Thursday, 25 January 2018

Internationalism vs Globalisation

As comments to the post below demonstrate, words matter. I am a patriot, not a nationalist. I am both British and European. I am both enlightened and can speak the words of the Nicene creed in full belief. And I am a passionate Internationalist who loathes globalisation. It is this last distinction that often causes confusion.

The global corporates and their political dags, including the puppets Merkel and Macron, characterise those opposed to globalisation as nationalists who would build a trade barrier around the nation, cut off from the world. Globalisation means free trade, they aver, and open borders. It is, of course, like so much of what they say, a lie.

Globalisation means big business working hand in glove with supranational government, subverting democracy. Globalisation means International organisations of which you've never heard, cannot influence and do not elect making rules that change your life. Globalisation means the corruption and moral relativity of the UN and its spawn, and the trade protectionism of the anti-democratic EU. Globalisation means ever greater barriers to entry for new business and innovation, ever more restrictive regulation preventing free trade and commerce, ever greater central State control over an ever increasing part of our lives. 

At Davos, the Euro puppets are worried. Their concerns need a little translation, though. Macron said 
"We haven’t established an organisation at a world level which looks at artificial intelligence and automation. We allow private companies to control this. We are encouraging technological change, and we are in danger of living in a Darwinian world"
Translation
"We haven't yet globally regulated AI and automation, so the field is still open to independent innovators and venture capitalists. The technology is outside the control of the existing global corporates. This innovation threatens the existing economic power of established global actors and the power of their puppet politicians". 
Of course, had we allowed the EU and UN to regulate tech advancement forty years ago, we would still be dominated by IBM, the internet would not have happened and Facebook, Amazon, Twitter, eBay and Paypal unborn.  Merkel also spoke wistfully, no doubt wondering if the Stasi hadn't been a bad thing after all;
"Data will be the raw material of the 21st century – the question is ‘who owns that data?' In China there is very close co-operation between those who collect the data and the Chinese state. They are almost one and the same"
Translation
"The State and the established global corporates in Europe are losing control of computing innovation. All the innovators are anglophone and the EU has no silicon valley, no silicon fen, no M4 corridor. Trade and commercial advantage will increasingly come from a market of individual economic actors moving toward 'perfect knowledge' and from the removal of barriers to commerce. The State needs to protect its power."
Take a look at the members of the ERT, the shadowy unelected cabal of Euro corporates that really shapes EU law and guides the EU Commission. Not one single tech leader, not one single global innovator amongst them. They are the past.

9 comments:

Poisonedchalice said...

No modern names there then. Not one "disruptive" new player to be seen. No software innovators. And as per your previous post Raedwald, there is no one representing the new world order of B2C global commerce.

Interesting!

right-writes said...

Very well put Raedwald.

I reckon that those that are deeply involved with the fledgling "blockchain" tech are a bit more savvy than the globalists realise, and that this is what the globalist place-men Merkel and Macron, not forgetting the has beens, Clegg, Monti, Blair and co are fretting about.

The blockchain has the capability, if done right, of breaking the bankster's monopoly.

Raedwald said...

RW - Now kicking myself that I neglected to mention blockchain. Yes, indeed - I would much, much rather record the store of my wealth on a distributed ledger immune to forgery, fraud, appropriation or seizure by State actors than one at the command of a failing State - and blockchain ledger accounting also offers safe, secure, untamperable international trade and commerce. Thanks.

Anonymous said...

The word you want is "Silicon", not "silicone". Silicones are compounds containing Silicon, and are used for instance for enlarging breasts. Transistors are based on Silicon, the element.

On the larger topic, the conflict is between those who want everything nicely organised and those who see the advantages of freedom.

Don Cox

Raedwald said...

Silicon
Don & Nigel - Tx for the heads up. Now corrected.
Hand smack for me as I've made the same mistake before.

jack ketch said...

Erstens. Es gibt große amerikanische Unternehmen, die Zugriff auf Daten haben – Daten sind der Rohstoff des 21. Jahrhunderts. Die Antwort auf die Frage „Wem gehören diese Daten?“ wird letztendlich darüber entscheiden, ob Demokratie, Partizipation, Souveränität im Digitalen und wirtschaftlicher Erfolg zusammengehen. Auf der anderen Seite gibt es Länder – beispielsweise China –, in denen es eine sehr enge Kooperation von staatlichen Autoritäten mit den Sammlern von Daten gibt, in denen es fast eine Einheit von beidem gibt. Die Europäer haben sich noch nicht richtig entschieden, wie sie mit Daten umgehen wollen. Die Gefahr, dass wir zu langsam sind, dass die Welt über uns hinwegrollt, derweil wir philosophisch über die Frage der Datensouveränität debattieren, ist groß. Das heißt, es muss Aktion erfolgen. Ich glaube, mit unserem europäischen Modell der Sozialen Marktwirtschaft haben wir auch eine Chance, einen Beitrag zu einem gerechten digitalen Zeitalter zu leisten, in dem eben nicht die Privatisierung aller Daten über die Persönlichkeit die Normalität ist, aber in dem wir akzeptieren und annehmen, dass, um das Beste für die Menschen daraus machen, Daten die Rohstoffe des 21. Jahrhunderts sind.-Ferkel @ Davos

RW,I think your quotes, translation & 'translation' is a little off there ...and given her personal history I would be surpised if she was wistful for the Stasi.

Raedwald said...

Jack - In the UK you can currently get a small DNA sample analysed for vanity reasons - i.e. to be told your racial and genetic origins. If they find a hint of Greek or North African, people are happy they have a Roman soldier somewhere in their background. That sort of thing.

The problem is the small print in the contract; this gives copyright in the DNA code to the screening company. You simply don't have an absolute right to property in your own most fundamental data - your DNA.

It's not my translation, but I don't think it's far off. The fact is, I don't want a politician who isn't certain whether I own my own DNA code, or whether the State does. That's what she's saying. She's clear that we need a debate; I have no such uncertainty. The State has NO ownership or rights over my DNA whatsoever.

jack ketch said...

" That's what she's saying. She's clear that we need a debate"

Just speed read her speech and , in all honesty, I don't follow your interpretation- don't think she even mentions DNA (although I might have missed it).

What she does have to say of interest is regarding the B-word. Very interesting to note she says quite openly that "we all know the UK will no longer be a part of the EU". A few months ago she would have said 'the UK doesn't want to be part...' She also says she'll be making clear to 'her colleague' T.May (note no title...Obarmy ALWAYS got his title, Trump never does) that there will be no compromises regarding freedom of movement (although the word she uses is a little weird and has other shades of meaning).

Raedwald said...

Jack - DNA is my example of data. I chose it to make the point - it is the most fundamental and most personal of data. There can be no debate about ownership.