It may be dead, but There are still people pushing for a new world order. None of them have our best interests at heart.What system? It has broken into several trade blocs. Globalism is dead. G7, BRICS, ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA), CANZUK etc.
It may be dead, but There are still people pushing for a new world order. None of them have our best interests at heart.What system? It has broken into several trade blocs. Globalism is dead. G7, BRICS, ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA), CANZUK etc.
No there aren't. It's dead.It may be dead, but There are still people pushing for a new world order. None of them have our best interests at heart.
That's an unusually bright, perceptive, and articulate, character, I'd never heard of him before and I'm glad for your introduction of him, I'll be looking for more from him and thinking about what he says. He's not really making predictions as an economist though, he's going on about a much larger picture of geopolitics than economists usually grapple with. Maybe that's why they get it wrong so often.Not really dismal at predictions.
Best perspective I've ran across in ages.That's an unusually bright, perceptive, and articulate, character, I'd never heard of him before and I'm glad for your introduction of him, I'll be looking for more from him and thinking about what he says.
We are indeed ahead of the curve.I see a world version of what turdOWE has done to Canada. Deliberately causing mayhem in some areas to benefit other areas or as with turdOWE, punishing the areas that don't agree with his warped vision. Equalization payments going from producing nations to High population China and India.
Not somebody my friend, ----- everybody, and everybody cannot fail.That seems highly doubtful to me, in fact I'd expect the opposite, I don't see any logic to the argument that melding a bunch of existing chaotic systems into a single system would produce stability or predictability. Doesn't work for weather prediction, the chaos at the heart of things remains no matter how wide the meteorologists cast their net, it's a feature of the system, we simply cannot get enough data or process it quickly enough to produce predictability. I see no reason to think it would work for economics. "Too big to fail" just seems to mean that taxpayers are on the hook to pay for keeping things going. I don't believe anything is too big to fail, that argument is really just that some things are so big and important we shouldn't let them fail, which means somebody has to pay to prevent it.
The theory is sound and has worked for companies on smaller scales.Extremely doubtful. In theory maybe. But human nature is difficult to predict. And the system will be run by humans, probably way too many of them. Or a group of thugs like Russia and China will get together and take control of resources by force.
Not broken.What system? It has broken into several trade blocs. Globalism is dead. G7, BRICS, ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA), CANZUK etc.
Positions in what? A post globalism world?Not broken.
What you see is jockeying for the best positions.
Regards
DL
Tell that to the WEF - they want total control and it won't happen tomorrow or the next day. It will happen, over a period of time just like all this Trans B.S. has happened over time and WHAM!! there it is in it's full vile way - in our faces & god forbid if you don't agree.What system? It has broken into several trade blocs. Globalism is dead. G7, BRICS, ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA), CANZUK etc.
What do they want to control? Money? Energy? Society? All the rice? Or are they laying the groundwork for the movement of labour, technical and management to where its needed as the global population plummets over the next 30 years. Nothing will get built unless there is the free movement of workers as well as companies and nations to put it all together.Tell that to the WEF - they want total control and it won't happen tomorrow or the next day. It will happen, over a period of time.
I'm still deeply skeptical. It's perfectly clear from history that whole societies, whole civilizations, can indeed fail, just look at a list of vanished empires. A single global civilization, which seems to be what you're promoting in some sense, as a human enterprise would have all the same weaknesses all human enterprises do--greed, ego, vested interests, ignorance, stupidity, thieves, liars, bullies, and so on--and seems no more likely to me to profit everybody and never fail than any other human enterprise. That's just not in the nature of things in my view. I'd immediately agree we could do much better than we have so far, but I have to agree with petros on most of this discussion. It's not happening, and most likely won't happen. I just cannot see most countries--especially powerful ones like the U.S., Russia, and China-- willingly surrendering any of their autonomy and independence to a world government. Some kind of global federalism might be achievable, and the EU might be a kind of model for that, but it's not in the best of shape right now either, Britain's exit has emboldened similar sentiments of independence in many of its members.Not somebody my friend, ----- everybody, and everybody cannot fail.
That is why it profits all and cannot fail.
Regards
DL
A position in the various factions that will arise, be that right wing or left.Positions in what? A post globalism world?
But it cares who rules *it* in terms of statutes and regulations.Does you bank care today who rules you? No
It also cares about the legitimacy of money. All money has been fiat money for quite some time now. Any country that suffers such problems as runaway inflation gets to the point where people lose faith in the money, and go to foreign currencies or barter. This is what banks dread most.But it cares who rules *it* in terms of statutes and regulations.
What about no wing? There can't be any wings for a single body to be leading the globe.A position in the various factions that will arise, be that right wing or left.
Nothing much will changer politically when we go to a world bank, --- that does not care about stupid politics.
Does you bank care today who rules you? No.
All they care about, and should care about, is maintaining a healthy too big to fail bank and economic system.
Regards
DL
Yeah, that's what they said about women's sanitary napkins.What about no wing? There can't be any wings for a single body to be leading the globe.
All decided on by the world leaders and their banks.But it cares who rules *it* in terms of statutes and regulations.