Poll of the Day > What's the problem with globalism again?

(+) Yeah! (+)

I don't mean crazy derp NWO/Masons/Illuminati crap...

Just globalism as direct opposition to nationalism.
---

The strong get a bit weaker, national identity is lessened in its magnitude and perceived importance.

The thing about globalism is that yes, everyone does lose out on things, but the gains that would occur if everyone were to get on board would more than make up for those losses, if and only if, the system was ran well.

I'm all for globalism on the geopolitical scale, but I really would not be a fan of lessened national security and more lax immigration laws just because a few countries are buddybuddy with one another.

Another con being that any major world power who feels threatened by globalism could become the catalyst for a flashpoint in war, whether it be economically, cyber, military, etc;

But the growth for those engaged in globalism would be outstanding overall with the proper management.

It's not a perfect system, there is no one true perfect system, and like any other form of diplomacy, it has advantages and disadvantages.
---

we take resources from other countries and the money never gets to the people

random people can come here at any time, pop out a baby and now the baby is a citizen
if one person in their family gets citizenship they can bring their entire family over at any time and you can't even check them out

globalism is really just making the most profit as possible, while at the same time letting things dip into anarchy so you have a huge supporter base

Well, for starters, it enriches those at the top while devastating the most vulnerable in a society. It's not even necessarily good for the nations where the labor goes, considering that it can introduce a slew of issues into the society while giving foreign interests the power to challenge the national sovereignty (not to mention increased pollution). There are benefits as well, though, such as cheaper goods and opening up new markets. However, nations with abundant natural resources tend to do better under nationalism because the lowest rungs of their society are supported whereas globalism is terrible for low-skill and moderate-skill labor.

Granted, in the super-long run, we may *eventually* hit a stage when living standards are much closer among nations at which point it won't merely be pricing out labor.
---

Zeus posted...

Well, for starters, it enriches those at the top while devastating the most vulnerable in a society. It's not even necessarily good for the nations where the labor goes, considering that it can introduce a slew of issues into the society while giving foreign interests the power to challenge the national sovereignty (not to mention increased pollution). There are benefits as well, though, such as cheaper goods and opening up new markets. However, nations with abundant natural resources tend to do better under nationalism because the lowest rungs of their society are supported whereas globalism is terrible for low-skill and moderate-skill labor.

Granted, in the super-long run, we may *eventually* hit a stage when living standards are much closer among nations at which point it won't merely be pricing out labor.

What would be the opposite? Like, what's a step down from Nationalism... Statism? Townism? Would that mean Townism (cough, commune - ism) would better benefit the poorest as individual townships increase their economic influence?
---

Zeus posted...

Well, for starters, it enriches those at the top while devastating the most vulnerable in a society. It's not even necessarily good for the nations where the labor goes, considering that it can introduce a slew of issues into the society while giving foreign interests the power to challenge the national sovereignty (not to mention increased pollution). There are benefits as well, though, such as cheaper goods and opening up new markets. However, nations with abundant natural resources tend to do better under nationalism because the lowest rungs of their society are supported whereas globalism is terrible for low-skill and moderate-skill labor.

Granted, in the super-long run, we may *eventually* hit a stage when living standards are much closer among nations at which point it won't merely be pricing out labor.

It sounds exactly like our current state of capitalism
---

Lokarin posted...

Zeus posted...

Well, for starters, it enriches those at the top while devastating the most vulnerable in a society. It's not even necessarily good for the nations where the labor goes, considering that it can introduce a slew of issues into the society while giving foreign interests the power to challenge the national sovereignty (not to mention increased pollution). There are benefits as well, though, such as cheaper goods and opening up new markets. However, nations with abundant natural resources tend to do better under nationalism because the lowest rungs of their society are supported whereas globalism is terrible for low-skill and moderate-skill labor.

Granted, in the super-long run, we may *eventually* hit a stage when living standards are much closer among nations at which point it won't merely be pricing out labor.

What would be the opposite? Like, what's a step down from Nationalism... Statism? Townism? Would that mean Townism (cough, commune - ism) would better benefit the poorest as individual townships increase their economic influence?

A step down isn't the opposite >_> Otherwise I'm not sure there's a real term for it, although we've sometimes seen things like city-states (ie, cities that function as the sole government rather than acknowledging a higher power).

Mead posted...

It sounds exactly like our current state of capitalism

Our version of "capitalism" is globalist in nature but, more importantly, it's not all that capitalistic since it relies heavily on the government. Under a capitalist system, industries would simply fail instead of getting bailouts.
---

That's not a bad thing, the gov't needs to increase debt for there to be productivity because productivity breeds innovation and keeps the money from falling flat or being overprinted.

Zeus posted...

A step down isn't the opposite >_>

Ehh, ya - i kinda meant scaling down in the opposite direction.
---

RoboXgp89 posted...

That's not a bad thing, the gov't needs to increase debt for there to be productivity because productivity breeds innovation and keeps the money from falling flat or being overprinted.

No, it actually doesn't. And using the government to compensate for imbalances just makes the inevitable failures that much worse.
---

Globalism was something Alex Jones spouted about all day long before the internet collectively took him out back and put him down.

I don't even want to know what Globalism is.
---

Yellow posted...

Globalism was something Alex Jones spouted about all day long before the internet collectively took him out back and put him down.

I don't even want to know what Globalism is.

Alex Jones was talking up the conspiracy theory angle of globalism, that the illuminati wants a one earth government so they can control everyone... or whatever. IDK if Alex Jones are going illuminati or masons or what
---

Zeus posted...

RoboXgp89 posted...

That's not a bad thing, the gov't needs to increase debt for there to be productivity because productivity breeds innovation and keeps the money from falling flat or being overprinted.

No, it actually doesn't.

Ha!

RoboXgp89 posted...

Zeus posted...

RoboXgp89 posted...

That's not a bad thing, the gov't needs to increase debt for there to be productivity because productivity breeds innovation and keeps the money from falling flat or being overprinted.

No, it actually doesn't.

Ha!

Your ridiculous opinions have no real basis in reality (especially since most of the spending that gives us that debt doesn't improve productivity or innovation) and, more importantly, you also missed my edit:

Zeus posted...

And using the government to compensate for imbalances just makes the inevitable failures that much worse.

---

Zeus posted...

Well, for starters, it enriches those at the top while devastating the most vulnerable in a society. It's not even necessarily good for the nations where the labor goes, considering that it can introduce a slew of issues into the society while giving foreign interests the power to challenge the national sovereignty (not to mention increased pollution). There are benefits as well, though, such as cheaper goods and opening up new markets. However, nations with abundant natural resources tend to do better under nationalism because the lowest rungs of their society are supported whereas globalism is terrible for low-skill and moderate-skill labor.

Granted, in the super-long run, we may *eventually* hit a stage when living standards are much closer among nations at which point it won't merely be pricing out labor.

Absolutely correct. People want cheap everything, and they're going to need it, when they can't make more than minimum wage, with their part time job, due to the job market being over-saturated. When McDonalds can round-file applications on whims unrelated to qualifications and still choose to hire idiot drug addicts, you know something is wrong. Thanks to globalization, if I want a job in my field, I would have to move to India (and make $2200 US per year), but I'd better hurry before China out-prices the Indian companies with their throngs of slave laborers working for pseudofood and living in cages.
---

Taxation is ultimately theft, but is justified in the minds of many because the funds are supposed to directly benefit those paying out of their checks. If your local roads and bridges are crumbling for the sake of foreign aid, then taxation becomes involuntary charity, if it weren't to begin with.
---

Impractical resource management and cultural dilution primarily.

I'm not sure why anybody who acknowledges third world countries as a thing would think that the globe is remotely homogenous enough to act in a singular, shared manner.
---

Think of it like an MMO. In an MMO you have a bunch of players and those players are usually a member of a guild. Said guilds can have a variety of focuses similar to how every nation is different and focuses on different things. Some nations are more cultural while others are more industrial or scientific or what-not. Some of these 'nation-guilds' are also better than others. You have a bunch of 'casual' guilds with a bunch of low-quality players but you also have the more elite and focused 'hardcore' nation-guilds. Following along so-far?

Now imagine you're part of the elite, hard-core, raiding guild devoting all your time to taking down the newest content week one, or a high-end roleplay guild that deals with more involved storylines, better roleplayers, and events, but the GM's come down and force your guild to accept those casual players as well as to merge with other guilds. Suddenly your hard-core raiding guild is now bloated with newbies whom are all demanding their share of loot and progress and, while one or two may be good, the majority are just lay-abouts who can't even be bothered to do LFR/DF/whatever your MMO offers. Or your RP guild is now filled to the brim with idiots who either couldn't RP out of a paper bag or only care about sexual RP. Worse, now the raiding guilds have RP'ers in them and the RP guilds have raiders.

The casual players will probably be happy because they just got a massive slice of the pie and are now part of formally-exclusive guilds/nations, but they aren't putting in the work and effort to better themselves or really work with their new guild-members and are starting to demand things change to accommodate them. Meanwhile the older members of the guild (assuming they don't split off to form their own guild; I.E. Revolt/civil war/other stuff) have become hateful and resenting of the newcomers. After all, xXxDragonflukkerxXx got the Hammer of Smashing Gourds that the guy who has been raiding for months has been trying to and your characters heart-touching reunion with their parents got ruined by some dwarf who just wants to stick his handcannon up your rear.

Even if things do 'right' themselves and the casual players start behaving the guild is fundamentally changed at it's core and not a lot of people are going to be happy with that. Course it gets all the worse when you get berated as an elitist when you want the casuals gone. You may not even hate casuals and would normally be tolerant or even accepting of them; but the massive influx, disrespect, and social upheaval has forced you into an uncomfortable position and you want them gone to restore stability.

That's the problem with globalism in a nutshell... At least as how I've understood it. You're taking the cultures and success of some nations and forcing it to be spread around to people of others without requiring them to give back, acclimate, or even be thankful. An immigrant coming to a developed nation because the poor people are fat instead of thin but putting in no effort to give back or even respect his host nation. A people coming in to an established, storied, cultured nation and displacing it while others chide those upset at the lose of national identity and culture. Something given has no value. If you didn't bother to work and earn these things, to build these cultures, and everything else, why should you care about the harm being done?
---

GanglyKhan posted...

But the growth for those engaged in globalism would be outstanding overall with the proper management.

And well never get proper management, so the next best thing is nationalist self-determination.

MisterXiado posted...

I'd better hurry before China out-prices the Indian companies with their throngs of slave laborers working for pseudofood and living in cages.

Literally cages, btw.


---

but cages aren't weatherproofed!
---

Lokarin posted...

but cages aren't weatherproofed!

If the NWO can't spring for a proper pod, they don't deserve to be in charge.


---

Lokarin posted...

I don't mean crazy derp NWO/Masons/Illuminati crap...

Just globalism as direct opposition to nationalism.

Problem with globalism is that the 1% will be even more powerful. All the international investors love globalism, because they hate independent countries which prevents business by making independent rules and laws.

The global billionaires want one world, one set of rules, one language, one culture, one people. Because that benefits their business and their power. Also, globalism gives them access to a huge supply of cheap labour force.

Globalism is all for the rich and wealthy.

Bogarskado posted...

Lokarin posted...

I don't mean crazy derp NWO/Masons/Illuminati crap...

Just globalism as direct opposition to nationalism.

Problem with globalism is that the 1% will be even more powerful. All the international investors love globalism, because they hate independent countries which prevents business by making independent rules and laws.

The global billionaires want one world, one set of rules, one language, one culture, one people. Because that benefits their business and their power. Also, globalism gives them access to a huge supply of cheap labour force.

Globalism is all for the rich and wealthy.

You certain? Because what I'm seeing in places like Europe is that it seems to destroy the established culture, economy, and order in order for moral grandstanding to take place.
---