufacturing corporate and labor special interests.

 

Net effect is a sinking economy and a back end cost of living raise on Americans.

 

Protectionist trade policies are unfair and a prime example of corruption in politics. A net win for US manufacturers is a net loss for US consumers.

[84HuskerLaw]

One world government is a terrible idea and would be a disaster for the United States and other 'smaller' nations around the globe who would be swallowed up by the big countries (China and India as examples). We are but 5% of the world's population or something and would be buried as a small fractional minority, subjugated to the whims and authoritarian rule of the majority. Autonomy and sovereignty are absolutely critical to survival of Nations, cultures, rights and interests of the people of each. Economic domination can be as bad or worse than political and military and legal control or domination.

[cm husker]

Free trade in no way means one world government.

 

Your paranoia has zero basis in evidence.