@Soothfast saidRight. I guess what I was trying to assert was that economic globalism WITHOUT "one world government" was bound to be unfair. 😆
It's occurred to me that populism is simply a new name for nationalism, and in many ways it is. But globalism is not exactly the opposite of nationalism. It does not advocate for a single "world government." The term "nationalism" speaks of nations as political entities, whereas the term "globalism" speaks to an economic model wherein workers bound by natio ...[text shortened]... Germany have practiced to preserve their manufacturing base as well as the dignity of their workers.
Within the US, a factory moves from the Northeast to South Carolina where it is cheaper. However, if desired, workers can leave their $800,000 house in Mass. and move to South Carolina into the same kind of house for $350,000 and get a job in the same factory - earning less, but cost of living is also less. Gummint doesn't block the move.
But when a factory moves to Mexico, workers don't follow it - both because they can't (Mexico says 'No' ) AND - who would want to? Drug and gang violence, poor justice protections, etc. Stockholders win, workers lose. (The company also doesn't necessarily drop the price of the imported goods. Prices are determined by demand and competition, not cost. So if the company can, they sell for the same price and pocket the difference. Businessmen LOVE globalism as much as workers hate it.)
Globalism would work great if we had a United States of The World in the form of a democratically elected UN. I've stumped on this for years but nobody really gets why I say it:
A) War is practially eliminated.
B) Economies can do what I outlined above.
C) People have equal rights worldwide.
As a scientist, I see no particular downside. But suggest it and people go as crazy as Americans asked to drive a roundabout (traffic circle).
1 edit
@Soothfast saidIt's an interesting analysis (though Trump's win wasn't all that "resounding" at less than 1.5% of the popular vote) but as a suggestion for future action it seems questionable. Left wing populism of the form of a Bernie Sanders twice failed to win sufficient votes in the Democratic primaries to prevail against corporate Democrats; what would make anyone believe that will change in the immediate future?
Here is something both leftists and rightists likely can find things to agree about, at least partially. It is relevant to this thread:
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/28/opinion/wolfgang-streeck-populism.html
[quote]Who could have seen Donald Trump’s resounding victory coming? Ask the question of an American intellectual these days and you may meet with embittered silen ...[text shortened]... capitalism, but its further repudiation. He is a symptom of its ongoing collapse on a global scale.
And it is the Right, not the Left, that tries to keep down voter participation at least in the US.
@no1marauder said'Corporate Democrats' 🙂
It's an interesting analysis (though Trump's win wasn't all that "resounding" at less than 1.5% of the popular vote) but as a suggestion for future action it seems questionable. Left wing populism of the form of a Bernie Sanders twice failed to win sufficient votes in the Democratic primaries to prevail against corporate Democrats; what would make anyone believe that will ...[text shortened]...
And it is the Right, not the Left, that tries to keep down voter participation at least in the US.
Good name for them.
@Mott-The-Hoople saidYou can't help yourself, can you?
what you describe is makers vs takers.
liberals by nature are not productive members of society…always wanting someone else to provide for them.
hint; if you want a home, get up in the morning go to work, save your money and BUY a home. I did, you can too.
You're as big a nutter as your "president". And when I say "nutter", I mean liar.