There's also no reason you can't have borders indefinitely. Open borders have the draw backs of depressing wages. In an era where income-inequality is one of the top issues in the political debate, this is an area that's a non-starter until it can be done in a way that won't exacerbate said issue.
Yes I have. Third-world Asian countries have been doing great.
> Why do you think that everyday more people is against globalization and they are becoming more nationalist? something in the milk?
So you're saying the vast majority of the world, which are currently benefitting from massive incomes due to globalization, is against it?
You should tell the billions of people across the developing world that. I'm sure the average Bangladeshi, who had their incomes go up by 5x over the last 20 years, is going to appreciate you telling them that globalization is a bad thing.
I'm not saying they shouldn't get improvements, quite the opposite, I'm saying that we should be able to do better and without reducing the quality of life in countries where capital formation is already developed.
"Countries that trade with each other don't go to war against each other."
This is from 'Global Capitalism: Its Fall and Rise in the Twentieth Century' by Jeffry A. Frieden :
'In 1900 international trade reached unprecedented levels and the world's economies were more open to one another than ever before. Then as now, many people considered globalization to be inevitable and irreversible. Yet the entire edifice collapsed in a few months in 1914'.
I recommend this book to however think, as I did before, that globalization is a new thing.
I don't know if you are joking but too much globalism got us here in the first place. You think from where China got all it's money and started being competition in global market to more tech advanced products? Globalism was a way for big corporations to make more profit thanks to cheap workforce and it was great, so much benefits for both sides until it wasn't. In USA-China trade there is a lot more money going out of USA, around ~400 billions (if I recall correctly) more going to China.
You know what would happen if markets in EU would be flood by cheap african food and products without any regulation? When 500 million people from Africa would suddenly moved to EU? This would be great for Africa but disaster for EU. Sad truth is that we live in a world with limited wealth, if you want to give it to someone then you need to take it from someone else. You think that EU is giving billions of euro to Erdogan to keep immigrants out of EU because they want to get rid of the borders and welcome them in? We want to keep our way of live for us and for our children, we are selfish, we give sometimes some money to poor to satisfy our conscience. This is sad, unspoken and not politically correct truth.
There needs to be balance in everything, in globalisation also. There is no one golden solution for everything but radicalism in either way is not good.
If you have zero understanding of current French politics like me, John Oliver's free show on YouTube has an excellent breakdown of why this is so important. All the candidates have some serious cons, but the frontrunner for the nationalist party is pretty sketch and her father (party's founder I believe) has openly denied the holocaust I believe. Disclaimer: I know pretty much nothing and am not French.
For all the faults Le Pen has, it's not fair to smear her with her father's views. She distanced herself from him and expelled him from the National Front.
Nationalist party "Front National" is led by Marine Le Pen MLP. Her father, Jean-Marie Le Pen is a pretty despicable person altogether. You could measure Trump's worthlessness in microlepen. His ex-wive explained some sad truth about his behavior, his lies, his innate racism; and that's not even talking about the concentration camps comments. Front National has tried to clean his act for years since MLP took direction of the party, but the devious roots are still there, many of the core members are enjoying the father's racist sense of humor in private. That's just a start.
Today's 34.5% Le Pen vote is very very bad news, her campaigning was atrocious I believe she did not really want victory.
John Oliver's segment was good, but to understand what comes next I recommend you check out the widening gap between the yields on French and German sovereign, albeit both euro-denominated, bonds: a 20%-25% implicit devaluation of a Le-Pen minted New-Franc stares back. Unless Macron agressively addresses the underlying competitivity issues, which I wonder if he can because the French suck at understanding economics, I cannot ser how the Front National could lose it in 2022.
Today's 34.5% Le Pen vote is very very bad news, her campaigning was atrocious I believe she did not really want victory.
John Oliver's segment was good, but to understand what comes next I recommend you check out the widening gap between the yields on French and German sovereign, albeit both euro-denominated, bonds: a 20%-25% implicit devaluation of a Le-Pen minted New-Franc stares back. Unless Macron agressively addresses the underlying competitivity issues, which I wonder if he can because the French suck at understanding economics, I cannot ser how the Front National could lose it in 2022.
Just a bit of history of french politics since WW2:
After 1945, the IV Republique is created, it's a parliamentarian regime, with a strong left side. Long story short, the decolonization in Algeria is a mess, the socialist government sends conscripts (which was seen as a betrayal at the time), there are rumors of military coups, and, in 1958, Charles De Gaulle steps in.
De Gaulle and his political allies create a new Republic, the V (the current one), with a really strong president/government. This constitution was pretty much tailor-made for De Gaulle, and, now days, it raises some issues:
* Some dangerous articles, like Article 16, where the president can basically be a dictator for 30 days if the Nation is in danger.
* All executive and most of the legislative power concentrated in the hand of the President/Government, the parliament can be bypassed using the Article 49.3.
* Lack of political diversity, with the major parties over-represented (ex: the FN, ~20% of voters, only 2 of the 577 members of parliament).
Back to history, from 1958 to 1974, De Gaulle/Pompidou, not a lot of opposition (except May 68 events, but it didn't translate into political changes, at least immediately).
From 1974 to 2002, it's a classic right/left opposition with two main parties, and a few smaller ones which were absorbed or lost influence over this period:
* The Socialist Party (PS).
* The conservative Party (RPR, then UMP, then LR, it renames itself a few times).
* The main smaller parties were UDF (Liberal Right) and the PCF (communist party).
The Jean-Marie Le Pen's Front National (FN) also grew in that period, from less than 1% of voters in 1974 to 15% of voters.
* 1981 -> 1995: Mitterand (Socialist, with a shift to Social Liberalism in ~1983).
* 1995 -> 2002: Chirac (Conservative Right).
With "Cohabitations" during Mitterand and Chirac terms (if the parliament has a majority belonging to the opposite side of the President, the President is forced to have a prime minister from this side, the prime minister is the de-facto new head of state in that situation).
Then came the 2002 election, lot of fragmentation of votes between candidates from the left resulting in Jean-Marie Le Pen being present at the second turn of the election against Jacques Chirac (RPR/UMP). At the time, this was seen as an accident, and Chirac was elected with 82% of votes (with Socialist votes), Jean-Marie Le Pen gaining no votes between the two turns (side note: Jean-Marie Le Pen is Marine Le Pen's father).
In 2007, Sarkozy (UMP) is elected, using some Front National and Jean-Marie Le Pen ideas in his program (National Identity, anti-immigration stance), resulting in the FN losing 1/3 of its votes from 2002.
His presidency is littered with political scandals: small stuff like injures ("Casse-toi pov' con"), not so subtle ways to celebrate his election (Diner at the Fouquet's, holidays spent on billionaire Bollore's yatch), and a lot of political affairs and meddling with the judiciary system (Affaire Bettancourt, Gaddafi financing his 2007 campaign, affaire Paul Bismuth, affaire Tapie and affaire Bygmalion (for his 2012 failed reelection)).
In 2012, people are tired of Sarkozy, and the 2008 crisis/Euro crisis is a big concern. Francois Hollande is elected with a seemingly strong stance against the Finance world ("Mon ennemie, c'est la finance"), and a lot of promises for better regulations of banks and financial institutions.
In practice he didn't put his promises in action, and lead liberal policies (tax exemption for companies (CICE), lower social protection (loi El Khomri, loi Macron), he even uses some FN ideas like "forfeiture of nationality", his party was divided between its left and its right wing, and there were some scandals again (affaire Cahuzac). His policies didn...
Not exactly a surprise, if the polls were wrong this time, they'd have needed to be off by nearly ~15 points in both directions. This is the first big win neo-liberalism has had in a short-while. Time will tell if it was due to Macron being a good candidate or Marie-la-penn (sp?) turning people off.
> This is the first big win neo-liberalism has had in a short-while.
IIRC the liberal party just came out first in the dutch elections a couple of months ago (ahead of the local nationalists) so I'd say this is at least the second.
Relieved to see Le Pen not getting elected. But don't see how an establishment candidate like Macron will deliver for the people. Capitalising on that frustration, again, FN will come back for the 2022 election stronger, leaving only someone like Melenchon calable of defeating them.
Wouldn't the establishment candidate have been a member of either the Republican or Socialist party? I do not see how you can call Macron a member of the establishment except insofar as he is educated and successful.
Macron was working in a Rothschild owned bank, in the president Hollande's administration, and also was a ministry in Socialists government - he's really well connected to the establishment.
Right but my point is that if you preemptively disqualify everybody that held high positions in industry or government, who's left to rule the country? Idiots like Le Pen.
Trapped by its own bureaucratic institutions, the EU is incapable of solving its two key problem areas: Immigration thru the asylum system and handling of the economic depression in southern europe caused by economic policies set by the EU.
FYI, Spain just had +0.8% GDP growth on the last quarter, +3% YoY.
Italy OTOH had about 0.9% in the last year, even if it got a lot of flexibility from the EU.
The EU might have screwed up Greece, but "depression in southern europe caused by EU policies" is not a thing, each souther european state has had drastically different developments.
This is a huge win for global order. Had France elected Le Pen, the EU would likely have collapsed. The next important election is the German election, which appears to be leaning more liberal than those in the US, Britain, and France. So long as Germany elects liberal or moderate conservative, the EU will stick around. This will make greater tensions over Brexit, and give the rest of Europe greater leverage in the negotiations.
It seems to me that many of the current (reasonable) arguments for nationalism and ending globalism stem from the belief that Westphalian principles still apply just as strongly now as they did in in the 1960s. If this were true, it would make sense for China, Russia, and the US to look inward, and all compete independently to become the global hegemon. However, in a political climate governed by instantaneous information transfer and diminishing privacy, global order becomes something different. People paying attention have much more information than they used to, and this makes the peoples' relationship to their government different - namely, it diminishes the need for trust. In such a system, why should officials need to negotiate on behalf of the interests of people? There do still exist circumstances in which this is necessary, but broadly, there is probably more cultural commonality between Hong Kong and New York than New York and Wichita. And more interestingly, there is probably more in common between Elko NV and Kalgoorlie/Boulder Australia, than Kalgoorlie/Boulder and Sydney or Elko and San Francisco.
How does global order change to cater to this paradigm?
44 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 115 ms ] threadUS politics are way more interesting for the rest of the world.
What? You thought we globalist were going to stop at 50 states?
There's no fundamental reason we can't get rid of borders and open the world up to free movement and trade.
Countries that trade with each other don't go to war against each other.
Here, I fixed your mistaken statement for you.
If you want to make money, you better make sure the people you are trading with are also rich.
Open borders are a good way to do that.
Why do you think that everyday more people is against globalization and they are becoming more nationalist? something in the milk?
Yes I have. Third-world Asian countries have been doing great.
> Why do you think that everyday more people is against globalization and they are becoming more nationalist? something in the milk?
So you're saying the vast majority of the world, which are currently benefitting from massive incomes due to globalization, is against it?
You should tell the billions of people across the developing world that. I'm sure the average Bangladeshi, who had their incomes go up by 5x over the last 20 years, is going to appreciate you telling them that globalization is a bad thing.
After all, Bangladesh it's [not so impressive](https://www.google.es/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&m...)
And I'm not sure neither about the [5x over thing](https://www.google.es/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&m...)
This is from 'Global Capitalism: Its Fall and Rise in the Twentieth Century' by Jeffry A. Frieden :
'In 1900 international trade reached unprecedented levels and the world's economies were more open to one another than ever before. Then as now, many people considered globalization to be inevitable and irreversible. Yet the entire edifice collapsed in a few months in 1914'.
I recommend this book to however think, as I did before, that globalization is a new thing.
I would say those are the goals of any humanist. The EU is a step in that direction, unfortunately finding difficulties at the moment.
You know what would happen if markets in EU would be flood by cheap african food and products without any regulation? When 500 million people from Africa would suddenly moved to EU? This would be great for Africa but disaster for EU. Sad truth is that we live in a world with limited wealth, if you want to give it to someone then you need to take it from someone else. You think that EU is giving billions of euro to Erdogan to keep immigrants out of EU because they want to get rid of the borders and welcome them in? We want to keep our way of live for us and for our children, we are selfish, we give sometimes some money to poor to satisfy our conscience. This is sad, unspoken and not politically correct truth.
There needs to be balance in everything, in globalisation also. There is no one golden solution for everything but radicalism in either way is not good.
I mean, she literally got him expelled from the party for that (although, arguably, as part a power struggle).
After 1945, the IV Republique is created, it's a parliamentarian regime, with a strong left side. Long story short, the decolonization in Algeria is a mess, the socialist government sends conscripts (which was seen as a betrayal at the time), there are rumors of military coups, and, in 1958, Charles De Gaulle steps in.
De Gaulle and his political allies create a new Republic, the V (the current one), with a really strong president/government. This constitution was pretty much tailor-made for De Gaulle, and, now days, it raises some issues:
* Some dangerous articles, like Article 16, where the president can basically be a dictator for 30 days if the Nation is in danger.
* All executive and most of the legislative power concentrated in the hand of the President/Government, the parliament can be bypassed using the Article 49.3.
* Lack of political diversity, with the major parties over-represented (ex: the FN, ~20% of voters, only 2 of the 577 members of parliament).
Back to history, from 1958 to 1974, De Gaulle/Pompidou, not a lot of opposition (except May 68 events, but it didn't translate into political changes, at least immediately).
From 1974 to 2002, it's a classic right/left opposition with two main parties, and a few smaller ones which were absorbed or lost influence over this period:
* The Socialist Party (PS).
* The conservative Party (RPR, then UMP, then LR, it renames itself a few times).
* The main smaller parties were UDF (Liberal Right) and the PCF (communist party).
The Jean-Marie Le Pen's Front National (FN) also grew in that period, from less than 1% of voters in 1974 to 15% of voters.
The timeline is:
* 1974 -> 1981: Giscard D'Estaing (Liberal Right, somewhat comparable to Macron actually).
* 1981 -> 1995: Mitterand (Socialist, with a shift to Social Liberalism in ~1983).
* 1995 -> 2002: Chirac (Conservative Right).
With "Cohabitations" during Mitterand and Chirac terms (if the parliament has a majority belonging to the opposite side of the President, the President is forced to have a prime minister from this side, the prime minister is the de-facto new head of state in that situation).
Then came the 2002 election, lot of fragmentation of votes between candidates from the left resulting in Jean-Marie Le Pen being present at the second turn of the election against Jacques Chirac (RPR/UMP). At the time, this was seen as an accident, and Chirac was elected with 82% of votes (with Socialist votes), Jean-Marie Le Pen gaining no votes between the two turns (side note: Jean-Marie Le Pen is Marine Le Pen's father).
In 2007, Sarkozy (UMP) is elected, using some Front National and Jean-Marie Le Pen ideas in his program (National Identity, anti-immigration stance), resulting in the FN losing 1/3 of its votes from 2002. His presidency is littered with political scandals: small stuff like injures ("Casse-toi pov' con"), not so subtle ways to celebrate his election (Diner at the Fouquet's, holidays spent on billionaire Bollore's yatch), and a lot of political affairs and meddling with the judiciary system (Affaire Bettancourt, Gaddafi financing his 2007 campaign, affaire Paul Bismuth, affaire Tapie and affaire Bygmalion (for his 2012 failed reelection)).
In 2012, people are tired of Sarkozy, and the 2008 crisis/Euro crisis is a big concern. Francois Hollande is elected with a seemingly strong stance against the Finance world ("Mon ennemie, c'est la finance"), and a lot of promises for better regulations of banks and financial institutions. In practice he didn't put his promises in action, and lead liberal policies (tax exemption for companies (CICE), lower social protection (loi El Khomri, loi Macron), he even uses some FN ideas like "forfeiture of nationality", his party was divided between its left and its right wing, and there were some scandals again (affaire Cahuzac). His policies didn...
I think it will be/is a little bit of both.
Well, it's only an anecdote but a French friend told me this morning: "It's not a good day when you have to vote somebody that you despise."
Interestingly, I had almost the same conversation with an American friend in the last USA elections.
IIRC the liberal party just came out first in the dutch elections a couple of months ago (ahead of the local nationalists) so I'd say this is at least the second.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmanuel_Macron
Government and big corporations are the very definition of establishment.
Trapped by its own bureaucratic institutions, the EU is incapable of solving its two key problem areas: Immigration thru the asylum system and handling of the economic depression in southern europe caused by economic policies set by the EU.
12% of voters that did come vote put in a blank ballot paper.
Macron received 65% of votes despite being against the most opposed competitor on the french political scene.
We do not seem to give the same meaning to "emphatically disagree".
Italy OTOH had about 0.9% in the last year, even if it got a lot of flexibility from the EU.
The EU might have screwed up Greece, but "depression in southern europe caused by EU policies" is not a thing, each souther european state has had drastically different developments.
on the current path, she will be in in 2022 (especially as youth are heavily voting Le Pen)
It seems to me that many of the current (reasonable) arguments for nationalism and ending globalism stem from the belief that Westphalian principles still apply just as strongly now as they did in in the 1960s. If this were true, it would make sense for China, Russia, and the US to look inward, and all compete independently to become the global hegemon. However, in a political climate governed by instantaneous information transfer and diminishing privacy, global order becomes something different. People paying attention have much more information than they used to, and this makes the peoples' relationship to their government different - namely, it diminishes the need for trust. In such a system, why should officials need to negotiate on behalf of the interests of people? There do still exist circumstances in which this is necessary, but broadly, there is probably more cultural commonality between Hong Kong and New York than New York and Wichita. And more interestingly, there is probably more in common between Elko NV and Kalgoorlie/Boulder Australia, than Kalgoorlie/Boulder and Sydney or Elko and San Francisco.
How does global order change to cater to this paradigm?