Poll: Expats -- do you identify as a globalist?

[Casesrisingpanic]

On 11/13/2021 at 8:37 PM, Phoenix Rising said:

Let's cut to the chase here:

 

Being an "internationalist" or "globalist" isn't in any way synonymous with thinking "they have the right to decide what a sovereign nation should do to satisfy their ridiculous virtue signaling nonsense". Got it?

 

 

Wrong. But you keep trying. ????????

[Casesrisingpanic]

2 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

Your wrong.  You need a better source for your news.  Seriously.

So I need to get a mainstream source that agrees with your leftist opinions is what you are saying. 

 

You can either choose to deal with the realities of the world or listen to the crafted narratives of the mainstream media. 

 

Your choice. 

[Jeffr2]

34 minutes ago, Casesrisingpanic said:

So I need to get a mainstream source that agrees with your leftist opinions is what you are saying. 

 

You can either choose to deal with the realities of the world or listen to the crafted narratives of the mainstream media. 

 

Your choice. 

Go away troll.

[SimpleMan555]

The term 'Globalist' is often used to describe a person that supports a political-economic system of Globalism.

As with many things, it's use has been perverted by many to support their own idiologies.

 

To me, I would understand the term to be 'One who supports Globalism with a worldwide central government and economic system'

 

Some would call this system Utopia, others would view it as Authortarian

 

I support equality and mutual respect at all levels of society, but do not feel humanity is ready for a 'New World Order'.

 

==============

 

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/globalist

 

[seedy]

1 hour ago, Casesrisingpanic said:

 listen to the crafted narratives of the mainstream media.

I might add - Politicians, Corporations ...

Anyone who believes there exists democracy anywhere in the world is seriously deluded.

Be it Left, Right, Centre, or Left Field

[ozimoron]

Just now, SimpleMan555 said:

The term 'Globalist' is often used to describe a person that supports a political-economic system of Globalism.

As with many things, it's use has been perverted by many to support their own idiologies.

 

To me, I would understand the term to be 'One who supports Globalism with a worldwide central government and economic system'

 

Some would call this system Utopia, others would view it as Authortarian

 

I support equality and mutual respect at all levels of society, but do not feel humanity is ready for a 'New World Order'.

 

==============

 

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/globalist

 

A vanishingly small number of people who describe themselves as globalists support a single world government. Efforts to suggest that they do are just another attempt to corrupt the term into an epithet against people who support globalism.

[Jeffr2]

4 minutes ago, seedy said:

I might add - Politicians, Corporations ...

Anyone who believes there exists democracy anywhere in the world is seriously deluded.

Be it Left, Right, Centre, or Left Field

And add non mainstream media.  Lots of nutjob websites out there.  Sadly, many gravitate towards them and actually believe what's there.  This is causing real problems in the US.

[Jeffr2]

9 minutes ago, SimpleMan555 said:

The term 'Globalist' is often used to describe a person that supports a political-economic system of Globalism.

As with many things, it's use has been perverted by many to support their own idiologies.

 

To me, I would understand the term to be 'One who supports Globalism with a worldwide central government and economic system'

 

Some would call this system Utopia, others would view it as Authortarian

 

I support equality and mutual respect at all levels of society, but do not feel humanity is ready for a 'New World Order'.

 

==============

 

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/globalist

 

I don't believe that's what your link suggests.  Not a central government system, just individual governments that should consider global issues for planning.  Makes sense.  We are in a global society.  No going back.  And the opposite of a globalist seems to be a nationalist.  Something we really don't want.

 

From your link:

 

someone who believes that economic and foreign policy should be planned in an international way, rather than according to what is best for one particular country :

He is a globalist, whereas we are nationalists who will put our country first.

She is critical of the president's globalist foreign policy.

[ozimoron]

8 minutes ago, seedy said:

I might add - Politicians, Corporations ...

Anyone who believes there exists democracy anywhere in the world is seriously deluded.

Be it Left, Right, Centre, or Left Field

What we really have is an oligarchy where the rich own most of the wealth and control the message through the media.

[LarrySR]

1 hour ago, Jeffr2 said:

Your wrong.  You need a better source for your news.  Seriously.

I think he watches Info Wars too. 

[Jeffr2]

Just now, LarrySR said:

I think he watches Info Wars too. 

For sure.  He uses too many of the far rights dog whistles! LOL.  Jeez. That nutter on InfoWars is the worst!  He's made tons of money conning the masses.

[LarrySR]

1 hour ago, Casesrisingpanic said:

So I need to get a mainstream source that agrees with your leftist opinions is what you are saying. 

 

You can either choose to deal with the realities of the world or listen to the crafted narratives of the mainstream media. 

 

Your choice. 

According to an exhaustive media analysis by Harvard and MIT computer scientists, the  blissfully misinformed right wing media viewers are intentionally locked into a right wing propaganda feedback loop. 

https://cyber.harvard.edu/story/2018-11/how-propaganda-feedback-loop-right-wing-media-keeps-more-quarter-americans-siloed

[thaibeachlovers]

1 hour ago, Jeffr2 said:

Go away troll.

Cancel culture writ large on AN.

[thaibeachlovers]

28 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

What we really have is an oligarchy where the rich own most of the wealth and control the message through the media.

Always been so since Og realised he was stronger and more ruthless than the other cavemen.

[thaibeachlovers]

31 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

I don't believe that's what your link suggests.  Not a central government system, just individual governments that should consider global issues for planning.  Makes sense.  We are in a global society.  No going back.  And the opposite of a globalist seems to be a nationalist.  Something we really don't want.

 

From your link:

 

someone who believes that economic and foreign policy should be planned in an international way, rather than according to what is best for one particular country :

He is a globalist, whereas we are nationalists who will put our country first.

She is critical of the president's globalist foreign policy.

I disagree, but to say why would involve politics, so sadly can't.

[Jeffr2]

5 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Cancel culture writ large on AN.

Big time dog whistle for the far right! LOL

 

What is AN?

[thaibeachlovers]

Just now, Jeffr2 said:

Big time dog whistle for the far right! LOL

 

What is AN?

???????????????

You are posting on it, Asean Now!

[Lemsta69]

On 11/13/2021 at 11:44 AM, herfiehandbag said:

No. I don't "identify" as anything. 

 

I am an Englishman, who happens to have long had a curiosity to learn about the world around me — and (I hope) an ability to keep an open mind and an interest in sorting out the changes being wrought every day.

 

Maybe I should have taken the grumpy old expat option...

there's a grumpy old expat option? I didn't read that far, too much blether in the headline already ????

Edited November 15, 2021 by Lemsta69

[LarrySR]

26 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Cancel culture writ large on AN.

Some things are good to cancel.

For example, the ignorant opinions of Fox viewers.  

Fox sucks the facts from their viewers brains. 

Edited November 15, 2021 by LarrySR

[Odysseus123]

2 hours ago, Jeffr2 said:

Lots of nutjob websites out there. 

Very,very,true.

[blackprince]

5 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

IMO Soros did his best to destroy the Thai economy. I can't use the words I describe him with on this forum for doing so.

To be fair to Soros he didn't make the rules about international finance. And I'm sure his goal was to make profit, not to destroy. I was going to mention financial globalisation earlier in this thread, but I'm not sure detailed analysis is what is really expected here. Anyway here's a snippet of what I've been thinking.

 

In terms of modern financial globalisation Mrs Thatcher was a key architect via her deregulation of the City of London (aka the finance district of London). London has been a key player in global finance since the 19th century and was the key player in globally distributing those arcane US sub prime derivatives that nearly crashed capitalism in 2008. Of coures Thatcher was an arch conservative neoliberal, but it was Clinton's repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act that allowed the situation to develop in the US in the first place. Clinton of course was just part of a trend that was arguably started by Reagan - Thatcher's bosom buddy.

 

It's too simplistic to ask "are you a globalist or not?". There are pluses and minuses to globalisation for everyone in all countries whichever side of a notional political divide one prefers to position oneself. But I suspect Jingthing was just having a bit of fun.

 

Globalisation of what - markets? finance? supply chains? brands? communications? culture? language? politics? tourism? retirement? pandemics? vaccine manufacture and distribution? And I'm sure there's more ????

 

The excellent book by Joe Stiglitz "Globalization and Its Discontents Revisited",  that I've already referenced twice and linked, really is the most comprehensive discussion of this for the political, financial and economic dimensions.

 

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B077MTSYZ9/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 15, 2021 by blackprince

[thaibeachlovers]

4 hours ago, Jeffr2 said:

And add non mainstream media.  Lots of nutjob websites out there.  Sadly, many gravitate towards them and actually believe what's there.  This is causing real problems in the US.

If you are implying that "mainstream media" is honest or good, then I find that to be .

Perhaps it's different where you live, but it's so bad here I just won't watch it at all in case my brain catches fire because IMO it's fodder for the sheeple.

Edited November 15, 2021 by thaibeachlovers

[ozimoron]

4 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

If you are implying that "mainstream media" is honest or good, then I find that to be .

Perhaps it's different where you live, but it's so bad here I just won't watch it at all in case my brain catches fire because IMO it's fodder for the sheeple.

Are you suggesting that any news (or political opinion) media are "good"? If so, which ones?

[Berkshire]

4 hours ago, Jeffr2 said:

For sure.  He uses too many of the far rights dog whistles! LOL.  Jeez. That nutter on InfoWars is the worst!  He's made tons of money conning the masses.

It does seem that people on the right are more susceptible to believing outright lies, whether spewed by Alex Jones or Roger Stone or Trump et al.  That My Pillow guy is still out there peddling 2020 election lies, claiming that Trump will be reinstated any time now.  He's still doing it because there are people that believes that nonsense....and of course, he's making money off them.   

[Jeffr2]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

If you are implying that "mainstream media" is honest or good, then I find that to be .

Perhaps it's different where you live, but it's so bad here I just won't watch it at all in case my brain catches fire because IMO it's fodder for the sheeple.

I'm guessing you have no idea what a news desk is.  The better news outlets have this.  Which means information gets vetted before publishing.  OANN, Newsmax, etc, don't have this. And spew lies.

 

MSM is honest.  Slanted left or right?  Sure.  But publishing out right lies.  No.  Sadly, you're from the far right and have fallen for this propaganda to keep you from reading what's really going on.  They want you stuck in that echo chamber. 

 

Sheeple is another dog whistle from the far right.

[Jeffr2]

4 hours ago, blackprince said:

To be fair to Soros he didn't make the rules about international finance. And I'm sure his goal was to make profit, not to destroy. I was going to mention financial globalisation earlier in this thread, but I'm not sure detailed analysis is what is really expected here. Anyway here's a snippet of what I've been thinking.

 

In terms of modern financial globalisation Mrs Thatcher was a key architect via her deregulation of the City of London (aka the finance district of London). London has been a key player in global finance since the 19th century and was the key player in globally distributing those arcane US sub prime derivatives that nearly crashed capitalism in 2008. Of coures Thatcher was an arch conservative neoliberal, but it was Clinton's repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act that allowed the situation to develop in the US in the first place. Clinton of course was just part of a trend that was arguably started by Reagan - Thatcher's bosom buddy.

 

It's too simplistic to ask "are you a globalist or not?". There are pluses and minuses to globalisation for everyone in all countries whichever side of a notional political divide one prefers to position oneself. But I suspect Jingthing was just having a bit of fun.

 

Globalisation of what - markets? finance? supply chains? brands? communications? culture? language? politics? tourism? retirement? pandemics? vaccine manufacture and distribution? And I'm sure there's more ????

 

The excellent book by Joe Stiglitz "Globalization and Its Discontents Revisited",  that I've already referenced twice and linked, really is the most comprehensive discussion of this for the political, financial and economic dimensions.

 

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B077MTSYZ9/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

I'm no fan of Soros.  The man who broke the Bank of England.  But also, he's not the boogeyman as portrayed by the right.  Just BS conspiracy theories.

[blackprince]

1 minute ago, Jeffr2 said:

I'm no fan of Soros.  The man who broke the Bank of England.  But also, he's not the boogeyman as portrayed by the right.  Just BS conspiracy theories.

I take your point and lots of people would agree with you even though Soros didn't actually break the Bank of England. It's not possible to break the central bank of a country that has a fully sovereign currency - this is a core tenet of MMT (Modern Monetary Theory).

 

But it was the comparatively new neoliberal rules of international finance that allowed him to do that. Prior to Thatcher's deregulation of the City of London he wouldn't have been able to do that.

 

It also highlights the kinds of problems that occur in a partial monetary union that the Eurozone has been experiencing. Soros gambled on sterling's exchange rate dropping out of the spread agreed in the ERM - the Exchange Rate Mechanism - the precursor to the eurozone - and he won the bet.

 

Financial globalisation has brought many problems (not least of all the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis that affected Thailand so badly) as well as benefits. Joe Stiglitz, who is a Nobel prize winning economist and worked at the World Bank and a progressive, analyses this in detail in the book I referenced "Globalization and Its Discontents".

[Jeffr2]

8 minutes ago, blackprince said:

I take your point and lots of people would agree with you even though Soros didn't actually break the Bank of England. It's not possible to break the central bank of a country that has a fully sovereign currency - this is a core tenet of MMT (Modern Monetary Theory).

 

But it was the comparatively new neoliberal rules of international finance that allowed him to do that. Prior to Thatcher's deregulation of the City of London he wouldn't have been able to do that.

 

It also highlights the kinds of problems that occur in a partial monetary union that the Eurozone has been experiencing. Soros gambled on sterling's exchange rate dropping out of the spread agreed in the ERM - the Exchange Rate Mechanism - the precursor to the eurozone - and he won the bet.

 

Financial globalisation has brought many problems (not least of all the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis that affected Thailand so badly) as well as benefits. Joe Stiglitz, who is a Nobel prize winning economist and worked at the World Bank and a progressive, analyses this in detail in the book I referenced "Globalization and Its Discontents".

The rich get richer....changes need to be made.

[blackprince]

39 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

The rich get richer....changes need to be made.

True enough and billionaires like Soros, Gates and Buffet agree. They're on the public record advocating higher taxes for bllionaires.

 

I don't know much about Soros's early family background other than how they avoided Nazi persecution, but this snippet from his time in the UK interested me "after the war, Soros left Budapest in 1947 for London, working part-time as a railway porter and as a night-club waiter to support his studies at the London School of Economics."

 

To be honest I respect someone who went through so much and survived and prospered. I don't have a problem with the likes of Gates and Buffet either. They play by the rules, successfully. But they don't make the rules. They even advocate changing the rules for the better, but so far no-one's listening.

[zzaa09]

4 hours ago, Jeffr2 said:

The rich get richer....changes need to be made.

The dumbing down continues on. 

No adjusting required.