U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-11-2019, 02:40 PM
 
8,197 posts, read 6,015,297 times
Reputation: 11711

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by ohio_peasant View Post
Unabashed "globalist" here. Odd, isn't it, how the people who champion national governments and national cultures generally only speak one language, and have only lived in one country? I'd love to see a pan-global government, and a non-democratic one. Recent experiences have given cautionary reasons for why popular suffrage is suspect and unreliable.

If there is a conspiracy to achieve the above, I'd gladly join it... even as an "outer party" member, wearing blue overalls. Unfortunately, national passions, even local passions, remain strong. Today globalization appears to be running in reverse. The sentiment is against trade, and especially against immigration. Increasingly, it is believed that the opening of markets is more detrimental than beneficial... and the most jealously guarded market is the labor-market.

The great calamity of our time is slowdown in innovation, and in productivity growth rate. But instead, the loudest and most shrill voices complain that workers aren't receiving enough of the benefits of productivity growth, and that too many of said benefits are being absorbed by "capital".

Once upon a time, it was realized that government and nexus of private enterprise ought to be run by a sort of aristocracy, if not hereditary, then meritocratic. Today, it is believed that the "common folk" somehow know best, and that "elites" are sinister, corrupt and evil. I wonder how we got here?
I give you credit for being honest about the goals and methods of the globalists, whom you identify with. They are never honest about their intentions or methods.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-11-2019, 02:47 PM
 
Location: The Triad (NC)
28,157 posts, read 60,855,057 times
Reputation: 31480
Quote:
Originally Posted by ohio_peasant View Post
Once upon a time, it was realized that government and nexus of private enterprise ought to be run by a sort of aristocracy,
if not hereditary, then meritocratic. Today, it is believed that the "common folk" somehow know best, and that "elites" are sinister, corrupt and evil. I wonder how we got here?
Most of that is rooted in the 1960's shifts of allowing (inviting) the religious into politics as a means of getting some votes.
The rather thorough warnings against it were ignored.

As to "globalization" it's really only in hindsight that it can be considered a cause of anything...
it's really (mostly) just describes an effect of how the changes occurring were handled.
The negatives (employment imbalance especially) are more incidental side-effect in nature.

We still have to fix the problems but first distinguishing them from the symptoms is critical.

Last edited by MrRational; 04-11-2019 at 02:59 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-11-2019, 03:56 PM
 
1,285 posts, read 278,319 times
Reputation: 2118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloudy Dayz View Post
Bingo, in hundreds of years from now, when historians look back at what caused the collapse of the United States, they are not going to be looking at Trump, or the Bush clowns. They won't even be on the radar. All of their attention is going to be on Reagan, who wanted more for himself and his rich friends, and who robbed the middle class to get it. Reagan wrote the book on how to destroy an economy that had been functioning just fine for over 200 years.
My, my. That's quite a history you've invented there!

Perhaps you should try switching to Decaf.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-11-2019, 06:25 PM
 
7,535 posts, read 4,834,264 times
Reputation: 12972
Quote:
Originally Posted by War Beagle View Post
I give you credit for being honest about the goals and methods of the globalists, whom you identify with. They are never honest about their intentions or methods.
It's rare for any senior leader, be it in politics or business or academia or religion or anywhere else, to be entirely honest. It's not that duplicity and prevarication are the natural character-traits of the person in question, though they could be. Rather, the more senior one becomes, the more it becomes imperative - to quote a recent failed politician - to have a "public position and a private one". I, being no leader, can afford to be honest.

That said, my criticism of the modern world is from the right-wing, not the left. My sincere belief is that there is too much democracy, rather than not enough. The real seeds of the modern American malaise were planted in the early 19th century. Initially, the American political system was highly aristocratic. The "Founding Fathers" were for all practical purposes dukes and counts and barons, in all but official title. Gradually, the aristocratic mien dissipated, onwards towards outright populism.

My own political hero is Plato. His ideas for optimum government were completely anti-democratic. In some regards they were rabidly totalitarian.

Anyway, this is the economics board, not the politics board. And in economic terms, my concern is that he mid 20th century idea of the suburban middle-class family, is unprecedented and unsustainable. That this ideal is becoming increasingly that - a mere ideal with which we're infatuated, rather than an attainable goal towards which to strive - is, I think, a welcome return to normalcy, rather than a sign of degeneration and decline.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2019, 04:23 AM
 
1,004 posts, read 444,670 times
Reputation: 680
The relative decline is caused by technology falling behind, that affected economic competitiveness. It is not caused by Mexicans. Globalization started from Columbus and Europeans. That was searching for trade route with China. The same globalization need is still in place. This time China is reaching out and building an Eurasia continent trade route.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2019, 11:01 AM
 
25,622 posts, read 27,990,419 times
Reputation: 24116
Quote:
Originally Posted by War Beagle View Post
I give you credit for being honest about the goals and methods of the globalists, whom you identify with. They are never honest about their intentions or methods.
Agreed. How anyone can support these people is beyond me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2019, 11:05 AM
 
25,622 posts, read 27,990,419 times
Reputation: 24116
Quote:
Originally Posted by ohio_peasant View Post
Unabashed "globalist" here. Odd, isn't it, how the people who champion national governments and national cultures generally only speak one language, and have only lived in one country? I'd love to see a pan-global government, and a non-democratic one. Recent experiences have given cautionary reasons for why popular suffrage is suspect and unreliable.
That's why the United States was supposed to be a Republic. But people don't know the difference between democracy and a republic. Once a republic erodes (which ours clearly has) into a democracy, it becomes unstable. People tend to vote away other people's rights and vote away their own in the name of 'security'. Eventually, you end up with oligarchy, which is the most common form of government. It's what we have now in the U.S. Why, on earth would I want a corrupt oligarchy running things at the global level? How on earth can you believe these people are looking out for you or anyone else?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJEuZrvNYg0&t=15s
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2019, 11:34 AM
 
2,547 posts, read 1,630,767 times
Reputation: 5487
Quote:
Originally Posted by mysticaltyger View Post
That's why the United States was supposed to be a Republic. But people don't know the difference between democracy and a republic. Once a republic erodes (which ours clearly has) into a democracy, it becomes unstable. People tend to vote away other people's rights and vote away their own in the name of 'security'. Eventually, you end up with oligarchy, which is the most common form of government. It's what we have now in the U.S. Why, on earth would I want a corrupt oligarchy running things at the global level? How on earth can you believe these people are looking out for you or anyone else?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJEuZrvNYg0&t=15s
Didn’t trump just lose the popular vote?

How are we a democracy and not a republic?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2019, 01:05 PM
 
Location: The Triad (NC)
28,157 posts, read 60,855,057 times
Reputation: 31480
Quote:
Originally Posted by ohio_peasant View Post
That said, my criticism of the modern world is from the right-wing, not the left.
My sincere belief is that there is too much democracy, rather than not enough.
Too many levels of governance... and too often operating in conflict with one another.
We really do not need 50 different sets of laws and 3000 sets of 'local' interest.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2019, 09:13 PM
 
7,535 posts, read 4,834,264 times
Reputation: 12972
Quote:
Originally Posted by mysticaltyger View Post
That's why the United States was supposed to be a Republic. But people don't know the difference between democracy and a republic. Once a republic erodes (which ours clearly has) into a democracy, it becomes unstable. People tend to vote away other people's rights and vote away their own in the name of 'security'. Eventually, you end up with oligarchy, which is the most common form of government. It's what we have now in the U.S.
It is asserted in the video, that the quintessential point about republics, is that they’re a government of laws, not of individual personalities or mob-rule. But who enacts the laws? Representatives. And how do they assume office? Through votes. And who votes? The mob. Meanwhile, who enforces the laws? An oligarchy. The difference between republic-democracy-oligarchy is more style than substance.

But this being the economics forum, rather than the politics forum, I’ll say this: some of the most successful economies in recent times have been highly authoritarian… Singapore, Taiwan, South Korea. All were until the 1980s essentially dictatorships. Singapore more or less remains a dictatorship. Hong Kong experienced a staggering increase in its standard of living, while essentially a colony (under Great Britain), and after 1997, a vassal state of China. The political situation should be orderly, respectful of private property, conducive to investment, low-tax, and reasonably systematic. Freedom per se is orthogonal to economic vitality. Cultural conservatism, in the sense of what appeals to nationalists, is probably inimical to economic vitality.

What the “globalists” are offering is a Singapore writ large. I am not entirely fond of Singapore. It is, in many regards, a police-state. But it is prosperous and well-run. A global Singapore isn’t the worst that we could do. And if it lifts stock-markets worldwide, perhaps the tradeoff isn’t a bad one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mysticaltyger View Post
Why, on earth would I want a corrupt oligarchy running things at the global level? How on earth can you believe these people are looking out for you or anyone else?
Why on earth would you believe that any government, of any sort or structure, would be "looking out for me" in any case? At the very least, a global-oriented system ought to value free-trade and corporate profits, which should ultimately filter down to my investments, small as they may be.

The mistake is to believe that a local, representative government is somehow more cognizant of my interests, than would a distant or more bureaucratic one. Why would it? I have very little in common with my neighbors. I have much more in common with Hollywood celebrities, New York City bankers, or DC lobbyists, than I do with the GM retirees or corn-farmers who constitute my "community". I have more in common with Buffett and Bezos, than with the local Buford and Bubba. Why shouldn't I back Team Bezos, over Team Bubba?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. | Please obey Forum Rules | Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top