Globalism - Is it a threat or a benefit to Western Civilization?

[Nationalist]

Definition:

Quote

globalism

 

glō′bə-lĭz″əm

noun

1. A national geopolitical policy in which the entire world is regarded as the appropriate sphere for a state's influence.
2. The development of social, cultural, technological, or economic networks that transcend national boundaries; globalization.
3. An ideology based on the belief that people, goods and information ought to be able to cross national borders unfettered.

This ideology has been openly discussed since the end of WWII and took hold once transportation and communications made it viable. About the mid-80's. The "greed is good" days. Throughout the 90's, China had opened to the idea of semi-free markets and looked like an inviting place for manufacturing, for corporations who wanted to take advantage of cheap labour costs. In 2001 China was brought into the WTO. What ensued was an exodus of manufacturing and IT jobs to...China. This exodus also moved labour to India, the newly independent Central European states and a bunch of others. This move literally bled North America of jobs.

As a result, when The Rona hit, we couldn't even outfit ourselves with Gawd Damn masks. We have a microchip shortage. Ships are still floating about off the California coast, waiting to deliver their load of goods that are made in China...or Korea...or anywhere but the USA or Canada. Hell as a Canadian, take a look at where your Bauer hockey equipment is made.

Globalism has raped North America and it was done by our own bloody citizens. This has to be stopped before we gut what's left or our economies and manufacturing must be brought back to our shores.

Edited March 16, 2022 by Nationalist

[Michael Hardner]

How exactly was "Western Civilization" supposed to evolve and/or succeed if it didn't increase its influence ?  

As for the assertion that the move "bled jobs", you are leaving out the benefits.  Why would the West simply hand over its wealth without benefits ?

Without a balanced assessment of trade, this conversation is hamstrung from the outset and will veer to the usual silly conspiracies... a handful of men trying to sabotage their own countries etc.

Here's a simplified summary of what happens with Global Trade - give it a try

https://ourworldindata.org/trade-wages-cost-living
 

[Faramir]

Yes it's a threat if we adopt the bad political practices of rogue nations just to appeal to them.  The greatest globalist failure is China.  We were promised she would mend her ways and that has not occurred.  The idea that the PM or POTUS is to put the needs of other nations above its own citizens is another casualty.

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

This ideology has been openly discussed since the end of WWII and took hold once transportation and communications made it viable.

It was also the basis for the Federation on Star Trek.  It has hundreds of millions of fans.  Technology makes it inevitable.

[Nationalist]

28 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

How exactly was "Western Civilization" supposed to evolve and/or succeed if it didn't increase its influence ?  

As for the assertion that the move "bled jobs", you are leaving out the benefits.  Why would the West simply hand over its wealth without benefits ?

Without a balanced assessment of trade, this conversation is hamstrung from the outset and will veer to the usual silly conspiracies... a handful of men trying to sabotage their own countries etc.

Here's a simplified summary of what happens with Global Trade - give it a try

https://ourworldindata.org/trade-wages-cost-living
 

Yup. That data from 2007 is sure relevant.

I can live without Wallymart and the Dollar Store. So could most people if they were employed making things instead of on public dole.

[Nationalist]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

It was also the basis for the Federation on Star Trek.  It has hundreds of millions of fans.  Technology makes it inevitable.

Because...Star Trek?

[Faramir]

18 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Yup. That data from 2007 is sure relevant.

I can live without Wallymart and the Dollar Store. So could most people if they were employed making things instead of on public dole.

Dollar store actually makes my family POORER.  

[eyeball]

17 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Because...Star Trek?

No because of technology I said. Why are you pretending to be deaf?

[Nationalist]

43 minutes ago, eyeball said:

No because of technology I said. Why are you pretending to be deaf?

Not deaf...blind.

Be that as it may...

Technology does not require this sort of goings on. It can and does aid with communications for shipping. It does not require tax and tariff incentives to do so. For instance, Apple may make their iphones where ever they like. But in order to sell them in Canada, there should be enough tariffs in place to make it cheaper for Apple to make the phones here. PLUS, if an American or Canadian company wants to off-shore labour of any kind, there needs to be a tax scheme to level the playing field for American or Canadian labour.

Edited March 16, 2022 by Nationalist

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

  

1. I can live without Wallymart and the Dollar Store. So could most people if they were employed making things instead of on public dole.

1. What about food, clothing and technology ?

[Faramir]

2 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Not deaf...blind.

Be that as it may...

Technology does not require this sort of goings on. It can and does aid with communications for shipping. It does not require tax and tariff incentives to do so. For instance, Apple may make their iphones where ever they like. But in order to sell them in Canada, there should be enough tariffs in place to make it cheaper for Apple to make the phones here. PLUS, if an American or Canadian company wants to off-shore labour of any kind, there needs to be a tax scheme to level the playing field for American or Canadian labour.

Right.  You can't eat an iphone.  I am a free trader at heart.  But I don't think we should have trade agreements whereby one country (china) can use prison labour.

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, Faramir said:

Right.  You can't eat an iphone.  I am a free trader at heart.  But I don't think we should have trade agreements whereby one country (china) can use prison labour.

The US uses prison labour.  I think the real objection is 'free' labour and forced labour by the Uighur people.

It doesn't happen pervasively, I think, because there was a stink made when Costco sold clothing produced that way. 

But tariffs would make things expensive, and result in retaliatory tariffs that would hurt our exports. 

[Faramir]

4 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

The US uses prison labour.  I think the real objection is 'free' labour and forced labour by the Uighur people.

It doesn't happen pervasively, I think, because there was a stink made when Costco sold clothing produced that way. 

But tariffs would make things expensive, and result in retaliatory tariffs that would hurt our exports. 

The alternative isn't pretty but I still think we should regard China as a rogue regime not a nation with most favored status.  Not sure the US producers marketable goods with prison labour....China certainly does.  But yes force labour too.  Getting so involved economically with China became a double edged sword.  I feel for the Australians whose entire economy hinges on good relations with the Chinese.

[dialamah]

8 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

The US uses prison labour.  I think the real objection is 'free' labour and forced labour by the Uighur people.

It doesn't happen pervasively, I think, because there was a stink made when Costco sold clothing produced that way. 

But tariffs would make things expensive, and result in retaliatory tariffs that would hurt our exports. 

Canada uses prison labour as well.

And here.

 

 

Edited March 16, 2022 by dialamah

[Nationalist]

16 hours ago, Faramir said:

Right.  You can't eat an iphone.  I am a free trader at heart.  But I don't think we should have trade agreements whereby one country (china) can use prison labour.

There's that too.

I'm a nationalist...obviously...and want to protect and grow Canadian labour and manufacturing.

[Nationalist]

18 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. What about food, clothing and technology ?

Food we can grow and/or import. Clothing we can make and/or import. Same for technology.

I'm not against "fair" trade. I'm against "unfair" trade. I'm also completely against Canadian based companies, manufacturing outside of Canada. If they choose to do so, there needs to be tariffs and taxes to protect Canadian labour.

[Michael Hardner]

27 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

1. Food we can grow and/or import.

2. Clothing we can make and/or import. Same for technology.

3. I'm not against "fair" trade. I'm against "unfair" trade.

4. I'm also completely against Canadian based companies, manufacturing outside of Canada.

5. If they choose to do so, there needs to be tariffs and taxes to protect Canadian labour.

1. Wait, what ?  Why isn't importing food 'globalism' ?  I'm lost here.  
2. What ?  What ?  

"An ideology based on the belief that people, goods and information ought to be able to cross national borders unfettered."

3. So globalism is merely 'unfair' trade ?  That's changing the definition you posted (I think)

4. Why - you are already in favour of importing goods, so why not have Canadians owning offshore companies too ?  Or do you only want foreigners coming here to buy our companies ?  I am asking sincerely.

5. Canadian labour benefits from open trade as explained in the link.  It doesn't matter how old it is, the economic orthodoxy is the same.  

 

 

[Nationalist]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Wait, what ?  Why isn't importing food 'globalism' ?  I'm lost here.  
2. What ?  What ?  

"An ideology based on the belief that people, goods and information ought to be able to cross national borders unfettered."

3. So globalism is merely 'unfair' trade ?  That's changing the definition you posted (I think)

4. Why - you are already in favour of importing goods, so why not have Canadians owning offshore companies too ?  Or do you only want foreigners coming here to buy our companies ?  I am asking sincerely.

5. Canadian labour benefits from open trade as explained in the link.  It doesn't matter how old it is, the economic orthodoxy is the same.  

 

 

I don't understand why you do this all the time. If you're lost, its because maybe you're what...stupid? Or are you just throwing monkey wrenches at things in hopes of quieting opposition to the holy globalist agenda?

Let's review:

Quote

globalism

 

glō′bə-lĭz″əm

noun

1. A national geopolitical policy in which the entire world is regarded as the appropriate sphere for a state's influence.
2. The development of social, cultural, technological, or economic networks that transcend national boundaries; globalization.
3. An ideology based on the belief that people, goods and information ought to be able to cross national borders unfettered.

Now...

1. Importing good and services in NOT a "Globalist" practice until you remove tariffs and taxation. Then it becomes an example of point 3 of the definition. Unfettered trade across borders takes jobs from one nation and transfers them to another. The jobs are being removed from North America.

2. See point 1.

3. READ the definition.

4. If a Canadian owned and based company decides to offshore...let's say...IT support for instance...because support in Canada costs $50/hr and offshore it costs only $5/hr, that company has destroyed the gainful employment of a number of Canadians in order to increase profitability. Thus to counter that, the company should be taxed in a manner that removes the additional profit. Once companies realize they can no longer squeeze Canadian labour out of the equation, they'll either stop the offshoring, or can fold the company and give up access to Canadian markets. This is applicable regardless of the nationality of ownership of the company.

5. The benefits are outweighed by the drain on our own labour force and markets. We need to protect OUR people...not enhance the lives of people in other nations at the expense of OUR people.

 

Edited March 17, 2022 by Nationalist

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

1. I don't understand why you do this all the time. If you're lost, its because maybe you're what...stupid?  

2.  Importing good and services in NOT a "Globalist" practice until you remove tariffs and taxation. Then it becomes an example of point 3 of the definition. Unfettered trade across borders takes jobs from one nation and transfers them to another. The jobs are being removed from North America.

3. If a Canadian owned and based company decides to offshore...let's say...IT support for instance...because support in Canada costs $50/hr and offshore it costs only $5/hr, that company has destroyed the gainful employment of a number of Canadians in order to increase profitability. Thus to counter that, the company should be taxed in a manner that removes the additional profit.

4. Once companies realize they can no longer squeeze Canadian labour out of the equation, they'll either stop the offshoring, or can fold the company and give up access to Canadian markets. This is applicable regardless of the nationality of ownership of the company.

5. The benefits are outweighed by the drain on our own labour force and markets. We need to protect OUR people...not enhance the lives of people in other nations at the expense of OUR people.

 

1.  Yes, I am stupid.
2. Ok.
3. Ok, so you're about protectionism.  
4. Labour will be squeezed out through other means such as automation or simply not being able to provide services.  
5. You are railing against economic orthodoxy.  Protectionism would raise prices of goods and not necessarily replace them with Canadian jobs.  If you want to engage in a complete reshaping of the economy then fair enough.  Is your purpose to reduce income inequality and make life better for Canadian working people ?  Again I am asking sincerely here.

[Nationalist]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

1.  Yes, I am stupid.
2. Ok.
3. Ok, so you're about protectionism.  
4. Labour will be squeezed out through other means such as automation or simply not being able to provide services.  
5. You are railing against economic orthodoxy.  Protectionism would raise prices of goods and not necessarily replace them with Canadian jobs.  If you want to engage in a complete reshaping of the economy then fair enough.  Is your purpose to reduce income inequality and make life better for Canadian working people ?  Again I am asking sincerely here.

1. LOL

2. OK

3. OK

4. Automation will and is making many jobs redundant. So what? We should help the process along with self-inflicted wounds? Any services we cannot provide, we can easily contract out for. But there has to be a real vacuum of said service locally other than...its cheaper over there. The reason for such outsourcing must be justifiable. I believe there are already laws in place to govern this.

5. Globalist ideology has only been in full swing for about 20 some odd years now. That's when the offshoring gold rush really started. That's not an "orthodoxy". Economic "orthodoxy" has always been to use taxes and tariffs to protect the working people of any given nation. But we've given that all up for this globalist ideology. Shut down all the manufacturing plants and create dead cities. Move all manufacturing offshore to exponentially increase profit margins. Move all possible labour offshore for the same purpose. Thus reducing all of North America to a purely consumer based market. No manufacturing. As little labour as is necessary. Then...when your nation needs something...let's say...medical masks...you'll have to wait till the offshore operations can make them and send them to you, because this "new orthodoxy" has robbed us of the ability to make things.

I don't want to "reshape" anything. The "shape" is still there. We ignore it for your "new orthodoxy". Thus my purpose is to bring lost jobs back to Canada...and the US if at all possible. To re-build the manufacturing plants. To bring work TO Canadians...not send the work to other nations as doing so would be so "unorthodox".

Edited March 17, 2022 by Nationalist

[Michael Hardner]

19 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

1. Automation will and is making many jobs redundant. So what?

2. Any services we cannot provide, we can easily contract out for.

3. But there has to be a real vacuum of said service locally other than...its cheaper over there. The reason for such outsourcing must be justifiable. I believe there are already laws in place to govern this.

4. Globalist ideology has only been in full swing for about 20 some odd years now. That's when the offshoring gold rush really started. That's not an "orthodoxy". Economic "orthodoxy" has always been to use taxes and tariffs to protect the working people of any given nation.

5. But we've given that all up for this globalist ideology.

6. Shut down all the manufacturing plants and create dead cities. Move all manufacturing offshore to exponentially increase profit margins. Move all possible labour offshore for the same purpose.

7. Thus reducing all of North America to a purely consumer based market. No manufacturing.

8. As little labour as is necessary. Then...when your nation needs something...let's say...medical masks...you'll have to wait till the offshore operations can make them and send them to you, because this "new orthodoxy" has robbed us of the ability to make things.

9. I don't want to "reshape" anything. The "shape" is still there. We ignore it for your "new orthodoxy". Thus my purpose is to bring lost jobs back to Canada...and the US if at all possible. To re-build the manufacturing plants. To bring work TO Canadians...not send the work to other nations as doing so would be so "unorthodox".

1.  Well ... a primary concern that you have expressed here is 'loss of jobs'.  I think you mentioned manufacturing.  Manufacturing is going away in a lot of the same ways agriculture jobs left.  Are you concerned about work or the overall economy ?

2. What are some examples of services you are thinking of.

3. I think if we're in a trade pact with another country,it's open season - and you don't have to do anything with the government to engage with th foreign supplier.

4. Since Reagan, Thatcher and Mulroney booted up things like the FTA - 30 years.  You are speaking more of political orthodoxy than economic I think but ok.

5. We're not doing it for ideology but for economic benefits.

6. You keep talking about manufacturing.  Kind of like how Trump talked about coal and factories, these jobs are hard to bring back and it may well be impractical.  

7. Sorry but have you looked at the unemployment rate ?  Services are taking over where factory work used to be, and that's due to more money in the economy.  Is the wealth being distributed evenly ?  No, but killing the overall level of wealth won't fix that.

8. Yes.  Was the mask crisis long-lived ?  How much trouble did you have obtaining one ?

9. You keep thinking that jobs were lost - but you mean manufacturing jobs.  Manufacturing was big in the 1970s when we started to lose competitiveness in manufacturing and I think your plan would take us back there.  Meanwhile, the amount of money overall in the system would be reduced and all of the new jobs would suffer IMO.

For that matter, who is going to fund the building of these plants ?  That would be foreign money right ?  Do you think people would invest in a small market that faces limited export prospects ?  

It's a good conversation though, thanks for that.

 

[Faramir]

7 hours ago, Nationalist said:

There's that too.

I'm a nationalist...obviously...and want to protect and grow Canadian labour and manufacturing.

I'm still a free trader at heart but possibly can see see a case for limiting unfair trade agreements.  

[Faramir]

I think maybe you guys are going in circles around what is globalism and free trade.  Fundamentally I think mercantilism is not a winning economic or social strategy.  I think it was proven a failure but I know there are those married to the idea of tariffs.  

If by what we mean by globalism was just free trade I would be all for it.

But what I think we are talking about is a system that puts the needs of other nations beyond one's own.  An internationalist outlook vs a nationalist one.  Charles Lindberg would probably reject globalism.  FDR was most certainly a globalist.  Today nationalism gets a bad rap and so is not really promoted by any government.  There is just so much that can go wrong even if a country aims for "strategic" alliances.  Just the graft that occurs in influence peddling.  Sons of a certain POTUS getting paid a million dollars for a speaking engagement in the Ukraine.  Or the Secretary of State from the GH Bush years working as a legal consultant for the Saudis.  You know the ones GWB made sure got on their planes back home on 911.

[Nationalist]

16 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1.  Well ... a primary concern that you have expressed here is 'loss of jobs'.  I think you mentioned manufacturing.  Manufacturing is going away in a lot of the same ways agriculture jobs left.  Are you concerned about work or the overall economy ?

2. What are some examples of services you are thinking of.

3. I think if we're in a trade pact with another country,it's open season - and you don't have to do anything with the government to engage with th foreign supplier.

4. Since Reagan, Thatcher and Mulroney booted up things like the FTA - 30 years.  You are speaking more of political orthodoxy than economic I think but ok.

5. We're not doing it for ideology but for economic benefits.

6. You keep talking about manufacturing.  Kind of like how Trump talked about coal and factories, these jobs are hard to bring back and it may well be impractical.  

7. Sorry but have you looked at the unemployment rate ?  Services are taking over where factory work used to be, and that's due to more money in the economy.  Is the wealth being distributed evenly ?  No, but killing the overall level of wealth won't fix that.

8. Yes.  Was the mask crisis long-lived ?  How much trouble did you have obtaining one ?

9. You keep thinking that jobs were lost - but you mean manufacturing jobs.  Manufacturing was big in the 1970s when we started to lose competitiveness in manufacturing and I think your plan would take us back there.  Meanwhile, the amount of money overall in the system would be reduced and all of the new jobs would suffer IMO.

For that matter, who is going to fund the building of these plants ?  That would be foreign money right ?  Do you think people would invest in a small market that faces limited export prospects ?  

It's a good conversation though, thanks for that.

 

1. Did you purposely leave out the following sentence from my quote?

2. IDK...putting out well fires?

3. Open season?

4. The FTA was not "open season".

5. If you believe that, then I'm sure glad you don't have the power to declare "open season".

6. Impractical? How?

7. Services? We make very little here now. We have created an economy without any realistic base. A house of cards.

8. There was originally a mask shortage, then a vaccine shortage and now a microchip shortage and of course...the self inflicted oil shortage.

9. I disagree. Building back up our manufacturing would make us less dependant of other nations and greatly improve our economy.

I'd rather my tax monies go to building new manufacturing plants, than to these self-destructive green taxes.

[Nationalist]

15 hours ago, Faramir said:

I'm still a free trader at heart but possibly can see see a case for limiting unfair trade agreements.  

And I'm not opposed to international trade. I'm opposed to stupid trade deals that benefit nobody in Canada.