Globalization (and the metaphysics of control…)
Bunny explains to Mimi how to establish and maintain control over others via this (kind of) new thing called globalization. Is globalization the new colonialism? Will Pinky ever get that crayon off her head? For more information visit: www.pinkyshow.org
Tags: control..., Globalization, Metaphysics
March 1st, 2010 at 6:09 pm
great job again cats!!!!!!!!!!
March 1st, 2010 at 6:38 pm
It is equally as scary if the people making these decisions of equality decide we shouldn’t have the right to use a grill. Or have the right to freedom of religion. Or the right to teach are own children. etc. etc. In America we have these rights because we are from this mindset but globally who decides. I will tell you. The ones who know how to control and influence. At least in the USA, we have the freedom to kick the people out who are in power and we have a constitution based on rights.
March 1st, 2010 at 6:47 pm
The majority of them aren’t staying poor though; India and China are both rising superpowers and they make up 1/3 of the world’s population.
The best way is to remove trade barriers and reduce taxation; therby putting more money into the economy and reducing the prices to give poor people more purchasing power.
March 1st, 2010 at 6:57 pm
Hmmm, of course, even though I have my ideas, there is no simple answer to economical problems we have today….
What would your suggestion be to make the world into a more fair and free society, and by free I mean that every individual has not only the right, but also the possibility to make their own choices. This is not normally the case if they are born poor….
In many parts of the world they then tend to stay poor (the majority of them), since their alternatives has been limited.
March 1st, 2010 at 7:17 pm
They are decided; their main problem with the government is that it uses too much force and is essentially stealing money through taxes. They believe its only legitimate job is protect people from the use of force or fraud by private entities.
The market is not getting any freer as we saw with the government bailouts, the stimulus package and the Bush tax “cuts”.
March 1st, 2010 at 8:13 pm
So they are undecided. They want less restrictions while they at the same time admit that there needs to be some government control. I question what happens where there is no such control, for example when the power of the private interests has convinced (through dinners and what not) the politicians that such control is a bad thing, thus let the “free market” decide…
My biggest problem is that I cannot see this free market, and the more “free” they make it, in reality less free it gets…
March 1st, 2010 at 8:54 pm
That’s anarcho-capitalism; not libertarianism. Libertarians want to keep law enforcement intact (althought with less laws to enforce) in order to prevent the use of force or fraud by private entities.
March 1st, 2010 at 9:01 pm
Also, can I give you an example of what I fear, even though I doubt it will ever happen?
Imagine if the police and the fire department was completely privatized…
So in this modern world, you would need money in other to be protected from the “bad guys”. It wasn’t a right you were born with, it was a right you’d have to pay for….
Same thing would apply to the your house if it caught fire.
Now you would maybe say that we are already paying for such a service, but it is a universal one…..
March 1st, 2010 at 9:17 pm
OKey, at least I think we agree on that, though I think bailing out these companies will only delay a problem instead of getting rid of it. You do realize that the reason to why these companies could get so great benefits from the government is because they have worked very hard to get it? Using many billions after billions in lobbying to persuade the politicians that the market should be more “open” and “free”, and thus lessen the politicians restrictions to the flow of money.
March 1st, 2010 at 9:34 pm
Im not accusing you of being a communist, communism is just a good example.
Yes, however all those people choose to put their money with particular buisinesses. If they choose risky ventures, like buying a house with a 120% loan, they and the company both agree to the risk. When the government is able to bail these out when the risk bites them, non-risky companies (who have been profiting less) suffer and fail. Bailing them out is what causes the _whole_ country to fail.
March 1st, 2010 at 10:20 pm
Second, if I had to guess, I think you are more in the libertarian area, where you mean state intervention and control over the market is a NO NO, and that ‘ideally’ everything should have been governed by the market, since the market always serves the consumer right?
Anyway that would be a very strong right wing way of thinking, at least from my country. If this is wrong then I apologize.
But if this is the way you (or anybody else here) think, you don’t seem to see the fundamental problem?
March 1st, 2010 at 10:29 pm
Okey, I want to simplify this.
We all want to make a useful contribution here right?
So lets just admit what we stand for and not stand for, and if I’m wrong in my description of you than correct me.
First of all I believe the real reason for todays economical problems, and the reason to why there are so many poor is because of the way the global economy works today.
So you could call me a socialist, but the American understanding of that word is very bizarre, so I’d prefer not.
March 1st, 2010 at 11:12 pm
Fine. But you wanted the government to create new jobs. The capitalist approach is for the government to take a “hands-off” approach with most economic matters.
March 1st, 2010 at 11:42 pm
So why couldn’t the world just let the “bad” ones fail, totally, and let new ones take their place?
March 2nd, 2010 at 12:38 am
The banks could only gamble because the government kept giving them money to lower interest rates. The fact that the government was willing to bail them out also reduced the consequences of failure.
Businesses only fail when people start spending money on other things. For every job lost to a failing business a new one is created by a successful business.
March 2nd, 2010 at 1:06 am
Ehm, I don’t “know” what you pre…….
March 2nd, 2010 at 1:57 am
I don’t what you predicted me to say.
But, “If they make bad decisions (or ‘gambles’), they are pushed out of buisiness by those who don’t.”
The problem here is that they are running so huge risks, with everyones money, that when they finally fail, it might end with half the country failing too (this isn’t an overstatement in some countries), and this forces the country’s government to bail them out, in one way or another…..
Can’t you see a problem with this.
And btw, I’m not a communist.
March 2nd, 2010 at 2:32 am
1. All firms and banks gamble to some extent in what they put their time and money into. If they make bad decisions (or ‘gambles’), they are pushed out of buisiness by those who don’t. In a communist government, the same thing applies, but bad allocations of resources don’t self-destruct till people die (see: cultural revolution). B4 you respond predictably to this, 1 =/= 100 ; despite 1>0, 100>0.
2. These companies follow point 1. Investment is usefull, google’s emergence is a blatant example.
March 2nd, 2010 at 3:18 am
That is correct. Also, the new jobs payed for by taxes do not have to be profitable, i.e. do not have to be needed or usefull in any way (not that they can’t be). All other jobs remain only if they are profitable (usefull and needed, and make money to be taxed), otherwise they disappear.
March 2nd, 2010 at 4:08 am
“to create better and safer jobs”
Which means to remove the uncertainty in gambling banks and firms, and relocate them to jobs which actually produces something useful. They do also seem to stay more balanced and stable, since they may produce something that is always needed.
Also about those other big companies, businesses who gamble on whether other businesses will fail or not, is NOT doing anything useful. It adds a serious risk factor, as seen in the USA and the rest of the world.
March 2nd, 2010 at 4:40 am
It’s pointless to use money from taxes to create new jobs because for every new job created an old one is lost.
March 2nd, 2010 at 4:54 am
It is in support of capitalistic institutions who have failed, there is nothing socialistic about it what-so-ever.
If we had dealt with that scenario in a more socialistic manner, than we would have let them failed, and used money from taxes to create better and safer jobs, or to demand more strict behavior from the corporations in exchange for the bailout. But now the USA and the rest of world let them continue just like before.
There will be another crisis because of this….
March 2nd, 2010 at 5:00 am
Further, limited liability is agreed upon by all who enter into contract with a limited liability company. Thus is not at odds with capitalism. Persons may instead choose to enter into contract with a Sole Proprietor, if they feel a Ltd company is too risky to trade with. Thats free trade, is it not?
March 2nd, 2010 at 5:33 am
Yes I read about the case, but did not see how it supports your point. Also, there is no Karl Marx of capitalism, capitalism is the absence of socialism, not the invention of some man like Adam Smith. Also, can you please explain how in pure capitalism there would not be free flow of labor, i.e. where any man can choose to employ, or choose to be employed, by any other man? Perhaps you hold the false premise that America is purely capitalist.
March 2nd, 2010 at 6:16 am
Santa Clara County vs Southern Pacific Railroad, as well as limited liability laws.
According to Adam Smith’s capitalism which no one seems to believe in when they feel they dont want to, you cannot have free flow of capital without free flow of labor. This is something thats an impossibility in the levels required.
but theres much more than that
June 24th, 2011 at 9:54 pm
I sent you an email. Please reply…
June 27th, 2011 at 3:30 am
Excellent post… But how do you handle family who disagree?
October 5th, 2011 at 10:02 am
thanks, your article is very informative.
October 10th, 2011 at 8:31 pm
Hi there, I found your blog via Google while searching for first aid for a heart attack and your post looks very interesting for me.
October 12th, 2011 at 11:38 am
Hello webmaster I like your post ….
March 20th, 2012 at 8:52 am
The information on this post is beneficial.