Globalism

[Alceste]

It shows that nuclear is a workable stop gap until renewables. When you consider that no real exploration for uranium has been done for over a decade, then nuclear is certainly in the picture to take over from oil should renewables need a little more time.

That's great news for turning our lights on and off, but what about agriculture and shipping, the two most intensively oil-thirsty industries in the world?

Without these two industries functioning at current capacity or higher, and at current cost or lower, our global food supply chain will very quickly collapse.

But at least we won't have to starve in the dark!

 

[themadhair]

That's great news for turning our lights on and off, but what about agriculture and shipping, the two most intensively oil-thirsty industries in the world?

Since this applies to renewables just as much, wouldn't this be a red herring?

 

[Alceste]

Since this applies to renewables just as much, wouldn't this be a red herring?

Can you elaborate? Which "renewables" are you talking about?

If nuclear power is being proposed as a "replacement" for fossil fuels, even in the short term, IMO the discussion of major industries that are totally dependent on fossil fuels and can not use nuclear energy to fulfil their business needs is completely relevant.

 

[themadhair]

Can you elaborate? Which "renewables" are you talking about?

Solar, wind, tidal, etc., pretty much the whole shebang.

If nuclear power is being proposed as a "replacement" for fossil fuels,

We will have to move at some stage, the sooner the better given AGW.

IMO the discussion of major industries that are totally dependent on fossil fuels and can not use nuclear energy to fulfil their business needs is completely relevant.

Only if you want to be narky. Technologies change all the time, and any change will be gradualistic. The change will have to be made eventually, and to imply that proposing any such change would disenfranchise entire industries is a little bit disingenuous is it not?

 

[Alceste]

Solar, wind, tidal, etc., pretty much the whole shebang.

Which of these can replace the industrial fertilizer and transportation fuel necessary to maintain current levels of food production?
.

Only if you want to be narky. Technologies change all the time, and any change will be gradualistic. The change will have to be made eventually, and to imply that proposing any such change would disenfranchise entire industries is a little bit disingenuous is it not?

Well, one man's "narky" is another man's "observant". The "green revolution" of the 60s was mainly the result of synthetic fertilizers, which make up a third of all oil used in food production - the highest oil consuming industry on earth. Without oil, food production can be reasonably expected to drop back to pre-fertilizer levels (i.e. halved), giving us less food per acre even as the world's population is increasing.

I'm not concerned about which technology allows me to tap out my nonsense on the internet - I am concerned about the technology that allows me and my neighbours to feed ourselves. We can live - even quite comfortably - without most of the superfluous luxuries cheap energy has afforded us, but we can not live without food.

 

[themadhair]

Which of these can replace the industrial fertilizer and transportation fuel necessary to maintain current levels of food production?

All of them really. Energy is energy. Don’t know why you stick fertiliser in there since it can be produced easily with other non-oil sources of energy. The transition is a question of when not if.

Without oil, food production can be reasonably expected to drop back to pre-fertilizer levels (i.e. halved), giving us less food per acre even as the world's population is increasing.

Do you seriously think oil will be removed before a viable alternative is available or do you just like pointless arguments?

 

[Alceste]

All of them really. Energy is energy. Don’t know why you stick fertiliser in there since it can be produced easily with other non-oil sources of energy. The transition is a question of when not if.

Nitrogen fertilizer is produced by affixing nitrogen to a petro-chemical base - an extremely cheap and efficient method with which good old-fashioned poop can not possibly compete. What alternative fertilizer are you thinking of?

Do you seriously think oil will be removed before a viable alternative is available or do you just like pointless arguments?

Yes, I do think so, but I wouldn't put it so simplistically. Oil prices will begin to steadily increase while more and more land is devoted to biofuel production, which will kill the already tiny profit margins of food producers and cause massive hikes in the price of food. The price of nitrogen fertilizer will become unsustainable, and the calories-per-acre will decline to pretty much where they sat before the invention of this technology, which will cause prices to increase even higher, which will result in famine, civil unrest and chaos, especially in the poorest countries in the world.

We already got a sneak preview of this inevitable future in 07-08. I don't understand the reasoning behind your skepticism.

 

[Neo-Logic]

For the United States:

Globalism will act as a form of norm entrepreneur spreading western universalism into non-western countries and other developing nations. This will come as an direct and indirect byproduct of capitalism spreading into other markets. This will have the positive effect on US economy and reducing likelihood of armed conflicts as our economies and other economies become more economically interdependent. The negative side effect will be perpetuating the anti-American sentiments already present and harbored in many fringe and conservative groups of these countries that sees our spread of capitalism and norms as destroying their own values, cultures, and perhaps religious fundamentalism. This will allow leaders of terrorist and other non-state actors to recruit the lower economic end of the chain from various countries, usually theocratic or lacking a stable government in order to recruit and indoctrinate terrorist ideals.

 

[zenzero]

Friend Alceste,

Yeah, trouble. Famine, specifically, as a result of global warming and fossil fuel depletion. IMO, one can recognize the imminence of tremendous human suffering without losing sight of the ultimate perfection of the universe as a whole.

These are part of evolution which considers humans to be just another form which has to appear and disappear as nothing is permanent.
Most of the so called troubles are due to desires which has roots in the MIND.
So for that *Desirelessness* needs to be achieved to have that peace of mind.
Love & rgds

 

[sandy whitelinger]

And sticking the poor and starving into privately owned workhouses wasn't "relative exploitation" when compared to outright slavery. What's your point?

Who's doing that?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

For the United States:

Globalism will act as a form of norm entrepreneur spreading western universalism into non-western countries and other developing nations. This will come as an direct and indirect byproduct of capitalism spreading into other markets. This will have the positive effect on US economy and reducing likelihood of armed conflicts as our economies and other economies become more economically interdependent.

And why isn't this just another form of colonialism?

The negative side effect will be perpetuating the anti-American sentiments already present and harbored in many fringe and conservative groups of these countries that sees our spread of capitalism and norms as destroying their own values, cultures, and perhaps religious fundamentalism. This will allow leaders of terrorist and other non-state actors to recruit the lower economic end of the chain from various countries, usually theocratic or lacking a stable government in order to recruit and indoctrinate terrorist ideals.

Is this assuming that the terroist nations will not be part of globalism? Will these nations abstain from say, global currency, or a world judicial system?

 

[Alceste]

Who's doing that?

Workhouses for the poor were a feature of Victorian England at the same time slavery was a feature of the US. One is more exploitative than the other, but both are recalled with horror by the more enlightened individuals of today.

My point is that comparing Nike's treatment of their third world employees to how these same employees would have done (for example) living off garbage dump pickings is silly. Our business practices are exploitative. It doesn't matter if other ways of doing things (i.e. good old fashioned slavery) were MORE exploitative. It doesn't make our own business practices LESS exploitative. Our trade policies are inexcusably unethical, period.

When comparing a pound and a half of crap to two pounds of crap, a sane man concludes that both are crappy.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Globalisation is polarising the rich and poor of the world.It is dividing folks along an axis of class and economic inequality, axis of religious beliefs and culture moras. Today more then ever there is a gap between the poor that labour and the rich who accumulate wealth without labour, this gap has never been bigger. The gap between the have’s and have not’s is creating an ecological and social disaster.

United Nations Development Program Report, which showed the distribution of global income to be very uneven.
Quintile of Population Income

Quintile of Population -Income

Richest 20% - 82.7%
Second 20% - 11.7%
Third 20% - 2.3%
Fourth 20% - 1.4%
Poorest 20% - 1.1%


I think its clear that it is the rich who benifit from Globalisation.

 

[Neo-Logic]

And why isn't this just another form of colonialism?

I think you misunderstand the fundamentals of what constitutes colonialism. It's not just the exertion of economic or military force - colonialism requires the direct and unequivocal control of the subject being colonized through economic or military means. Colonialism is a tool of imperialism.

I think what you mean to ask is why isn't this another form of imperialism - in which case the response would be that it is not imperialism because it doesn't exactly force hegemony in either economic or military terms. Meaning, while all of us, especially U.S, exerts a certain amount of economic influence through trade in globalism, very few cases occur where that nature of trade forces that hegemony of our capitalistic system or norms to completely change the status quo of the other nation(s).

Is this assuming that the terroist nations will not be part of globalism? Will these nations abstain from say, global currency, or a world judicial system?

Terrorists are by definition, not a nation. They are a non-state actor. Nations that either harbor terrorists or where terrorists reside of course, can and does partake in globalism. Few countries do not. And the idea of "world judicial system" is at best a dream.

Could you clarify your point?

 

[Neo-Logic]

Globalisation is polarising the rich and poor of the world.It is dividing folks along an axis of class and economic inequality, axis of religious beliefs and culture moras. Today more then ever there is a gap between the poor that labour and the rich who accumulate wealth without labour, this gap has never been bigger. The gap between the have’s and have not’s is creating an ecological and social disaster.

United Nations Development Program Report, which showed the distribution of global income to be very uneven.
Quintile of Population Income

Quintile of Population -Income

Richest 20% - 82.7%
Second 20% - 11.7%
Third 20% - 2.3%
Fourth 20% - 1.4%
Poorest 20% - 1.1%


I think its clear that it is the rich who benifit from Globalisation.

I think there are a lot of misnomers and bad rational in your pessimistic outlook of globalization. Hasn't it always been the case that the rich are rich and poor are poor? This is the very nature of the world in specific states - let alone, the entire world.

I think it's invalid to use the 'world average of incomes' as proof of economic disparity to arrive at the conclusion that globalism will perpetuate this concept. There are more than 200 states that have varying levels of wealth intrastate and relatively to the other states. Averaging it does not serve any purpose other than to say the world has many countries which are different, through course of history and history's events.

Globalism through trade makes every country a little bit richer and brings everyone up to a certain level. It helps less wealthy countries to gain access and participate in international trade that brings up its standards of living.

Look at China, India, Singapore, many South American countries, and loads of examples around the world where standards of living has improved. The average distribution of 'ANYTHING' worldwide is a crap of a data because of countries in Africa that have been suffering long wars and instability that has existed long before the term globalization was even coined.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Workhouses for the poor were a feature of Victorian England at the same time slavery was a feature of the US. One is more exploitative than the other, but both are recalled with horror by the more enlightened individuals of today.

My point is that comparing Nike's treatment of their third world employees to how these same employees would have done (for example) living off garbage dump pickings is silly. Our business practices are exploitative. It doesn't matter if other ways of doing things (i.e. good old fashioned slavery) were MORE exploitative. It doesn't make our own business practices LESS exploitative. Our trade policies are inexcusably unethical, period.

When comparing a pound and a half of crap to two pounds of crap, a sane man concludes that both are crappy.

Oh, I thought you might be citing something a little more modern. So back on topic (sortof) how is increasing someone's average annual income 100 fold and raising their standard of living to the higher extreme of their culture exploitive? Take for example the Mexicans who come here illegally of their own free will in order to take the jobs that Americans think are too cheap. Is that exploitive?

 

[Alceste]

Oh, I thought you might be citing something a little more modern. So back on topic (sortof) how is increasing someone's average annual income 100 fold and raising their standard of living to the higher extreme of their culture exploitive? Take for example the Mexicans who come here illegally of their own free will in order to take the jobs that Americans think are too cheap. Is that exploitive?

That's a different topic. Practices that are exploitative are exploitative (i.e. child labour, anti-union policies, anti-minimum wage policies, lack of workplace safety, environmental recklessness, chaining workers to desks, taking advantage of regional crises to force economic policies favorable to US investors, etc). Practices that are not exploitative (paying a living wage for a reasonable amount of work in a safe environment at a suitable age) are not.

You can sit here all day and go "What about this? Is THIS exploitative?" and I can sit here and repeat myself but it's going to get boring pretty quick. I'm quite sure you can figure out for yourself what is or is not exploitative. All you need is a dictionary:

ex·ploit (ěk'sploit', ĭk-sploit')
n. An act or deed, especially a brilliant or heroic one. See Synonyms at feat1.
tr.v. (ĭk-sploit', ěk'sploit') ex·ploit·ed, ex·ploit·ing, ex·ploits

1. To employ to the greatest possible advantage: exploit one's talents.
2. To make use of selfishly or unethically: a country that exploited peasant labor. See Synonyms at manipulate.
3. To advertise; promote.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

I think there are a lot of misnomers and bad rational in your pessimistic outlook of globalization. Hasn't it always been the case that the rich are rich and poor are poor? This is the very nature of the world in specific states - let alone, the entire world.

Yes but its getting worse.
The global economy has grown sevenfold since 1950. Meanwhile, the disparity in per capita gross domestic product between the 20 richest and 20 poorest nations more than doubled between 1960 and 1995.

I
Globalism through trade makes every country a little bit richer and brings everyone up to a certain level. It helps less wealthy countries to gain access and participate in international trade that brings up its standards of living.

It is just false to believe that this helps the poor. A few join the middle class but most don't. Read this

The gap between rich and poor in China and other Asian countries is growing, hurting anti-poverty efforts and possibly fueling unrest, the Asian Development Bank said in a report on Wednesday.


The growing wealth gap is a byproduct of globalisation, which has brought higher incomes to urban, skilled, English-speaking workers in China, India and other countries, the bank's report said.

China has had Asia's second-biggest and second-fastest-growing wealth gap since the 1990s, exceeded only by war-wracked Nepal on both counts, the bank said in an annual survey.

China has seen thousands of protests in recent years, some of them violent, over land seizures and other economic grievances blamed on the growing gap. The communist government has made improving incomes for the poor a priority, warning last year that inequality has reached "alarming and unacceptable" levels.

Associated Press
Posted online: Wednesday, August 08, 2007

I have a ton of info on the bad behavior of the world bank, WTO, and multi national corporations but I am short on time. I will provide the information later.

 

[Neo-Logic]

Globalism didn't cause the problems in China, they're stemming from a long and pre-existing set of conditions that circumscribes its present situation. Their system of government is having an internal clash between their socialist stance versus the capitalist norms that the globalized trade is bringing to their door steps. Their own system of inefficiencies in governance are what's causing their divide. On the other hand, the benefits that China enjoys, both as a nation, and of all the people that benefited - and it would be wrong to say that only 'a few' joined middle class - are due to the globalized trade that it's partaking in. China's income per capita has shot up, purchase power for the people has risen, and of course when you look at a country that has a huge population base, it would be easy to point out the divide, but the baseline in standards of living has been steadily improving.

Imagine where China would be without globalization.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Globalism didn't cause the problems in China, they're stemming from a long and pre-existing set of conditions that circumscribes its present situation. Their system of government is having an internal clash between their socialist stance versus the capitalist norms that the globalized trade is bringing to their door steps. Their own system of inefficiencies in governance are what's causing their divide. On the other hand, the benefits that China enjoys, both as a nation, and of all the people that benefited - and it would be wrong to say that only 'a few' joined middle class - are due to the globalized trade that it's partaking in. China's income per capita has shot up, purchase power for the people has risen, and of course when you look at a country that has a huge population base, it would be easy to point out the divide, but the baseline in standards of living has been steadily improving.

Imagine where China would be without globalization.

Once more the middle and upper classes are doing well, their wealth is on the increase. The poor are not.

SUN WUKONG
And the poor get poorer
By Wu Zhong, China Editor

HONG KONG - China's wealth gap, which has been expanding tremendously in the 30 years since the country turned towards a capitalist-style economy
, is showing little signs of diminishing even as growth slows.

The number of people worth more than 10 million yuan (US$1.4 million) is expected to jump to 320,000 this year from an estimated 300,000 as of the end of 2008, according to a survey by China Merchants Bank and multinational consultancy Bain & Company.

At the other end of the wealth scale, more than 40 million farmers survived on 1,196 yuan or less last year, government figures

Asia Times Online :: China News, China Business News, Taiwan and Hong Kong News and Business.

It seems you do not care for the well being of the poor only the middle and upper class. It most be remembered that it was socialism that put an end to hunger in china. ( Not that I like communism )