Thursday, 15 September 2016

Globalisation pushes back

Allister Heath in the Telegraph repeats today the pushback nonsense from the globalisation apologists. Feel free to read his specious rubbish, but here's the generic arguments in a nutshell.

1. Watch out for the old 'EU' and 'Europe' substitution trick; just as critics of the EU are told how wonderful Europe is, critics of globalisation are told how wonderful capitalism is. Yes, we know. Most of us are keen supporters of capitalism, free markets and open competition. Unfortunately, these are not the dis-virtues of oligopoly, restricted competition and closed markets that are the hallmarks of the global corporates. 

2. Next, the phenomenal wealth growth of the top 1% must be ignored, we are told, as these figures distort what's really going on. In fact, the globalisation apologists have seemingly drafted in some climate change scientists to draw oodles of new graphs to prove why we should ignore these obscene and fast growing disparities in wealth between the super rich and the rest of us. 

3. Next, they will point out that some middle class people are doing very well out of globalisation; young, urban, professional, graduate, public sector or media, political or new-tech employed have enjoyed income increases of 5% in the past few years. Although the other half of the country that doesn't benefit from globalisation has seen zero income growth, the average is 2.5%, which proves that globalisation benefits everyone. 

4. Finally, apologists will completely skate over the fact that anti-globalists are also those who value national and social cultures that have beneficially evolved over millennia, who value identity and belonging, who value control and democracy, who value governments that govern for the good of their people and not for the benefit of shareholders of the global corporates. For these are all the inconvenient characteristics that the globalists need to destroy to gain even greater wealth and power. 

(NB I am expecting comments to be split 50:50 to reflect our division of opinions on this - please feel free to be as robust in your criticism as you like..) 

23 comments:

Sackerson said...

Agreed.

Anonymous said...

On the "1%" meme, Thomas Sowell in his book "Wealth Poverty and Politics: An International Perspective" (worth a read) points out that there's a very high turnover in the top 1% by income, with less than half still there after a decade; that's a US figure but the UK will be similar. 12% of Americans can expect to be in the top 1% by income at some point in their lives, and 56% of American households are in the top decile at some point in their lives, usually later in life.

DeeDee99 said...

The globalists are intent on building a one-world-government so they don't give a XXXX for item (4) above.

However, that is probably the most important item for the great unwashed in the lower orders. They're already kicking back through the ballot-box with the vote to leave the EU; support for various nationalist parties on the continent and - at the very least - a substantial vote for Trump who is talking the nationalistic talk despite being an international businessman and one of the 1% himself.

The globalists will have to decide whether to ride roughshod over the sentiments of the serfs, which will mean making the ballot-box even more meaningless than it already is and risk popular revolts ...... or slow down their plans; ensure that more of the financial benefits reach the lower orders and attempt to persuade them that globalisation really is in their interests.

Poisonedchalice said...

I don't consider myself to be dim-witted (OK, discuss!) but sometimes I have found it tricky to separate conservatism and large corporates. Your piece has settled that very well for me and I am comfortable now with my view on conservatism and the way nations should be run for the benefit of all (or at least the vast majority).

mikebravo said...

Globalism seems to dovetail nicely with Frankfurt School theory.

Anonymous said...

it's Communism II :)

Anonymous said...

or perhaps more accurately, communism was Globalism I

visc said...

Good points - I would re-iterate point about globalism and capitalism. Like many isms Capitalism is not what it once was - I support free markets, but not necessarily Capitalism - for if all Capital is owned by one or two individuals then the boundarie sof the market are distorted.

Heath has and occaisional goo dpoint , but id generally just a Corporate apologist - personally such idiotic sucking up and ignoribng of personal freedom and agency is what would stop me identiying and a Conservative ( they dont conserve) or a Libertarian.

Cuffleyburgers said...

Radders - I read Allister Heath's article and I thought it was (unsurprisingly) very good, and certainly not specious nonsense. He was sound on Brexit and is correct here.

A lot of the problem is definitions.

Globalisation understood as free trade is a massive force for good and for improving the lot of the poorer classes.

Of course glabalisation understood as the bilderburgers conspiring to create a one world government is a bad thing, and that is one of the reasons why the Brexit vote was so important. Anything that reduces the ability of unelected bureaucrats in Brussles to decide stuff can only be good.

Capitalism understood as people owning business and running them for profit, and crucially competing against other businesses is not just good it is the cornerstone of our prosperity. Capitalism understood as big corporates in bed with big government to eliminate competition is the bugbear of our times and it is that where you should direct your rhetorical fire. It is that more than anything whch is holding western nations back, combined with central bank interventionsim and high taxes.

All in all Radders not one of your more perspicacious posts, to say the least.

markc said...

Well said, Cuffleyburgers. Nail / hammer / head, rather neatly. The problem with markets is that they ain't free.

As usual, one or two others are uncertain of the meaning of "capital" within a capitalist system.

Anonymous said...

DP111 writes..

Totalitarianism is the means by which a group of people take control of more or less everything. For most of history, it was religion that was used. Christianity and Hinduism were least attractive, by this urge. In Christianity we have

1. Jesus- My kingdom is not of this Earth

2. Jesus- Render unto Caeser what is Caeser's ,and unto God, what is God's.

Hinduism, and its daughter Buddhism, are fractured by their very nature. So too other Eastern nations.

That leaves Islam. It has a strong totalitarian urge, but it is slightly fractured into Sunni and Shia, as well as no cen decide who is the holiest of them all.

Since the French revolution, it is political ideas that have been designed to fulfill the totalitarian urge. Marxism is ideal, but failed after wreaking havoc for 70 years or so.

Thus potential Globalists were left with just one ideology - Islam. We see how leftists and other totalitarians, have flocked to Islam. Hitler too, and fascists, are attracted by Islam. But itoowill fail, and is failing, as Muslims kill each other at a faster rate then America drones.

Islam is discredited. So too Fascism. That leaves Capitalism. Free trade is just one aspect of Capitalism, and not be confused with Globalism. Fortunately for us, capitalism is dependent on dog-eat-dog, rather then pack behaviour.

That leaves Globalists, who are really Totalitarians, with a cloak of subterfuge, with nothing but their desire for total control. They don't care how, just so they control..

markc said...

Anyone got any spare tinfoil?

Anonymous said...

Globalism is a process (capitalism is a system regulated by government). As intended, by those who ushered it in, the globalist process is totally unregulated. Corporations have become so powerful the sheer gravity of them can effect entire regions, e.g. just six corporations own virtually all of the world's media.

I'm sure you've all noticed how your favourite newspaper doesn't read like did a mere decade ago? There's a reason for that and funnily enough it's the same reason why Hillary Clinton will walk into the White House next January.

Steve

G. Tingey said...

WITHOUT reading any previous comments
Well Said
And, of course, it isn't "the 1%"

It's the POINT-ONE PerCent ( or even the 0.01% )

But the underlying idea is correct, we are being ripped off by people who call themselves capitalists, but are actually greedy crooks.

Anonymous said...

DP111 writes..

This may seem OT, but is not.

Restatement on Flight 93Restatement on Flight 93

http://www.claremont.org/crb/basicpage/restatement-on-flight-93/

Long read but worth it.

Anonymous said...

If the opposite of Globalization is Protectionism - then globalization is the lesser of the evils. You cannot blame corporations for taking advantage. The finger must be pointed at Central Banks and Governments for credit money expansion and regulating in favour of larger companies.

Andy Dan said...

"There's a reason for that and funnily enough it's the same reason why Hillary Clinton will walk into the White House next January."

Will she walk or be carried in by her minders / nurses?

Trump, 3/1 about a month ago, now 11/8.

Anonymous said...

"There's a reason for that and funnily enough it's the same reason why Hillary Clinton will walk into the White House next January."

Will she walk or be carried in by her minders / nurses?

Trump, 3/1 about a month ago, now 11/8. [/quote]


Will walk into?

Carried in?

3/1 coming in to 11/8

WTF are you on about?

visc said...

If the opposite of Globalization is Protectionism - then globalization is the lesser of the evils

The choice offered between Globalisation and Protectionsism is a false dichotomy by those who confuse themselves and others so;
As false premise, Globalisations effects sucks balls ( and not in a good way), it offers little, destroys individual culture and agency. Great if you are a moron that thinks monetary measures and averages can necessarily quantify everything.

Flyinthesky said...

Globalisation, harmonisation of conformity, it has nothing whatsoever to do with enriching the world, safety and product quality. It is, like the vast majority of legislation, 90%+, corporate facilitation.
This will ultimately be used to find the cheapest cost base for production. The balancing act will be to retain liquidity in all nations so they can be adequately monetised.
Corporate inspired legislation is portioning and eating the entire world.

Mark The Skint Sailor said...

Globalisation is not Capitalism, it's corporatism. Corporatism, Fascism, Communism or any other -ism that enables the elite 1% to create ever expanding wealth at the expense of the poor are essentially identical. Just with different means of justifying the ends.

Neither can continue without becoming authoritarian in nature in order to deliver the wealth the 1% crave. In the first instance to cover up the flow of money from the poor to the rich and then once the gig is up, to prevent the poor from doing anything about it. It's about money and control, Lords ans Serfs, as it has been for centuries.

As the wealth of the 1% increases, so the freedoms for the other 99% are reduced. As the 1% start to appear above the law, so the law becomes more of a cosh for the 99%.

Span Ows said...

I think some is confusing Globalisation for Corporatocracy

Maybe I am wrong but I think Globalisation is what the English language, internet, cheap flights etc have brought/are bringing whereas the uber-national power of big business is the trouble maker and in fact anti-capitalistic.

Anonymous said...

Span Ows.

100% correct.