Not to worry. The coming Global Government, implementing the New World Order, will fix everything.
Or not.
"And no one could buy or sell"--------
Canadian Content Blog
Bear with me. One more post:
I have modified the thought experiment that I mentioned earlier:
Close your eyes. Imagine there are huge factories in many states, each of them that are manufacturing these specific items: Conical hats, dhoti, Kimono, Saree, Sarong, Rickshaw (older varieties), tanga, Cart, equipment such as Water wheels, etc.......
So far, so good. Now imagine these factories are located in the West (USA, Germany, etc...), and the goods are in turn supplied to the East. Whatever surplus made from improvements in "Taylorism" can be used to supply the local population (American, German, British...etc...).
RMB 500, Rs. 250....etc are the prices for them too. Very reasonable in "Cart-Mart", "Tanga-Land", "Sashes-R-Us" and "Gimee-Kimono" outlets!
All in favour of "trade" mentioned above, please rise? Are you still with me? Or have I offended every one of you? I am sorry.
1. Those above mentioned items were every bit part of other civilisations' socio-cultural fabric and had enabled them to engage in a quality of life, leisure and enjoyment that the West is now increasingly wanting to escape into.... (Tourism stats, anyone?)
2. In a similar way, other European civilisations invented spinning jennys or some other thing....that we were forced to cram in school as "great inventions to showcase human ingenuity". Lovely; to each their own. So far, still so good.
3. Now take any jaded old colonial diary narrative of the "East"... The "natives/coolies" were invariably described as "lazy", "sleeping in afternoon" "won't work"...etc... Is this a bias in thinking (PWE) that made them mistake, what was actually a life-of-leisure into all those negative epithets?
4. Other civilisations didn't actively force their "ways-of-life" to Europe/USA, or anyone else. India actively traded with China, Cambodia, Malaya, Indonesia, etc.. (by sea too!), but retained their mutual respect for each others' way of life. Chinese didn't wear veshtis, nor did we robes (but "Lungi" became common).
4a. Brief digression: Yes, we had Sati, they had foot binding and the West had Witch trials to keep themselves entertained....
5. So why is it that every other civilisation that does not live like the West is somehow labelled as "deprived", "backward", "non-progressive" and forced to convert into "Mammonism", either by gun boats (previously) or by economic sanctions (lately). Why is it that "North Korea"(*) or for that matter "any other place", is somehow in "deep shit", because they don't "walk like us", "talk like us", "eat/sleep like us"....etc....?
6. What is this fixation about "new markets" with the West, but somehow portrayed as "beneficial to them" all the time? I love the bard when he says: "The lady doth protest too much, methinks"
Yes there are arguably good benefits to trade, but I am not at all in agreement with how it is carried out today. This is skewed beyond all comprehension.
As Ivan Illich writes in "To Hell with good intentions" and Helena Norberg-Hodge also puts the similar thought:
What distinguishes Western culture is that it has grown so widespread and so powerful that it has lost a perspective on itself; there is no “other” with which to compare itself. It is assumed that everyone either is like us or wants to be.
And if you can understand that, then you may understand why Bentonville may be great to some, but forgive the rest if they don't decide to join in with "Ooohs" and "Aaaahs". That iswhy I wanted you to go through that thought experiment, to see how it feels when the shoe is on the other foot
I am sorry, Stephen I am not picking on you (with Korean examples) exclusively here. North Korea are truly the last bastion that is "holding out" against globalisation - I shudder to think how quickly their already precarious lives will plummet at the capitalistic upheaval like in Japan. And I don't think South Koreans themselves think their lives are better. This recent news article published in India about South Korea literally set the blog rooms ablaze about similar complaints of India too (if being chained to your desk, whether you like it or not is not to be considered slavery, what is to be considered as slavery, then?)
I have modified the thought experiment that I mentioned earlier:
Close your eyes. Imagine there are huge factories in many states, each of them that are manufacturing these specific items: Conical hats, dhoti, Kimono, Saree, Sarong, Rickshaw (older varieties), tanga, Cart, equipment such as Water wheels, etc.......
So far, so good. Now imagine these factories are located in the West (USA, Germany, etc...), and the goods are in turn supplied to the East. Whatever surplus made from improvements in "Taylorism" can be used to supply the local population (American, German, British...etc...).
RMB 500, Rs. 250....etc are the prices for them too. Very reasonable in "Cart-Mart", "Tanga-Land", "Sashes-R-Us" and "Gimee-Kimono" outlets!
All in favour of "trade" mentioned above, please rise? Are you still with me? Or have I offended every one of you? I am sorry.
1. Those above mentioned items were every bit part of other civilisations' socio-cultural fabric and had enabled them to engage in a quality of life, leisure and enjoyment that the West is now increasingly wanting to escape into.... (Tourism stats, anyone?)
2. In a similar way, other European civilisations invented spinning jennys or some other thing....that we were forced to cram in school as "great inventions to showcase human ingenuity". Lovely; to each their own. So far, still so good.
3. Now take any jaded old colonial diary narrative of the "East"... The "natives/coolies" were invariably described as "lazy", "sleeping in afternoon" "won't work"...etc... Is this a bias in thinking (PWE) that made them mistake, what was actually a life-of-leisure into all those negative epithets?
4. Other civilisations didn't actively force their "ways-of-life" to Europe/USA, or anyone else. India actively traded with China, Cambodia, Malaya, Indonesia, etc.. (by sea too!), but retained their mutual respect for each others' way of life. Chinese didn't wear veshtis, nor did we robes (but "Lungi" became common).
4a. Brief digression: Yes, we had Sati, they had foot binding and the West had Witch trials to keep themselves entertained....
5. So why is it that every other civilisation that does not live like the West is somehow labelled as "deprived", "backward", "non-progressive" and forced to convert into "Mammonism", either by gun boats (previously) or by economic sanctions (lately). Why is it that "North Korea"(*) or for that matter "any other place", is somehow in "deep shit", because they don't "walk like us", "talk like us", "eat/sleep like us"....etc....?
6. What is this fixation about "new markets" with the West, but somehow portrayed as "beneficial to them" all the time? I love the bard when he says: "The lady doth protest too much, methinks"
Yes there are arguably good benefits to trade, but I am not at all in agreement with how it is carried out today. This is skewed beyond all comprehension.
As Ivan Illich writes in "To Hell with good intentions" and Helena Norberg-Hodge also puts the similar thought:
What distinguishes Western culture is that it has grown so widespread and so powerful that it has lost a perspective on itself; there is no “other” with which to compare itself. It is assumed that everyone either is like us or wants to be.
And if you can understand that, then you may understand why Bentonville may be great to some, but forgive the rest if they don't decide to join in with "Ooohs" and "Aaaahs". That iswhy I wanted you to go through that thought experiment, to see how it feels when the shoe is on the other foot
I am sorry, Stephen I am not picking on you (with Korean examples) exclusively here. North Korea are truly the last bastion that is "holding out" against globalisation - I shudder to think how quickly their already precarious lives will plummet at the capitalistic upheaval like in Japan. And I don't think South Koreans themselves think their lives are better. This recent news article published in India about South Korea literally set the blog rooms ablaze about similar complaints of India too (if being chained to your desk, whether you like it or not is not to be considered slavery, what is to be considered as slavery, then?)
( Biometric ids, anyone?Most likely any World History text book, a lot of US History text books, and even some dim witted HS graduates would show the less than desirable effects of US foreign policy on other countries.
If one wrote "any" actual/factual history it would show heavy handedness on the part of the Western World. I don't think anyone is trying to keep it a secret over time. The USA tested some nukes in the Marshall Islands, then basically bought the Marshall Islands, and moved the population of same here to the USA. Things like that. They fixed it with money. Covered it all up. Kept the pond smooth as possible. That's just one example.
The USA does pretty good on wars, unless we are trying to do them softly, and not upset anyone too much. (Korea and Vietnam) Otherwise we would do a Japan, circa 1945, and get it over with quick. So the USA and her Allies, for various and sundry reasons, does the "egg walk" as well as the heavy handedness. There is lots of internal disagreement on this stuff, big time. The resource rape of third world countries is not about the American or Western people, but the corporations and big money, old money, new money elite.
The West does a lot of good.
The West does a lot of bad.
Foreign policy and trade, the US population leaves to the government, and maybe that is where the problems that surface on this thread come from.
Americans would like to think their country has good intentions overall. Maybe it did once.
If one wrote "any" actual/factual history it would show heavy handedness on the part of the Western World. I don't think anyone is trying to keep it a secret over time. The USA tested some nukes in the Marshall Islands, then basically bought the Marshall Islands, and moved the population of same here to the USA. Things like that. They fixed it with money. Covered it all up. Kept the pond smooth as possible. That's just one example.
The USA does pretty good on wars, unless we are trying to do them softly, and not upset anyone too much. (Korea and Vietnam) Otherwise we would do a Japan, circa 1945, and get it over with quick. So the USA and her Allies, for various and sundry reasons, does the "egg walk" as well as the heavy handedness. There is lots of internal disagreement on this stuff, big time. The resource rape of third world countries is not about the American or Western people, but the corporations and big money, old money, new money elite.
The West does a lot of good.
The West does a lot of bad.
Foreign policy and trade, the US population leaves to the government, and maybe that is where the problems that surface on this thread come from.
Americans would like to think their country has good intentions overall. Maybe it did once.
@forum,
My intention is not to offend or put down. I felt this platform is mature enough for me to put some of my thoughts and to point out how this whole globalisation thing might look viewed from the other side.
Spencer,
Nicely points made there.
> Americans would like to think their country has
> good intentions overall. Maybe it did once.
I agree with that sentiment. At some level, you could say the good intentions still stood when the founding fathers were making impassioned arguments against the crown. Once the decision was made to encroach beyond the 13 colonies, much of the rot we see today set in. Famously called Manifest Destiny too.
Manifest Destiny was the 19th century American belief that the United States (often in the ethnically specific form of the "Anglo-Saxon race") was destined to expand across the North American continent, from the Atlantic Seaboard to the Pacific Ocean.
It has taken subtler forms today, but it has remained very much in the collective conscious of policy-wonks.
Having thought about this thread for some time, I also submit somewhat controversially, that we really don't do trade, but indulge in any one of the following at various points of time even today: Mercantilism, crony capitalism, Kleptocracy or Plutocracy. Sadly, "trade" it its true form stopped with the Silk Route.
And if anyone is interested, I am putting up my thoughts voiced in this thread as a series of posts so I can expand more on some thoughts and make the narrative more coherent.
My intention is not to offend or put down. I felt this platform is mature enough for me to put some of my thoughts and to point out how this whole globalisation thing might look viewed from the other side.
Spencer,
Nicely points made there.
> Americans would like to think their country has
> good intentions overall. Maybe it did once.
I agree with that sentiment. At some level, you could say the good intentions still stood when the founding fathers were making impassioned arguments against the crown. Once the decision was made to encroach beyond the 13 colonies, much of the rot we see today set in. Famously called Manifest Destiny too.
Manifest Destiny was the 19th century American belief that the United States (often in the ethnically specific form of the "Anglo-Saxon race") was destined to expand across the North American continent, from the Atlantic Seaboard to the Pacific Ocean.
It has taken subtler forms today, but it has remained very much in the collective conscious of policy-wonks.
Having thought about this thread for some time, I also submit somewhat controversially, that we really don't do trade, but indulge in any one of the following at various points of time even today: Mercantilism, crony capitalism, Kleptocracy or Plutocracy. Sadly, "trade" it its true form stopped with the Silk Route.
And if anyone is interested, I am putting up my thoughts voiced in this thread as a series of posts so I can expand more on some thoughts and make the narrative more coherent.
@ Surio -- In response to my questioning why you are using a PC made in china, you wrote
"You obviously don't get either irony (or sarcasm) either,"
and
"So, what is the bloody point of my life of moderation if it only fattens someone else, and DOES NOT conserve the portion I decided to give up for our future generations?"
You have an interesting viewpoint there. I would respond by saying that it doesn't matter what your tone of voice is but rather what are your actions. And your actions are inconsistent with your message that trade is unequivocally bad. Or perhaps you actions say we should just do what's best for us individually regardless of the greater impact?
My vegetarian friends who believe eating meat is unethical don't order a hamburger to "stay within the system" because that's all that's on the menu. Jacob espouses cost reduction and isn't secretly buying luxury goods on the side (at least as far as I know). In fact Jacob's message is so strong because he just doesn't talk the talk, but he walk's the walk.
Peace, out.
"You obviously don't get either irony (or sarcasm) either,"
and
"So, what is the bloody point of my life of moderation if it only fattens someone else, and DOES NOT conserve the portion I decided to give up for our future generations?"
You have an interesting viewpoint there. I would respond by saying that it doesn't matter what your tone of voice is but rather what are your actions. And your actions are inconsistent with your message that trade is unequivocally bad. Or perhaps you actions say we should just do what's best for us individually regardless of the greater impact?
My vegetarian friends who believe eating meat is unethical don't order a hamburger to "stay within the system" because that's all that's on the menu. Jacob espouses cost reduction and isn't secretly buying luxury goods on the side (at least as far as I know). In fact Jacob's message is so strong because he just doesn't talk the talk, but he walk's the walk.
Peace, out.
So, brother, you've "Peace, out" on me just like that.
Was it lost on you that I did quote another blog post right below (my remarks you mentioned), on exactly similar thoughts about the pragmatic difficulties of the choices we are forced to make in life? (Why selectively quote me?)
a) I can walk out of systems where there is a choice (vegetarian vs. non-vegetarian).
b) There are some choices I can't walk out of (Electronic machines (all of them Made in China) or switch to an Abacus).
All along, my analogy was aimed at something similar to the "fairtrade movement" of "staying within the system" and "effecting a good change through discussion (debate) and critical mass". Alas, you've totally misunderstood it (and mangled it).
Final comments: I like to point out a small footnote from history in context of your "accusation" of my "hypocrisy"/"inconsistency".
For Mahatma Gandhi, The British Empire was unequivocally bad (read Quit India) and he successfully engineered the independence movement to that effect.
Reading Indian Independence struggle, you will find that "Boycott movement"(*) was a major influence in giving us freedom, as well as inspiring E. F. Schumacher in his rejection of Keynes and embracing "Self Sufficiency" mantra.
(*) Involved boycotting British products and the revival of domestic-made products and production techniques.
Here's paradox no. 1:
----------------------
But the protests themselves, namely, the planning, mobilisation and the logistics of this protest depended on the
a) telegraph,
b) telephone,
c) printing press (to spread Gandhi's impassioned pleas),
d) Railways and automobiles.
All of these being "British Products" of course.
Paradox no. 2:
--------------
Gandhi, despite being the apostle of modern "ahimsa", actually canvassed for Indian troops to help the British during World War I.
He could see (and so can I) why there was no escaping some of those actions he took. And so, it was taken, even though it looked inconsistent from the larger statement that was made(*). The British (perhaps, you) couldn't see it, but it certainly does not make him a hypocrite. If you think he was being a hypocrite, then I too am proud to be a hypocrite.
(*) Those "compromises/inconsistencies" really hastened the process of India gaining Independence from the crown (If in doubt, please check the Independence dates of all the other Asian "colonies", as well as the African "colonies" also)
P.S: It may not be obvious to you how his "hypocrisy" helped, so:
P1. E.g., Speed of Message Runners/Pigeons vs. telegraph. No contest. This made possible to organise several protests simultaneously, and made the movement to reach critical-mass than other movements elsewhere
P2. Secured a LOT of goodwill for Gandhi and his cause among the grateful British public, due to his war support. This put the Crown in a real tight spot. They couldn't justify why Mr. Gandhi (that "half-naked fakir", as per Churchill) was the "bad guy".
Peace to you too, brother. I too have nothing more to say.
Was it lost on you that I did quote another blog post right below (my remarks you mentioned), on exactly similar thoughts about the pragmatic difficulties of the choices we are forced to make in life? (Why selectively quote me?)
a) I can walk out of systems where there is a choice (vegetarian vs. non-vegetarian).
b) There are some choices I can't walk out of (Electronic machines (all of them Made in China) or switch to an Abacus).
All along, my analogy was aimed at something similar to the "fairtrade movement" of "staying within the system" and "effecting a good change through discussion (debate) and critical mass". Alas, you've totally misunderstood it (and mangled it).
Final comments: I like to point out a small footnote from history in context of your "accusation" of my "hypocrisy"/"inconsistency".
For Mahatma Gandhi, The British Empire was unequivocally bad (read Quit India) and he successfully engineered the independence movement to that effect.
Reading Indian Independence struggle, you will find that "Boycott movement"(*) was a major influence in giving us freedom, as well as inspiring E. F. Schumacher in his rejection of Keynes and embracing "Self Sufficiency" mantra.
(*) Involved boycotting British products and the revival of domestic-made products and production techniques.
Here's paradox no. 1:
----------------------
But the protests themselves, namely, the planning, mobilisation and the logistics of this protest depended on the
a) telegraph,
b) telephone,
c) printing press (to spread Gandhi's impassioned pleas),
d) Railways and automobiles.
All of these being "British Products" of course.
Paradox no. 2:
--------------
Gandhi, despite being the apostle of modern "ahimsa", actually canvassed for Indian troops to help the British during World War I.
He could see (and so can I) why there was no escaping some of those actions he took. And so, it was taken, even though it looked inconsistent from the larger statement that was made(*). The British (perhaps, you) couldn't see it, but it certainly does not make him a hypocrite. If you think he was being a hypocrite, then I too am proud to be a hypocrite.
(*) Those "compromises/inconsistencies" really hastened the process of India gaining Independence from the crown (If in doubt, please check the Independence dates of all the other Asian "colonies", as well as the African "colonies" also)
P.S: It may not be obvious to you how his "hypocrisy" helped, so:
P1. E.g., Speed of Message Runners/Pigeons vs. telegraph. No contest. This made possible to organise several protests simultaneously, and made the movement to reach critical-mass than other movements elsewhere
P2. Secured a LOT of goodwill for Gandhi and his cause among the grateful British public, due to his war support. This put the Crown in a real tight spot. They couldn't justify why Mr. Gandhi (that "half-naked fakir", as per Churchill) was the "bad guy".
Peace to you too, brother. I too have nothing more to say.
-
Plain_simple
- Posts: 15
- Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 5:17 am
FWIW,
there's a news article on Sunday papers here tied to my post on trade damages:
National Bureau of Economic Research, US, shows how there are substantial economic incentives for firms to lobby for coups and covert operations.
They have analysed the stock price movement of highly exposed companies in countries where the coup took place. To their surprise, they found stock price gains were three times larger at the time of the coup authorisation rather than during or after the coup. Clearly, there were information leaks.
"We find that private information regarding coup authorisations and planning increased the stock prices of expropriated multinationals that stood to benefit from the regime change. The presence of these abnormal returns suggests that there were leaks of classified information to asset traders," say the authors.
In fact, the authors conclude that protecting foreign investments could be a motivation for undertaking regime change.
Is any multinational corporation benefitting from the Jasmine Revolution in Tunisia and the overthrow of Hosni Mubarak's regime in Egypt?
I feel somewhat vindicated about my own posts now with this article, and the fact that there are people still focussing on such matters.
If nothing else, there's the incentive for all of us, to trade locally and why it is better to buy locally
there's a news article on Sunday papers here tied to my post on trade damages:
National Bureau of Economic Research, US, shows how there are substantial economic incentives for firms to lobby for coups and covert operations.
They have analysed the stock price movement of highly exposed companies in countries where the coup took place. To their surprise, they found stock price gains were three times larger at the time of the coup authorisation rather than during or after the coup. Clearly, there were information leaks.
"We find that private information regarding coup authorisations and planning increased the stock prices of expropriated multinationals that stood to benefit from the regime change. The presence of these abnormal returns suggests that there were leaks of classified information to asset traders," say the authors.
In fact, the authors conclude that protecting foreign investments could be a motivation for undertaking regime change.
Is any multinational corporation benefitting from the Jasmine Revolution in Tunisia and the overthrow of Hosni Mubarak's regime in Egypt?
I feel somewhat vindicated about my own posts now with this article, and the fact that there are people still focussing on such matters.
If nothing else, there's the incentive for all of us, to trade locally and why it is better to buy locally