The despair Of The British nation.

Thursday, 2 April 2009

Globalism has been good for everyone?

Everyone, Lord Mandleson?





Hypocrite of the G20 award to Lord Pederast for an article in today's Telegraph.
Where does he come from? You may be allowed a comment on his article. . Don't hold your breath.











3 comments:

Anonymous said...

For me, this harrowing picture places The G20 as the vulture(s).

Richard Jones said...

Globalism really only serves to keep the super rich in the first world in the manner to which they've become accustomed. To a certain extent this was true for the middle classes until greed took over in management and we then started to see jobs getting offshored for a fraction of the cost. In international commerce, if the first world wish to retain a certain standard of living, then there has to be a fall guy. Currently that's Africa. I'm surprised that Bob Geldof didn't today rip into McBroon when he spoke out against protectionism, as that's precisely what we (and the US) have been doing towards the third world countries. The US subsidizes its farmers to undercut rice growers in Africa; IS rice is then sold to African nations putting livelihoods at risk.

Notwithstanding dealing with leadership issues in the various failed states (and we're in a position to lecture?!), the only way that the third world will be lifted out of poverty is to remove trade barriers, and not exploiting their populations or their natural resources for the cheapest possible price. The problem is that that'll mean various sectors of our economy will be substantially undercut. And we'll face a corresponding drop in our standard of living.

This is the reason I suspect that politicians have never really grasped the nettle of finally dealing with poverty in the third world, because of the economic problems it would cause here. It may be that in the long term increased economic activity between third world countries and the rest of the world will lead to increased prosperity for everyone, but in the short- to medium-term, the opposite will be the case. Indeed, in the long term, it might not lead to any increase in prosperity; that might be wiped out thanks to overpopulation. THAT desperately needs to be tackled if any serious progress is going to be done on tackling poverty. Just how much are we willing to sacrifice in order for poverty rates to drop in the third world?

What do others think of the economic theory of Thermoeconomics? I'm not going to go into that at this time of night...

Oldrightie said...

Thank you Richard. I suspect we have much in common.