• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why do you want to trust with your future? Globalists or Nationalists?

Nationalism or Globalism

  • I like nationalism

    Votes: 9 39.1%
  • I like globalism

    Votes: 12 52.2%
  • I don't know

    Votes: 2 8.7%

  • Total voters
    23
  • Poll closed .

chuckiechan

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 2, 2015
Messages
16,568
Reaction score
7,253
Location
California Caliphate
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Who do you want to trust with your future? Globalists or Nationalists?

Since as a group we have little control over our nations destiny, yet we are the people in it. So having accepted that, what system do we want to head towards to determine our future as individuals. Globalization of trade in my mind is a good idea it tariffs are used to equalize imbalances at home. Globalism can be "capitalism on steroids" where efficiency takes a back seat to labor. Near slave labor processing fish in the holds of ships in the ocean have a lower cost of manufacturing than a prevailing wage ship with inspections, rules, and rights. But if you have nothing to begin with, near slave labor is a step up if you get paid at all.

A nationalist doesn't want to compete with the lowest cost of foreign labor, be it slaves or free land or free energy from the government for example. Why? Because to meet that price he will have to take a cut in pay. Not a happy choice for your average worker. So he is going to demand his government stop cheap imports made with advantages his government won't give him. To make him happy you will need to give him subsidies, deletion of environmental overhead, regs, rules, etc. that his competitors don't have. But he still can't get it all. It's too expensive and creates it's own imbalances.

In short:
A nationalist leans toward control at the national level.
A globalist leans toward control at the world level.

So who do you trust with your national destiny?

Globalists:
https://www.globalpolicy.org/globalization/globalization-of-politics.html
Traditionally politics has been undertaken within national political systems. National governments have been ultimately responsible for maintaining the security and economic welfare of their citizens, as well as the protection of human rights and the environment within their borders. With global ecological changes, an ever more integrated global economy, and other global trends, political activity increasingly takes place at the global level.

Under globalization, politics can take place above the state through political integration schemes such as the European Union and through intergovernmental organizations such as the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the World Trade Organization. Political activity can also transcend national borders through global movements and NGOs. Civil society organizations act globally by forming alliances with organizations in other countries, using global communications systems, and lobbying international organizations and other actors directly, instead of working through their national governments.

Nationalists:
Economic nationalism refers to an ideology that favors state interventionism in the economy, with policies that emphasize domestic control of the economy, labor, and capital formation, even if this requires the imposition of tariffs and other restrictions on the movement of labor, goods and capital. In many cases, economic nationalists oppose globalization or at least question the benefits of unrestricted free trade. Economic nationalism may include such doctrines as protectionism, mercantilism, or import substitution.
 
Globalism is the way forward, isolationist is not going to be the best way forward for a society to thrive.
 
A proper mix of the two is important. Just as the states form the United States the countries form the world. Cooperation and respect are important and without both of them you have endless conflict (tribalism?).
 
I think of it like this: the Weimar Republic was the globalists but the Nazis were the nationalists. Both sucked, but clearly one was worse than the other.
 
I trust nationalists a whole lot more than I trust globalists.

Nationalism | Define Nationalism at Dictionary.com
the policy or doctrine of asserting the interests of one's own nation viewed as separate from the interests of other nations or the common interests of all nations.
 
US big business and the US governments that serve them have never given a rat's ass about the sheeple. They have been a convenient source of cheap labor in the past but now they are just the whiny herd that these two aforementioned groups have been using. When sheeple start to demand better hay, better feed, it's time to look at moving them along to the slaughterhouse.

Remember the old canard - government of the sheeple, by the sheeple, ... . It was meant for y'all to repeat to yourselves to make you feel good.

And you don't even know how badly you have been taken.
 
We live in a global world, in reality, always really had and more so as civilizations advanced. Trade between countries is vital to the world. Nationalism more often leads to wars
 
In short:
A nationalist leans toward control at the national level.
A globalist leans toward control at the world level.

So who do you trust with your national destiny?

Globalism doesn't put control at the world level it just acknowledges the reality that this planet is getting smaller and smaller by the day, and isolating yourself from the global community is not only impossible but disastrously stupid. We're a long way from having a real one world government, but we need to have in place treaties and trade agreements of some sort with the rest of the world. There are too many problems of the future that will impact the entire world and require us to act and solve them as planetary whole.

Nationalism is steeped in radical arrogance. It's based on the egotistical belief that your country is somehow superior too, and more important than everyone else. That outsiders are radically different people with radically different values who would undermine the greatness of your country as if your people some how have a monopoly on bravery, intelligence, and work ethic.

Globalism is the only way forward. Anybody who believes otherwise is a coward that is deluding themselves.
 
A proper mix of the two is important. Just as the states form the United States the countries form the world. Cooperation and respect are important and without both of them you have endless conflict (tribalism?).

Ya, actually, this is probably the option I would have voted for, if given the option of "Both". However, between the two, nationalism, aka isolationism, is quickly becoming an obsolete ideology, despite a number of countries regressing to give it another try. Globalism is the necessity, nationalism is the strategy within that necessity....though I would call it something else...perhaps business savvy, to ensure that you're getting the best deal on the global stage for the people you represent.
 
Ya, actually, this is probably the option I would have voted for, if given the option of "Both". However, between the two, nationalism, aka isolationism, is quickly becoming an obsolete ideology, despite a number of countries regressing to give it another try. Globalism is the necessity, nationalism is the strategy within that necessity....though I would call it something else...perhaps business savvy, to ensure that you're getting the best deal on the global stage for the people you represent.

I lean more to a mix where as much as possible is left to lowest possible level of government. The higher the level of government then the less likely you are get a policy (solution?) that is deemed good at the lower levels of government and the harder it is to change. Using something simple, like minimum wage or work days/week, makes it apparent that global (or even national for large and diverse nations) policy is not the best way to address it.
 
It boils down to trade. Globalism wants the lowest price possible without regard to how it is gotten. It's is capitalism on steroids, yet at a world level where it is largely unreachable. If Saudi Arabia suddenly wanted to sell oil at a dollar a barrel, a globalist will let them put the worlds oil drillers out of business and let Saudi Arabia supply it all.

A nationalist will put a tariff on imported oil to preserve it's domestic oil industry.
 
I lean more to a mix where as much as possible is left to lowest possible level of government. The higher the level of government then the less likely you are get a policy (solution?) that is deemed good at the lower levels of government and the harder it is to change. Using something simple, like minimum wage or work days/week, makes it apparent that global (or even national for large and diverse nations) policy is not the best way to address it.

hehe...well, that makes sense, you're a libertarian. :)

I tend to think that global business practices should be established at the federal level, as they are generally responsible for foreign policy, and standardization of international business practices across all regions / states / provinces / municipalities / etc ensures a level playing field and overall transparency. It also allows for protection against foreign business practices that might seek to take advantage of loopholes created by having too many different sets of regional business regulations.

In my opinion, of course... ;)
 
It boils down to trade. Globalism wants the lowest price possible without regard to how it is gotten. It's is capitalism on steroids, yet at a world level where it is largely unreachable. If Saudi Arabia suddenly wanted to sell oil at a dollar a barrel, a globalist will let them put the worlds oil drillers out of business and let Saudi Arabia supply it all.

A nationalist will put a tariff on imported oil to preserve it's domestic oil industry.

I disagree. There are plenty of protections built into international (or globalist) trade agreements. That's why they have formal trade agreements, not a wide open market.
 
hehe...well, that makes sense, you're a libertarian. :)

I tend to think that global business practices should be established at the federal level, as they are generally responsible for foreign policy, and standardization of international business practices across all regions / states / provinces / municipalities / etc ensures a level playing field and overall transparency. It also allows for protection against foreign business practices that might seek to take advantage of loopholes created by having too many different sets of regional business regulations.

In my opinion, of course... ;)

Even (liberal?) Canada sets MW at the province level. Are you busy pushing for a national (or global) MW?
 
Even (liberal?) Canada sets MW at the province level. Are you busy pushing for a national (or global) MW?

It's an interesting question ... short answer no, but not deliberately, since I don't think we've approached that level of cooperation at the global level.

At the national level, though, I definitely think minimum wage should be a national target. I understand why currently it can't be, but I'd be behind initiatives that remove those barriers, and I think that's starting to get a little more practical. Regionality has traditionally determined a lot of things, including wages and prices, but as transportation costs go down (autonomous transportation options) and job decentralization (telecommuting) can begin, those factors diminish. As that happens, regulating at the highest level possible begins to make a lot more sense.
 
Option C: Separatist

A Mars separatist Independent to be specific! We don't owe you earthlings ****, we're not paying your taxes! All hail Supreme Leader Musk!
 
It's an interesting question ... short answer no, but not deliberately, since I don't think we've approached that level of cooperation at the global level.

At the national level, though, I definitely think minimum wage should be a national target. I understand why currently it can't be, but I'd be behind initiatives that remove those barriers, and I think that's starting to get a little more practical. Regionality has traditionally determined a lot of things, including wages and prices, but as transportation costs go down (autonomous transportation options) and job decentralization (telecommuting) can begin, those factors diminish. As that happens, regulating at the highest level possible begins to make a lot more sense.

I suppose but, in many places in the world MW is $2/day, making it virtually imperative to either accept basically no MW (since set globally it will surely be lower than what you now have) or to override it (more) locally. That is the problem with "universal" replacement parts - they generally fit very poorly if at all.
 
I suppose but, in many places in the world MW is $2/day, making it virtually imperative to either accept basically no MW (since set globally it will surely be lower than what you now have) or to override it (more) locally. That is the problem with "universal" replacement parts - they generally fit very poorly if at all.

Globalism is very young, relatively speaking... I think the practice of exploiting cheap labour isn't a positive side of globalism, and in a better model, countries that participate in globalism should expect to be brought up to a common standard of living. Of course, that's not corporate culture...and I know I'm about to lose you, my libertarian friend, but this is where properly disciplined, big government can play a positive role.

But that's all a ways off, and sometimes feels very pie in the sky, and is infinitely more complicated a subject than we have time for today. :)
 
Globalism is very young, relatively speaking... I think the practice of exploiting cheap labour isn't a positive side of globalism, and in a better model, countries that participate in globalism should expect to be brought up to a common standard of living. Of course, that's not corporate culture...and I know I'm about to lose you, my libertarian friend, but this is where properly disciplined, big government can play a positive role.

But that's all a ways off, and sometimes feels very pie in the sky, and is infinitely more complicated a subject than we have time for today. :)

Standard of living is the balance between income and expenses. Rest assured that even 2X MW in a high cost area (a modern city) sucks while that may afford a decent standard of living only 30 miles away.
 
Globalism is very young, relatively speaking... I think the practice of exploiting cheap labour isn't a positive side of globalism, and in a better model, countries that participate in globalism should expect to be brought up to a common standard of living. Of course, that's not corporate culture...and I know I'm about to lose you, my libertarian friend, but this is where properly disciplined, big government can play a positive role.

But that's all a ways off, and sometimes feels very pie in the sky, and is infinitely more complicated a subject than we have time for today. :)

Let’s say you have 50 countries in a treaty.
20 of them have a (long term, endemic) positive trade balance and 30 of them do not*. The positives will keep adding capacity and efficiencies further beating down the negatives, but eventually you are going to have 30 nationalists (or a war).

*A healthy trade balance should be a gentle “S” curve over ten years or so. A trade surplus in simple terms means you have more capacity than your country can consume (due to over building) which entangles you in mercantilism which creates enemies and ultimately war in one form or another.
 
look how great nationalism worked for Hitler & for Germany ................
 
Let’s say you have 50 countries in a treaty.
20 of them have a (long term, endemic) positive trade balance and 30 of them do not*. The positives will keep adding capacity and efficiencies further beating down the negatives, but eventually you are going to have 30 nationalists (or a war).

*A healthy trade balance should be a gentle “S” curve over ten years or so. A trade surplus in simple terms means you have more capacity than your country can consume (due to over building) which entangles you in mercantilism which creates enemies and ultimately war in one form or another.

I mean, that's definitely one outcome, for sure...but I also think that's a poorly written / implemented trade agreement. If you know there's a risk of that happening, you can use trade agreements to mitigate that risk, and local regulation to ensure that foreign commitments are adhered to. The greater threat to trade deals is corporate greed and the exploitation of loopholes to get around those protections. It would be interesting to see what international trade would look like if these agreements were designed with the average citizen as the priority, vs. the corporate or shareholder bottom lines.
 
Standard of living is the balance between income and expenses. Rest assured that even 2X MW in a high cost area (a modern city) sucks while that may afford a decent standard of living only 30 miles away.

That's why I think decentralization of the job market is so important. Cities are expensive because that's where the jobs are, so the cost of living is higher, due to demand. By participating in that model, we essentially subsidize business, which used to be far more spread out across smaller towns, but have centralized to reduce their own overhead. Spread everything out and the housing markets will even out a lot more than the weird bubbles we see where the majority of jobs are located, and the cost of goods sold will even out as well, as transportation costs are shared across a much greater geography.

I've thought a lot about this, as here in Canada the jobs are a lot more centralized, given the immense amount of geography we have, and the relatively low population. If you look at Toronto as the core, you need to travel at least 150 km before housing prices begin to hit sane levels. Minimum. And add to that if along the way (Barrie is about 45 - 50 minutes north of Toronto, for example) you hit another job center. I moved outside of that radius, and a house I would have paid no less than 650k in that high priced area cost me 235k. I also took a 20k/year wage hit, but I still came out ahead. That's kinda messed up.
 
I mean, that's definitely one outcome, for sure...but I also think that's a poorly written / implemented trade agreement. If you know there's a risk of that happening, you can use trade agreements to mitigate that risk, and local regulation to ensure that foreign commitments are adhered to. The greater threat to trade deals is corporate greed and the exploitation of loopholes to get around those protections. It would be interesting to see what international trade would look like if these agreements were designed with the average citizen as the priority, vs. the corporate or shareholder bottom lines.

I'd like some bright soul to come up with a list of changes made to NAFTA because they were disadvantaging the USA. I won't hold my breath.

Because of our leadership's relationship with the "swamp" and an inability to make difficult decisions that won't get you "likes", you accept cheating and hope no one notices until you are gone. Every wrench turner, hammer swinger, and keyboard banger knew we were being taken for a ride by our trade agreements. The only people who benefited are investors who's assets increased in value, while wage earners buying power shrunk to zero when they got laid off.

People were forced to train their replacements in exchange for severance pay. What did our leadership say? A lot. What did they do? Nothing.
 
look how great nationalism worked for Hitler & for Germany ................


That actually was a response to the crushing conditions put on them after WW1 and yes, that led to nationalism of the worst kind. Not terribly unlike what Putin is trying to sell his peeps in Russia.
 
Back
Top Bottom