The Collapse of Globalism, JR Saul, Book Review
- Thread starter dumpthemonarchy
- Start date
I think DTD is confused since different schools focus on different aspects of globlaization. I don't mean definitions, I mean aspects that have arisen or are expected to arise as a result everything involved with the idea of globalization.
Saul, Sachs et al discuss the predicted end of the nation state. In this sense, perhaps they're right as nationalism becomes the flavour du jour. Other people discuss the benefits of global access, freer markets, freer mobility of goods and services and increased production brought to less developed nations through new technologis ike the above mentioned. Those who predicted the end of the nation state saw world becaming more "global", or united through technology, making borders less relevant - hence the end of the nation state.
DTD, it's all part of the same package, but really, the bottom line is that none of it would be possible, even in a rhetorical sense, without technological advancements.
Saul, Sachs et al discuss the predicted end of the nation state. In this sense, perhaps they're right as nationalism becomes the flavour du jour. Other people discuss the benefits of global access, freer markets, freer mobility of goods and services and increased production brought to less developed nations through new technologis ike the above mentioned. Those who predicted the end of the nation state saw world becaming more "global", or united through technology, making borders less relevant - hence the end of the nation state.
DTD, it's all part of the same package, but really, the bottom line is that none of it would be possible, even in a rhetorical sense, without technological advancements.
Saul says glob ended by the mid 1990s, while Prairie-Alley, you say it didn't really kick in until the 1990s. But then the late 1990s is when the big anti-glob rallies occurred. I read in the Sun newspaper on Monday that Vietnam is managing globalization at its own pace by not letting in TNCs so they can control the economy. This is glob the media says, Vietnam is creating a viable market economy for their people and they are global. Vietnam does not want a one size wrecks many economies policy, they have learned they can manage their country and economy and still be successful. Glob used to say this is impossible, you can't compete.
I recall seeing on the CBC Evan Soloman say that globalization began with Columbus in 1492, because goods were being traded between Asia-America-Europe and bypassing cental Asia-which became a backwater. Glob has a retrospective feel to it, it is used to explain the past when people had no concept of it because they never used the word.
Fact: TNCs pay less tax than in the 1970s.
They ought to pay more but our corporate political parties do not permit it.
I recall seeing on the CBC Evan Soloman say that globalization began with Columbus in 1492, because goods were being traded between Asia-America-Europe and bypassing cental Asia-which became a backwater. Glob has a retrospective feel to it, it is used to explain the past when people had no concept of it because they never used the word.
Fact: TNCs pay less tax than in the 1970s.
They ought to pay more but our corporate political parties do not permit it.
RE: The Collapse of Globa
Globalization has been going on for centuries.
There is no demarcation, though the world decided to make a concerted effort to lower tariff barriers after WWII, when the average tariff was 40%. Today its about 4%.
BTW who says Trans National Companies these days? That's so 1960s.
Globalization has been going on for centuries.
There is no demarcation, though the world decided to make a concerted effort to lower tariff barriers after WWII, when the average tariff was 40%. Today its about 4%.
BTW who says Trans National Companies these days? That's so 1960s.
TNC might be seem a little dated, MNC is more hip but I recall reading in a book TNC was better, but I can't recall the reason.
To say glob has been around for centuries, when the word has only existed for fifty years, seems like historic inevitability, a TINA concept, there is no alternative. This is passivity, which is what Saul says (econ) glob is all about.
Glob, if it is about biz, it is now about marketing, not production, and a marketing world is a world where we have a smorgasboard of choices to pick and choose. We buy what we want when we want. No coercion but peer pressure in fashion and trends.
So, can we not "buy" glob? It has no simple definition or jokes attached to it. Capitalism has a simple definition, so does economics. So, if you can't define something, then does it have power over you?
To say glob has been around for centuries, when the word has only existed for fifty years, seems like historic inevitability, a TINA concept, there is no alternative. This is passivity, which is what Saul says (econ) glob is all about.
Glob, if it is about biz, it is now about marketing, not production, and a marketing world is a world where we have a smorgasboard of choices to pick and choose. We buy what we want when we want. No coercion but peer pressure in fashion and trends.
So, can we not "buy" glob? It has no simple definition or jokes attached to it. Capitalism has a simple definition, so does economics. So, if you can't define something, then does it have power over you?
Re: RE: The Collapse of Globalism, JR Saul, Book Review
Aside from you and Saul, does anyone else say "glob"? How do people on the street react when they hear you say it?
dumpthemonarchy said:
Aside from you and Saul, does anyone else say "glob"? How do people on the street react when they hear you say it?
Globalization takes so long to write.
Why take the time to type a word that has so many definitions? Saul never writes glob. I should just type g. It is not just out there, g is everywhere, everything -tech, and centuries ago. G used to be like aspirin, the perfect economic medicine.
Capitalism and g are different, the former is definitely all about money and business, and the latter I believe is about money and nations. Spain's GDP is moving ahead of Canada's and they are looking for a place at the G8. This won't affect us much, but it should.
Political economy makes sense, but we need another word in front of g.
Why take the time to type a word that has so many definitions? Saul never writes glob. I should just type g. It is not just out there, g is everywhere, everything -tech, and centuries ago. G used to be like aspirin, the perfect economic medicine.
Capitalism and g are different, the former is definitely all about money and business, and the latter I believe is about money and nations. Spain's GDP is moving ahead of Canada's and they are looking for a place at the G8. This won't affect us much, but it should.
Political economy makes sense, but we need another word in front of g.
Re: RE: The Collapse of Globa
good point and I doubt it will ever be 1% but it will most likely, not reach the hights again during the most extreme times of mercantilism.
But I am sure we will always have some econimies rebelling against the idea of laissez faire (liberalism) capitalism, nor do most people want it I'd argue if they totally knew what it would mean. However people do want to bring down the tariff walls most of the time and faire trade will usually always be sought after. So in a sence a faire trade globalization could always happen.
Toro said:
good point and I doubt it will ever be 1% but it will most likely, not reach the hights again during the most extreme times of mercantilism.
But I am sure we will always have some econimies rebelling against the idea of laissez faire (liberalism) capitalism, nor do most people want it I'd argue if they totally knew what it would mean. However people do want to bring down the tariff walls most of the time and faire trade will usually always be sought after. So in a sence a faire trade globalization could always happen.
RE: The Collapse of Globa
There is no laissez faire capitalist economy in the world. Its all a matter of degree.
There is no laissez faire capitalist economy in the world. Its all a matter of degree.
dumpthemonarchy said:
The economy IS part of what makes up "g". I don't know why you keep repeating "capitalism and g are different" at naseum, when it's a fundemental part of "g". Of course capitalism has it's own definition, seperate from every other word, but the free exchange of goods and services isn't free.
RE: The Collapse of Globa
And what is that definition? I believe Marx did some work explaining the thing. G needs an economy it dosn't have to be capitalism, a stable g econ don't need to be capitalist, it is now a fundemental part of g though but it consistantly fails to perform for the people and overperforms for the capitalist.
And what is that definition? I believe Marx did some work explaining the thing. G needs an economy it dosn't have to be capitalism, a stable g econ don't need to be capitalist, it is now a fundemental part of g though but it consistantly fails to perform for the people and overperforms for the capitalist.
Re: RE: The Collapse of Globa
Which, of course, is why Marx is discredited in modern economic thought.
darkbeaver said:
Which, of course, is why Marx is discredited in modern economic thought.
Re: RE: The Collapse of Globa
What Marx says and what the dictionary says might not be the same thing. Words definitions and ideology are different. Why not knock off the redundant Socratic dialogue for a change, huh?
Wha?
darkbeaver said:
What Marx says and what the dictionary says might not be the same thing. Words definitions and ideology are different. Why not knock off the redundant Socratic dialogue for a change, huh?
Wha?
Re: RE: The Collapse of Globa
Marx is discredited in modern capitalist economic thought .Toro said:
Re: RE: The Collapse of Globa
True, but he does make some interesting points. Btw, didn't he say poverty isn't a crime, too? :lol:
darkbeaver said:
True, but he does make some interesting points. Btw, didn't he say poverty isn't a crime, too? :lol:
Re: RE: The Collapse of Globa
Well, the Marxists can live in fantasyland all they want, but...
darkbeaver said:
Well, the Marxists can live in fantasyland all they want, but...
RE: The Collapse of Globa
Marxist live in your land, if it hadn't been for marxists where would capitalists be today.
Marxist live in your land, if it hadn't been for marxists where would capitalists be today.
A fave "global" irritant of mine is a FIDO phone I bought and later found out it does not work outside Canada and the US. I have to buy another one. Global telcos? Puhlease. It is an embarrassment.
Don't get me started on TV.
Toro it totally right, there is no laissez-faire cap. econ. in the world today. There is no cap. without extensive gov't regulation. All of this regulation is done in the name of "freedom".
Capitalism is always part of economics, economics is not always part of capitalism, because there is mercantilism for instance, you can also have economics and capitalism united on a world scale, which some call economic globalization. The word g opens up new cultural and intellectual horizons possibly.
I agree econ g outperforms for the capitalist, which I think darkbeaver means the big corporation. I don't think most working people consider themselves capitalists.
Don't get me started on TV.
Toro it totally right, there is no laissez-faire cap. econ. in the world today. There is no cap. without extensive gov't regulation. All of this regulation is done in the name of "freedom".
Capitalism is always part of economics, economics is not always part of capitalism, because there is mercantilism for instance, you can also have economics and capitalism united on a world scale, which some call economic globalization. The word g opens up new cultural and intellectual horizons possibly.
I agree econ g outperforms for the capitalist, which I think darkbeaver means the big corporation. I don't think most working people consider themselves capitalists.