The Perils of Globalization

So this week, Trump met with the manufactuering CEOs and said that he wants jobs to come back to America.  He's been meeting with many CEOs and top business people, asking for this very thing.  The question is: what is he doing?

The answer is simple: Trump is trying to reverse the effects of globalization on America.

Now, it's interesting to see that the effects of globalization have gotten so bad that the president of the United States is stepping in and getting involved to stop it.

Why has it failed?  In theory, globalization sounded like such a good thing; people were well off and it was going to be great to allow other people to have a piece of the pie as well.  The poor would be raised out of poverty, there would be great equality and fairness in the world, and it would all be great.  At least, that was the theory.

When we look at the actual results, it's not good.  Wages are down, unemployment is up, and the poor of the world aren't really that much better off.  Why didn't it work?

In a capitalist society, everyone is free to do as they wish: start a business, or get a job, or perhaps to do nothing.  In such a society, there will be some rich, some average, and some poor people.  That's how capitalism works, and for the most part, it works as long as there are safety nets and support systems in place to help those who are truly poor and destitute and need help.

Countries are the same way.  There are some rich ones, some average ones, and some poor ones.

When it comes to economic theories, the one that has been the worst failure is communism.  In communism, everyone is equal - a doctor makes the same as a plumber, and everyone from the highest educated to the least all get the same thing.  As the saying goes, if you have a phone, the government comes by, takes it from your home and installs a phone on the corner that everyone in your neighbourhood uses.

Communism is founded on Karl Marx's idea that all people are equal, and the problem is, that idea is false.  All people are not equal.  One person might be a fantastic mechanic, but be horrible as a carpenter.  Another person might be a great carpenter, but they can't do math.  And the mathematician can't fix his car on his own.

People have different skills and talents, and treating everyone equally does not work, because it drags everyone down to the lowest common denominator.  If you're going to be paid $50/week from the government whether you empty trash, fix engines, or are a doctor - where is the motivation to study for 8 years?

Communism fails because it takes the income inquality and flattens it out.  Yes, now everyone is equal and has the same amount - but that's because everyone is poor.

So why doesn't globalization work?  For the same reason.

Countries that are independent of one another are like people operating in a capitalistic society: some do better than others, but that's fine.

Globalization is simply communism applied to countries.

Under globalization, all countries are now equal, they should all have the same wealth -- and this doesn't work because countries have different costs. If a person is living in a country like England, yes, they make more money than someone living in India, but the cost of living in England is a lot higher.

So what happens with globalization?

Now a company can hire an American worker for $50,000/yr, or the company can "offshore" the work to a country like India, where the person living there can get by on just $10,000/yr.

What it means is that workers in well-off countries all of a sudden have to complete with people who can accept a much, much lower wage than them.  The result of this?  Wages and salaries have declined significantly in the well-off countries like America.

Now, in communist countries like China, there is great wealth: it's just that the government has it all.  All the people are poor, and the key people at the top in government control the wealth.  But when we look at well-off nations like England, the government isn't running surplus budgets.  So where is the money going?

It's going into the corporations.  And the corporations are owned by the already wealthy 1%.

This is why the wealth of the 1% continues to grow when the wealth of the average person is on the decline.  The corporations, which are owned by the 1%, are now able to save tons of money in labor costs by paying people in other countries much lower wages to do the work.  This is why the middle class in well off countries is eroding so fast.

So, who has really benefited from globalization?

It hasn't been the world's poor.  Yes, some of them are a bit better off because they have low-paying jobs that they wouldn't have had before, but the real winners are the super-rich elites.  Globalization has allowed their corporations to make even more money than before, by paying lower wages.

In other words, globalization was nothing more than the shift of money: re-distributing it from the middle class to: a) the ultra-poor, and b) the 1%.  But, it should be noted, not evenly.  The ultra-poor received some of the pie, but the majority of it went to the ultra rich.  It was like taking money from the middle class, giving most of it to the already-rich, and a few crumbs to the poor.

This is why globalization is not an altruistic thing.  There are many people who support and sing the praises of globalization, thinking that it is a charitible thing because it gives to the poor and makes everyone a little more even. 

No.

Globalization is a game, played by the 1%, to make themselves richer at the cost of the middle class.  And if you're angry as you read this article, then you're likely one of the people who fell for the lie that globalization would make the world a more equal and better place.  Or you might be one of the middle class who see your bills going up, you have less and less money, and yet you thought globalization would be good for you or good for the world.  It wasn't.

On that note, observe who has been complaining the loudest about Trump's policies which attempt to reverse the trend of globalization and allow the American middle class to have decent and well-paying jobs.  The countries that have been objecting to Trump the most are the same countries that have benefited the most from globalization: the ones to whom all the jobs have gone.

These countries are not angry; they are scared - instead of growing their own economy and taking care of their people, those governments instead simply relied on the prosperity that they were enjoying from taking money out of the hands of the middle class of America.  Now that the middle class has simply asked for fairness, it means these countries are going to lose - and that's why they are complaining so much.

But the reality is; globalization should never have been a route to prosperity for them in the first.  It's like a person who steals from their neighbour's yard every night.  Yes, that person is slowly getting rich, but not in a good way.  And when the neighbour installs an alarm (which is effectively what Trump is doing), that person doesn't have any right to complain and says that their "main source of income" is unfairly being cut off.

Globalization has been a disaster for the well-off nations.  It has benefited only the super-rich of those nations, while creating huge unemployment and massively lowering wages and the standard of living.  This is why the new trend towards putting an end to globalization is being embraced by so many people.  They simply want to end globalization and return back to a system where it is okay for some countries to be better off than others, and where the middle class can once again contain the wealth, not the rich 1%.

How that will play out remains to be seen.  But hopefully you understand now, there is nothing noble or altruistic about globalization.  Yes, we still need to solve the problem of economic inequality in the world, but globalization is not the solution.

LKvi

There is no "justified violence"

Recently, we've had several incidents of where we see people acting violently in order to achieve a political goal, and then on social media, other people applauding the violence as "justified" and good.  These people make statements saying that they have "no tolerance" for hate speech or anti-American thoughts.  In other words, they actually approve of violent acts because in their minds, those acts are appropriate.

The problem is, this is not how democracy works.

Humans have had a difficult problem for a long time; how can a group of people live together and function as a peaceful society when they all have different beliefs, goals, and ways of seeing the world?

Many systems have been tried, but the one that seems to work the best is democracy.  The basic concept is that people within the society agree to be ruled by an elected leader.  They may not agree with everything the leader does or all the laws, but they agree to it, so that everyone is following the same rules and the society functions with a common set of parameters.

It means that Joe may support political party "A", and Jane may support political party "B".  For a few years, political party "A" is in power, then an election happens and party "B" wins and takes power.

While "A" was in power, Jane doesn't riot, destroy buildings, or become an anarchist, she simply accepts that rule of "A", knowing an new election will come.  Then, when party "B" wins the election, Jane is happy.  Joe is not happy, but the same thing happens - he accepts the rule of "B" and the society functions under the new ruling party.

In other words, in a democracy, there is a social contract: your party might be the ruling one, or it might not be; but either way, you accept the ruling party and participate in society.

This is a much better system than being under a dictatorship, where you have no say and no hope of changing anything, as there is never going to be another election in which you have the chance to vote your party of choice back into power.

But this social contract is one of the cores of democracy - it means that we discuss things, we have open debates, and people can express their opinion.  No opinion is "bad", it's simply a different point of view, and no person in a democracy should face any sort of violence from someone who disagrees with them.

Violence is not a part of democracy; if anything, it is the enemy of democracy.  Once a person or group of people decide that they are not going to follow the social contract, and instead, will act violently to get what they want, they are not being democratic.  Democracy is not about the forceful subjugation of people to follow your way of thinking -  it is about accept everyone's opinions, ideas, and right to express themselves.  And you do not have a right to be violent in a democratic society; just the opposite; if you want to act violently, you are the villan.

Democracy is peaceful; it uses respectful and (often heated) discussion to make decisions about how to run the society.  Yes, it can be frustrating and hard at times, but the core of democracy is that everyone has a voice and a right to be heard, and that no one should use violent means to achieve their goals.

It is very ironic that many of these people who are applauding the recent violent acts are doing so because they call their victims "haters" or Nazis.  Let's look at that in detail for a moment.

The NSDAP was formed in a democratic society; initially, they were just a political party like any other party.  However, they believed in using violence to get what they wanted.  They caused fights, they attacked their opponents physically, and they justified it by saying that they were "right"; that their cause was "good" and so the violence was called for.  Many ex-Nazis were interviewed and they sincerely believed that there was a Jewish conspiracy against them.  They were completely wrong, but they truly believed in what they were fighting for; so much so, that they accepted that violence was necessary.

The question is: what is the difference between these people praising the violent acts and the Nazis?

• Both of them support the un-democratic concepts of using violence to acheive political goals.
• Both of them have a cause that they believe is "good".
• Both of them reject the normal democratic process to achieve their goal and prefer to be violent to achieve their goal.

In other words, if you support the use of "justified violence", YOU are the Nazi.

Also, consider this: the Nazis were wrong in their belief that the Jews were conspiring against them.  What if your motive for violence is also wrong?  Can you honestly say that if society followed your rules, that it would be better world for everyone?  If so, form a political party, get voted into office, and make those changes.

But until then, understand that the majority of us, who support democracy and freedom, are going to be against you.  There is absolutely no reason to support or encourage violence in a free and democratic society.

Imagine for a moment that more of us were violent.  Each person physically attacked other people who didn't agree with them on religion, politics, the way to raise kids, etc.   What kind of society would we have?

We wouldn't.  There would be no society, just anarchy.  Why?  Because people have many different opinions about everything.  So how is it possible that a person who supports political party "A" can live next door another person who supports political party "B"?  And that person's neighbour has an entire different party?

This is the beauty of democracy.  The individuals in the democracy have a common understanding that yes, they may disagree on religion, politics, etc - but the value of being free, of being able to say, think, and do whatever a person wants - is more important.  Hence, we tolerate each other's differences in religion, politics, etc - because we as a whole want our society to be free.

And that's actually what makes it work.  Because each person is free to live their own lives, they feel free, they aren't oppressed, and so they support the social contract that enables that freedom.  Thus, three people living side-by-side can belong to three different religions, and yet live in peace.

This is why democracy works.  And this is also why we do not get violent over disagreements on politics.  As stated before, violence is the enemy of democratic society. 

But, you say, what about hate speech?  What about those people who are truly evil?

If history has shown us anything, it's that those types of people: a) are in very, very small minority, and b) are generally just ignored and go about living their lives miserable and filled with anger, but doing no harm to society.

This is how democracy deals with radicals: it just ignores them.  They are the very small minority of the population and they have zero chance against the majority of the people who support freedom for all.

One of the key tenants of democracy is free speech: the idea that everyone is free to persue their own lives and live the way they want to, and that each of us supports and fights for those rights for all of us.  This was summarized well years ago in the quote:

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall

That is the essense of freedom.  It is not "I will fight against you until you follow what I say."

So when you take violent actions, or even support "justified" violence, you are in the wrong.  Don't be surprised when we, the majority, who support freedom and democracy, come down on you hard for it.  There is nothing "justified" about violence in a democratic and free society.

LKvi