For People Who Are Against Globalism - Why?

[ananda]

And the reason corporatism has nation-states competing for lowest tax rates etc and other bribes and favours, encouraging the very corporatism that you and I are so concerned about, is that those nation states are not co-ordinated. There's no supra-state that can set global policies on what multinationals must do, and what they must not do. (Child labour sweat shops, unfair minimum wages, etc).
So I totally agree. Corporate driven multinational globalisation looks like something out of the Sci-Fi series Continuum where future democracy has totally collapsed and there's a Corporatocracy. But a global democracy aims to fairly sort these issues out, empowering the little guys and girls.

Just do away with the Corporation.

 

[eclipsenow]

Just do away with the Corporation.

And replace it with what? I personally like Germany's Mittlestand. The German Mittelstand economic model bypasses the need for many workers to go to University, which is wise in an era where 40% of University grads simply never use their training in a profession related to their degree! With a little government backing from technical colleges, high school graduates can immediately get jobs straight out of high school and have guaranteed employment and career progression for life. Many of these German companies are family owned companies enjoy employee loyalty, careful economic management of their businesses, and more common lifetime job security, and higher youth employment than other companies.

 

[BlackSabbath]

Help those countries trade, out of genuine economic self-interest in mutually beneficial ways, and the economic imperatives take over. It works. Consider Germany and France 1918 and 1939, and the EU now.

Yes, i thought about it again and I am not totally against, I am just nore entirely sure if giving a global entity that much say in world affairs is always safe or in everyones vested interest.

Again "it works" can sometimes just be a same of semenatics and it depends what criteria you use to define this. Often times, the institutions are not always accountable to the people's best interests. What is their then to keep,the insitutions in check if they should ever go astray? Often times you will just have a concentration of individuals with their own ulterior motives or agendas acting in their own self interest.

 

[eclipsenow]

What is their then to keep,the insitutions in check if they should ever go astray? Often times you will just have a concentration of individuals with their own ulterior motives or agendas acting in their own self interest.

What keeps American institutions in check? They rule over 300 million people, 15 times bigger than Australia, and 100 times larger than NZ. Does size alone determine the success of a democracy? What keeps the EU in check? And even China are learning to run their own version of anti-corruption watchdogs, not that I'm recommending we go down that authoritarian pathway.

 

[BlackSabbath]

What keeps American institutions in check? They rule over 300 million people, 15 times bigger than Australia, and 100 times larger than NZ. Does size alone determine the success of a democracy? What keeps the EU in check? And even China are learning to run their own version of anti-corruption watchdogs, not that I'm recommending we go down that authoritarian pathway.

America is kind of a different beast and animal altogether---I am mostly just saying, putting an entire country in debt, to what? a bilion, or even a trillion dollars, is that always practical? All it can take sometimes, is one really bad governance for these results to happen, and then the entire country must suffer for decades to come? Barack Obama as we know was a Muslim(it's a freaking religion), and as well, George Bush probably instigated 9/11, Al Quada, and now even Isis simply through proxy wars. I don't think being in the far right, but geesh.

Most of this, even the European Union, are the product of motives by neo-liberal polices that simply mean to concentrate all the power in the hands of the wealthy, and then likewise, profit the multi national corporations.

 

[eclipsenow]

Barack Obama as we know was a Muslim(it's a freaking religion), and as well, George Bush probably instigated 9/11, Al Quada, and now even Isis simply through proxy wars.

Oh, you're one of those. I'm sorry.

 

[BlackSabbath]

Oh, you're one of those. I'm sorry.

Yes "one of those"

Again, I don't even see anyone vetting half of the people they let into our countries. They complain about racism but it is not even a religion, it's a racist. Either way, what we have is two polarizing sides, both are equally beholden to crony capitalism. It's quite sad.

Neo-liberalism in a nut shell.

Besides that, it is factual, there's even video and photographic proof of George Bush and co, in the Middle East with Talibans. They are really the ones who instigated the whole affair. They are not responsible for all of the actions as a whole with Isis, certainly acted as catalysts in the whole affair, and hired undercover agents to try and start wars or revolts in the Middle east, until the whole affair went oit of hand. So more pointless wars with the Middle east yet again.

When are the American people going to stop being pawns of the rich and powerful? Ugh.

 

[eclipsenow]

Yes "one of those"

Again, I don't even see anyone vetting half of the people they let into our countries. They complain about racism but it is not even a religion, it's a racist. Either way, what we have is two polarizing sides, both are equally beholden to crony capitalism. It's quite sad.

Neo-liberalism in a nut shell.

Besides that, it is factual, there's even video and photographic proof of George Bush and co, in the Middle East with Talibans. They are really the ones who instigated the whole affair. They are not responsible for all of the actions as a whole with Isis, certainly acted as catalysts in the whole affair, and hired undercover agents to try and start wars or revolts in the Middle east, until the whole affair went oit of hand. So more pointless wars with the Middle east yet again.

When are the American people going to stop being pawns of the rich and powerful? Ugh.

Sorry, there's no point discussing this stuff with committed Troofers.

 

[ananda]

And replace it with what? I personally like Germany's Mittlestand. The German Mittelstand economic model bypasses the need for many workers to go to University, which is wise in an era where 40% of University grads simply never use their training in a profession related to their degree! With a little government backing from technical colleges, high school graduates can immediately get jobs straight out of high school and have guaranteed employment and career progression for life. Many of these German companies are family owned companies enjoy employee loyalty, careful economic management of their businesses, and more common lifetime job security, and higher youth employment than other companies.

Replace it with nothing, where everyone stands on their own (from the law's standpoint). Nobody should get to hide behind a Corporation.

 

[eclipsenow]

Replace it with nothing, where everyone stands on their own (from the law's standpoint). Nobody should get to hide behind a Corporation.

We run a tiny little husband and wife graphic design firm. We became a Pty Ltd company so that there was separation between us and our company. That is, if a client visited our house, we have business insurance so that if they fell and broke their neck in some freak event, we have some cover. But if they sued for more, they could only take everything the company has...but nothing of ours. They sue the company, but cannot sue us. They can't take our family home that we raised our children in and has so many memories. Are you saying that my wife and I having at least our family finances protected is wrong?

The German Mittelstand economic model bypasses the need for college, which is wise in an era where 40% of college grads simply never use their degree! High school graduates start 2 days work and have 3 days training. They get to taste the work itself and experience that industry while also studying it 3 days a week, and the company gets new employees they can allocate basic work. The difference between this system and other vocational training systems is that this one works! High school kids often work for the same company, with a high level of morale and work engagement and career progression, for life! This whole video is about the German economic miracle, but the vocational training is covered 7 minutes in.

German companies are often family owned. If they were publicly owned, they would have a duty to increase the profits for their stock-market shareholders. This incentivises risky growth strategies that can backfire and leave companies confused as to their mission, employees burned out, or even bankrupt the corporation. But being family owned, German companies can focus on the careful economic management of their businesses. They are happy to produce a good product or service for life, and as the video above shows, rather than cause stagnation has lead to stability and innovation. Many Chinese products you buy have German parts in them. They are one of the world's largest exporters. More on Mittlestand below.

 

[ananda]

We run a tiny little husband and wife graphic design firm. We became a Pty Ltd company so that there was separation between us and our company. That is, if a client visited our house, we have business insurance so that if they fell and broke their neck in some freak event, we have some cover. But if they sued for more, they could only take everything the company has...but nothing of ours. They sue the company, but cannot sue us. They can't take our family home that we raised our children in and has so many memories. Are you saying that my wife and I having at least our family finances protected is wrong?

Imagine that nobody in the world could incorporate (or, no government would recognize any "corporation"). Imagine that everyone had to stand on their own - so-called "personal" finances completely mingled with their "business" activities. Can you then imagine how individuals would change their behavior in relation to others ... and, as a result, how their communities and society at large would change?

 

[eclipsenow]

Imagine that nobody in the world could incorporate (or, no government would recognize any "corporation"). Imagine that everyone had to stand on their own - so-called "personal" finances completely mingled with their "business" activities. Can you then imagine how individuals would change their behavior in relation to others ... and, as a result, how their communities and society at large would change?

Yeah, everyone would be too terrified to do anything for anyone else in case they got sued. Not a lot would get done. I imagined. Next?
On the other hand, I put forward a viable alternative that is working in the real world, the German Mittlestand economy. No comment from yourself?

 

[ananda]

Yeah, everyone would be too terrified to do anything for anyone else in case they got sued. Not a lot would get done. I imagined. Next?

I disagree.

The main benefit of incorporating - the ability to shield one's self from liability - is also what makes it inherently evil - providing the ability to avoid consequences.

I see society ultimately reinventing itself in a positive way instead, if individuals lose the ability to hide behind a corporate shield. Incentives now exist for incorporated business proprietors to cut corners any which way he can manage, when his personal wealth is legally shielded apart from his business venture. Without corporate protections, if you (an individual, unshielded from personal liability) sell me (another individual) one of your goods, I see the following:

1. You'd probably make sure that your product is made with quality and as safe as you know how to make it;
2. You'd advertise that fact;
3. You'd sell your product only to those who you know on an individual basis (e.g. family, friends, local community) with similar standards as yourself - to those whom you trust and who trusts you and your product in return;
4. You'd be wary of selling to those whom you don't know (e.g. someone on the other side of the world, with different standards);
5. If you do decide to sell to those whom you don't know, you'd make sure you disclaim liability, and the stranger who purchases your good would have to willingly assume full personal liability to use your product.

This ensures and encourages small, strong, cooperative, and cohesive local communities & local economies with shared standards; it also encourages people to be morally and ethically upright (lest they be personally sued to oblivion, with personal reputation and livelihood destroyed), with every individual in the community providing a check on every other individual in the community; it also discourages unhindered greed (they might be shunned into bankruptcy by their community, etc.) and the destruction of nature. It prevents the creation of monopolies, and the growth and development of corporations so large that they rival the power of nations.

Obviously, a system without corporations would not work well for those interested in anonymously amassing great private fortunes. The Corporation inherently encourages the destruction of natural limits, and drives the separation of mankind from nature and natural rhythms, by elevating wealth above all other concerns.

On the other hand, I put forward a viable alternative that is working in the real world, the German Mittlestand economy. No comment from yourself?

It's still a corporation-based economy, with "the family's company" vs. everyone else. "Success" is seemingly defined in terms of everyone within the company, working in context of broader corporate law, and protected by corporate law.

 

[eclipsenow]

I don't thinl just wishing them away will make them go away. People can have economic motives to see their corporation succeed, produce green products, the environmentally sensitive and have social justice all from a bottom line reputation and public relations Platform. People want jobs and a lot of the time like to see the right thing done. The corporate liability protections only relate to the people at the top, and a lot of people down the food chain get fired if they do the wrong thing. There are levels of accountability, but it's not perfect. That's why I prefer German Mittlestand. Your comments about Mittlestand ignore how stable and long term these companies are thinking, and you attribute short term ism of the stock market to these companies. It's too simplistic and unrealistic and not relevant to the main thread.

 

[ananda]

I don't thinl just wishing them away will make them go away. People can have economic motives to see their corporation succeed, produce green products, the environmentally sensitive and have social justice all from a bottom line reputation and public relations Platform. People want jobs and a lot of the time like to see the right thing done. The corporate liability protections only relate to the people at the top, and a lot of people down the food chain get fired if they do the wrong thing. There are levels of accountability, but it's not perfect. That's why I prefer German Mittlestand. Your comments about Mittlestand ignore how stable and long term these companies are thinking, and you attribute short term ism of the stock market to these companies. It's too simplistic and unrealistic and not relevant to the main thread.

I do ignore the stability of the Mittlestand companies, because they are irrelevant to my emphasis; my emphasis being: incorporating to avoid consequences. It is not irrelevant, because globalism fuels the growth of corporate and economic activity, and destroys the essence of the positive traits of humanity at the same time.

 

[eclipsenow]

Well I guess you'll just have to keep on wishing on a star, because corporations are not going anywhere. Indeed global governance mechanisms could be the only way to get a handle on multinational powers and curb some of their international abuses. Where multinationals today force competing client states into A race to the bottom as far as tax goes, future united economic blocks like a Federated United States of Africa could instead provide a united front for the good of all. United economic blocks gradually heading towards globalism provides the only mechanism I know to get control of multinationals. I'm looking at the big picture here. I'd like to see little tinpot dictator regimes in Africa replaced by a true Federation with anticorruption agencies, better accountability, and The end to tribal conflicts with overwhelming and objective outside help coming in to stabilise those situations. I would like to see infrastructure built across Africa, poverty reduced, War eliminated, medicine and education and health all rolled out. These things can only be achieved by larger united Africa, and you're happy to see all that held back because of an idealistic dream that our corporate model is going to become more individualistic and accountable? HOW IS THIS GOING TO HAPPEN?

 

[ananda]

Deconstructing corporations puts everyone on the same, even lawful basis with everyone else. Everyone personally responsible for their individual, direct actions; and not cowardly hiding behind a legal shield (generally speaking, not personally regarding yourself). That is the true beginning of reform (at least on the economic level) for the better.

 

[eclipsenow]

I understood the first time you said this. Just repeating your dream list doesn't mean it is going to happen. You haven't outlined how your fantasy is going to happen. I have outlined that various economic blocks are coming together to gradually form a United Africa which can make a stand against corporate corruption.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I think its going ahead too rapidly. No evidence but my economics intuition tells me that the West will go bust due to competition from cut price developing economies.

Its like expecting sudden adaptations, in biology. Say to climate change, many will go bust due to stressors they cant cope with. Likewise with global markets, a sudden stress on a set of economies not used to this will probably lead to losses as well as gains.


It may be history's revenge for greed and so much inequality, but the present generation are not responsible for the past, and also in the past there was not so much openness to trade as current technology allows. So globalization may be ok, but not ultra rapid which IMO will also concentrate wealth in a smaller number of bigger businesses to the detriment of local cultures and smaller business. But it is a complex issue and there is no single answer that is globally valid.

 

[eclipsenow]

Globalisation of corporate empires might concentrate wealth for the mega-CEO's. But globalism of politics seeks to create fair and democratic international mechanisms for actually taxing these massive multinationals, and applying fair work practices, fair pay, Work-Health-Safety standards, etc to otherwise child-sweat shops. Try to appreciate the differences between economic globalisation and political globalism. One is a rampant corporate beast out to make profits no matter what, and the other is a force for peace. EG: Europe last century had WW1 and WW2, but now the EU has been born. The African continent is a mess, but the AU has a goal to gradually integrate mini-economic unions into one AU. It will take a while, but as I've said above, the dream is there. There are other regional economic agreements which could eventually work their way up to economic unions, eg: South America, ASEAN, and others. It might take a century or 2, but I think we'll probably get a world government one day.