In principle I think its not a good idea to support something solely on the basis of some other group's opposition to it, it must have merits of its own independent from that.
The criminal element hates a one world governance; that makes me for it. You?
- Thread starter French Patriot
- Start date
Economy of scale and a system too big to fail, --- security of our wealth, --- will have everyone want to come on board, or sink.
Even petty criminals like Putin cannot fight our collective desire for world security.
Regards
DL
How is it 100% dead? It is absolutely not dead & increasing. OMG if you really believe that, we're in even more trouble than I thought!
Absolutely not going forward. It's done. China, Russia, India, South Africa and Brazil are completely out with BRICS.
It's breaking down into 4 or 5 trade blocks. That's not One World Govt.
IDK.
There are a variety of associations that will be melded into the world bank.
The bank does not care about government associations as it only really cares about our wealth.
It is associated with all peoples everywhere.
Regards
DL
It does, as I pointed out.
It maximized our collective potential and real wealth and stabilizes the world economy.
Stability alone would make the change worthy.
Regards
DL
They want nothing to do with the world bank that's why they are forming their own.
NWO ain't gunna happin.
That seems highly doubtful to me. First, we can't know that it maximized our collective potential and real wealth and stabilizes the world economy when one world governance doesn't exist and therefore can't be shown to have done anything yet, and second, given the economists' dismal record at predicting anything significant correctly the claim that it would or could do those things lacks credibility to me. Economists are good at post-diction, they can always explain why something happened after the fact, but given the chaotic nature of any economy--and I mean chaotic in the formal sense of chaos theory--prediction is largely beyond them.
Agreed, because of the chaos of at present.
That chaos disappears when there is only one global system to predict and manipulate.
Too big to fail means stability world wide and not chaos.
Regards
DL
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.
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.
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.
What system? It has broken into several trade blocs. Globalism is dead. G7, BRICS, ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA), CANZUK etc.