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

[ozimoron]

21 minutes ago, zzaa09 said:

The dumbing down continues on. 

No adjusting required.

It was quite a coup to convince a large segment of the population that home schooling is a good thing.

[Jeffr2]

14 hours ago, blackprince said:

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.

From what I understand, Soros got rich and is now a big time philanthropist.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Soros

George Soros^[a]HonFBA (born György Schwartz, August 12, 1930)^[1][2] is a Hungarian-born American^[b] billionaire investor and philanthropist.^[8][9] As of March 2021, he had a net worth of US$8.6 billion,^[10][11] having donated more than $32 billion to the Open Society Foundations,^[12] of which $15 billion have already been distributed, representing 64% of his original fortune, making him the "most generous giver" (in terms of percentage of net worth) according to Forbes.^[13]

Edited November 15, 2021 by Jeffr2

[blackprince]

27 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

From what I understand, Soros got rich and is now a big time philanthropist.

Absolutely, one of the richest and best known philanthropists in the world.

 

What I was pointing out is that following Nazi persecution he arrived in London with nothing and did regular working class work to pay his way through university. He is a completely self-made man and I respect him for that.

 

Unlike some other billionaires who never earnt a penny themselves and who would be destitute if there were effective inheritance taxes.

Edited November 16, 2021 by blackprince

[Jeffr2]

15 minutes ago, blackprince said:

Absolutely, one of the richest and best known philanthropists in the world.

 

What I was pointing out is that following Nazi persecution he arrived in London with nothing and did regular working class work to pay his way through university. He is a completely self-made man and I respect him for that.

 

Unlike some other billionaires who never earnt a penny themselves and who would be destitute if there were effective inheritance taxes.

Understood.  One reason I'm amazed at how some think Trump is a successful businessman.  Declared bankruptcy 6 times (chapter 11) and was a millionaire by age 8 due to his father's donation.  His charity was shut due to fraud.  Etc, etc, etc. 

 

But yes, you have to give some respect to a man like Soros who started with nothing, became rich, and is now giving it all away.  Stunning they make him the boogeyman in the right wing media outlets.

[blackprince]

3 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

Understood.  One reason I'm amazed at how some think Trump is a successful businessman.  Declared bankruptcy 6 times (chapter 11) and was a millionaire by age 8 due to his father's donation.  His charity was shut due to fraud.  Etc, etc, etc. 

 

You took the words out of my mouth, but I kept shtum because I don't like to be seen to commit myself to what might be interpreted as a political position on these forums ????

[Jeffr2]

Just now, blackprince said:

You took the words out of my mouth, but I kept shtum because I don't like to be seen to commit myself to what might be interpreted as a political position on these forums ????

I'm not really political at all.  Just hate politicians who lie.  With Trump?  Over 30,000 false or misleading statements during his term.  Stunning.

 

But as you can see, his comments really have an impact on some here.  And impacts their thoughts on what a globalist really is.

[sezze]

Nobody should be worth more then 1 billion $ , anything more should be given to less fortunate . It might sound communist , but i call it socialist . 1 billion $ is more then enough to do anything you want , with a lot of extra's . You can own everything you basically want , even can buy small countries if you want to . If you manage to earn 1 billion , im am pretty sure , everything you make will always flow back to you even if you give it away . It is like a ocean , give the water away , it will flow back , since people will still do the same like before . If not , you can change things to make it , and even if that doesn't work , you can still stop it , but in the same way , your billions extra will have been distributed between others , meaning better distribution of wealth .

[Jeffr2]

4 minutes ago, sezze said:

Nobody should be worth more then 1 billion $ , anything more should be given to less fortunate . It might sound communist , but i call it socialist . 1 billion $ is more then enough to do anything you want , with a lot of extra's . You can own everything you basically want , even can buy small countries if you want to . If you manage to earn 1 billion , im am pretty sure , everything you make will always flow back to you even if you give it away . It is like a ocean , give the water away , it will flow back , since people will still do the same like before . If not , you can change things to make it , and even if that doesn't work , you can still stop it , but in the same way , your billions extra will have been distributed between others , meaning better distribution of wealth .

And should pay their fair share of taxes.  Warren Buffet said his secretary paid more taxes than he did.  And we know Trump barely paid anything for a decade.  Not fair.

 

I like what Biden's been proposing.

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/world-leaders-set-endorse-global-corporate-minimum-tax-g-20-n1282769

While finance representatives from most G-20 countries have already agreed to implement a 15 percent minimum tax on corporations — ending a race to the bottom on corporate taxation that could keep companies from leaving the U.S. for low-tax countries — approval from heads of state is an important step forward towards implementing the deal.

[sezze]

I do not care for any of them , I do not care any of politicians , in any country . IMHO they all bad ... which i know they are not but imho they are . I keep my opnion , nobody should be worth more then then 1 billion . Even in capitalist sytem this is great , it is much much more then you can spend in your life. You can do much more if you give it do others , and tbh idc to who , since spreading is the key to spreading it all for more people .

[KhunLA]

15 minutes ago, sezze said:

I do not care for any of them , I do not care any of politicians , in any country . IMHO they all bad ... which i know they are not but imho they are . I keep my opnion , nobody should be worth more then then 1 billion . Even in capitalist sytem this is great , it is much much more then you can spend in your life. You can do much more if you give it do others , and tbh idc to who , since spreading is the key to spreading it all for more people .

Or other people can simple earn their own.

 

It always seems the people who didn't bother to earn more, want those that did and have, to give it to them.  Get your own, as I deserved mine, and I'll spend it as I please.  If wanting to share, that will be MY choice, not yours.

 

Most that have too much, do share, and much more than most others saying they don't deserve.  In the USA those haves, pay up to 40% taxes, vs most other pay <3% taxes.  

 

Sooner or later, you run out of other peoples money.

Edited November 16, 2021 by KhunLA

[blackprince]

17 minutes ago, sezze said:

I do not care for any of them , I do not care any of politicians , in any country . IMHO they all bad ... which i know they are not but imho they are . I keep my opnion , nobody should be worth more then then 1 billion . Even in capitalist sytem this is great , it is much much more then you can spend in your life. You can do much more if you give it do others , and tbh idc to who , since spreading is the key to spreading it all for more people .

I understand your frustration and anger at the way things are going.

 

The increasing income and wealth inequality since the neoliberal counter-revolution started by Thatcher-Reagan is well documented, and its destabilising effects on society are also well documented. It doesn't make economic sense either because if people at the lower end of the economy don't have money to spend then the economy grinds to a halt.

 

And its effects are very relevant to a discussion on globalisation because the globalisation of supply chains has eroded traditional employment in many countries including developed countries like the US.

 

There are simple solutions (1) reintroduce progressive taxation (ie the tax rate should increase not decrease for higher slices of income) (2) close offshore tax havens (another example of the negative effects of financial globalisation) (3) harmonise basic corporate rates across the world. I am encouraged to see number 3 has been agreed recently.

Edited November 16, 2021 by blackprince

[VocalNeal]

I voted No, on the basis that it is some American nut job thing. With no bearing on the world at large or my life in general.

[Jeffr2]

22 minutes ago, VocalNeal said:

I voted No, on the basis that it is some American nut job thing. With no bearing on the world at large or my life in general.

You're off on this a bit. It's a nut job thing by the right wingers.  But it's a real term.  And been around for a long time.  It's all about the world at large, and definitely has an impact on your life.  Impossible to get away from this.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalism

Globalism refers to various systems with scope beyond the merely international. It is used by political scientists, such as Joseph Nye, to describe "attempts to understand all the interconnections of the modern world—and to highlight patterns that underlie (and explain) them."^[1] While primarily associated with world-systems, it can be used to describe other global trends.

 

The term is also frequently used as a pejorative by far-right movements and conspiracy theorists. Usage in this way has also been associated with anti-Semitism, as anti-semites frequently appropriate the word globalist for Jews.^[2][3][4]

[ozimoron]

4 hours ago, sezze said:

Nobody should be worth more then 1 billion $ , anything more should be given to less fortunate . It might sound communist , but i call it socialist . 1 billion $ is more then enough to do anything you want , with a lot of extra's . You can own everything you basically want , even can buy small countries if you want to . If you manage to earn 1 billion , im am pretty sure , everything you make will always flow back to you even if you give it away . It is like a ocean , give the water away , it will flow back , since people will still do the same like before . If not , you can change things to make it , and even if that doesn't work , you can still stop it , but in the same way , your billions extra will have been distributed between others , meaning better distribution of wealth .

I just think that some of them should pay at least some tax sometime. </sarc> If the world minimum tax agreement is ever enforced it will be the best thing that has happened to the economy since the end of the second world war.

[blackprince]

In addition to the numerous posts I've already made on this topic, I'd like to add that there seems currently be a split (not specifically here on this thread) between progressives who think globalism is good and nationalists who think globalism is bad. But this is much too simplistic. Three examples:

 

1. Keynes, a leading progressive economist, was reponsible for the Bretton Woods proposals that led to the World Bank and IMF. But he was acutely aware of the dangers of unregulated international finance, and his original proposals had mechanisms to control this. Sadly these mechanisms were not implemented as designed by him, and often the IMF has acted in a way that he would not have approved of (eg Asian Financial Crisis). Stiglitz, who I've referenced several times, goes into this in detail.

 

2. In the 70s there was a progressive movement and book called "Small is Beautiful" by a German-British economist that advocated localisation rather than globalisation. It was a bestseller.

 

3. Also in the 70s there was a progressive economics initiative called the "Limits to Growth" whose basic idea is that unlimited growth on a finite planet is unsustainable. I think most people understand this now, but most politicians of all stripes still seem to be obsessed by GDP.

 

We know that globalisation has led to issues that have given fuel to the populist right, but as informed obervers and analysts we need to get past that unnecessary binary schism.

 

An element of nationalism is inevitable while we organise things via nation states, and an element of internationalism is essential if we are to deal with things that transcend the nation state, like pandemics, pollution, and the climate.

 

OK, I'm stepping down from the soapbox now.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Fat is a type of crazy]

 

As is well known that places like Africa, and Australia,  couldn't sell its food to Europe because of tarrifs. Then European subsidies on food meant they could sell it back to Africa, and Australia,  cheaper than Africa and Australia could produce it. 50 cent cans of tomatoes. 

It was the one thing that Africa, at the time, should have had a competitive advantage in due to low paid staff and big farms.  Terribly unfair but it was away for Europe to placate farmers and keep  its picturesque farmland. 

That's where distorted trade can give it a bad name when ideally it should free up people to do what they do best. 

Apologies if someone has made a similar post in the 8 pages before. 

 

Edited November 16, 2021 by Fat is a type of crazy

[Jeffr2]

1 hour ago, blackprince said:

In addition to the numerous posts I've already made on this topic, I'd like to add that there seems currently be a split (not specifically here on this thread) between progressives who think globalism is good and nationalists who think globalism is bad. But this is much too simplistic. Three examples:

 

1. Keynes, a leading progressive economist, was reponsible for the Bretton Woods proposals that led to the World Bank and IMF. But he was acutely aware of the dangers of unregulated international finance, and his original proposals had mechanisms to control this. Sadly these mechanisms were not implemented as designed by him, and often the IMF has acted in a way that he would not have approved of (eg Asian Financial Crisis). Stiglitz, who I've referenced several times, goes into this in detail.

 

2. In the 70s there was a progressive movement and book called "Small is Beautiful" by a German-British economist that advocated localisation rather than globalisation. It was a bestseller.

 

3. Also in the 70s there was a progressive economics initiative called the "Limits to Growth" whose basic idea is that unlimited growth on a finite planet is unsustainable. I think most people understand this now, but most politicians of all stripes still seem to be obsessed by GDP.

 

We know that globalisation has led to issues that have given fuel to the populist right, but as informed obervers and analysts we need to get past that unnecessary binary schism.

 

An element of nationalism is inevitable while we organise things via nation states, and an element of internationalism is essential if we are to deal with things that transcend the nation state, like pandemics, pollution, and the climate.

 

OK, I'm stepping down from the soapbox now.

LOL. Brings back memories of my education in economics and several years spent doing econometric models with experts from the University of Chicago. Incredibly intelligent people.

[sezze]

8 hours ago, KhunLA said:

Or other people can simple earn their own.

 

It always seems the people who didn't bother to earn more, want those that did and have, to give it to them.  Get your own, as I deserved mine, and I'll spend it as I please.  If wanting to share, that will be MY choice, not yours.

 

Most that have too much, do share, and much more than most others saying they don't deserve.  In the USA those haves, pay up to 40% taxes, vs most other pay <3% taxes.  

 

Sooner or later, you run out of other peoples money.

That is impossible for most poor people . If you do spread some of the money , and like i said , you can absolutely keep 1 billion ( thats 1000 million $ ... ) , much more people can have a better life .

Most of the superwealthy people did not start from nothing . They had a serious amount of start money . If you grow up poor , chances of you getting out of it is very very small . So simply "earn their own" is not possible . Some of these poor people do have great ideas , but lack start money . More equal society creates less anger/crime in society also .

 

[KhunLA]

4 minutes ago, sezze said:

If you grow up poor , chances of you getting out of it is very very small .

 

That's false, and I'm living proof.  Apply yourself, and make better decisions.  Live within your means, and at some point, think of your future.  

[sezze]

[blackprince]

19 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

That's false, and I'm living proof.  Apply yourself, and make better decisions.  Live within your means, and at some point, think of your future.  

He said the chances are poor not impossible!

 

And the stats support him overwhelmingly.

 

Not only that, but social mobility has declined substantially in the "Anglo-Saxon economies" of the UK and USA, and income & wealth inequality have increased substantially, since you and I were lads. This is not a freak of nature, it's a consequence of misguided policy.

[blackprince]

1 hour ago, Jeffr2 said:

LOL. Brings back memories of my education in economics and several years spent doing econometric models with experts from the University of Chicago. Incredibly intelligent people.

Really! US economics is usually divided into saltwater and freshwater, with Chicago being of course freshwater, the neoliberal antichrist of economics! I'm saltwater myself ????

[zzaa09]

35 minutes ago, sezze said:

Indeed.

I'm sure there are those that blindly romance these evil types - almost certain that they consider themselves globalists [whatever the <deleted> that really is] ????????

 

BTW, these four are just a limited example - many more of their kind out there.

Beware of their evil and destructive workings. 

Globalists.????

[ozimoron]

3 minutes ago, zzaa09 said:

Indeed.

I'm sure there are those that blindly romance these evil types - almost certain that they consider themselves globalists [whatever the <deleted> that really is] ????????

 

BTW, these four are just a limited example - many more of their kind out there.

Beware of their evil and destructive workings. 

Globalists.????

It's quite possible to be a globalist and not worship rich people. The left are nowhere near as tribal as the right wing. Most educated people would describe themselves as globalist while still recognising the threat of an oligarchy. Issues like this aren't black or white, they are more nuanced.

[sezze]

10 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

It's quite possible to be a globalist and not worship rich people. The left are nowhere near as tribal as the right wing. Most educated people would describe themselves as globalist while still recognising the threat of an oligarchy. Issues like this aren't black or white, they are more nuanced.

I consider myself a globalist , and i do not worship rich people . I got nothing against them , up to a certain point . Same like Bono who goes asking for normal working class people to donate money for helping the starving in Africa or somewhere else , in his private jet ...  Or Al Gore , who does say to normal people that "we" do put out too much CO2 , while his personal CO2 footprint is extremely big .

Nobody on this planet needs more then 1 billion $ , while many others can't go school longer/higher degree because they don't have the money for it . Or are struggling to get a plate of food on their table .

[ozimoron]

14 minutes ago, sezze said:

I consider myself a globalist , and i do not worship rich people . I got nothing against them , up to a certain point . Same like Bono who goes asking for normal working class people to donate money for helping the starving in Africa or somewhere else , in his private jet ...  Or Al Gore , who does say to normal people that "we" do put out too much CO2 , while his personal CO2 footprint is extremely big .

Nobody on this planet needs more then 1 billion $ , while many others can't go school longer/higher degree because they don't have the money for it . Or are struggling to get a plate of food on their table .

A lot of people criticize Al Gore over this issue as if to suggest that it somehow invalidates his message. It's a classic case of shooting the messenger. Others criticize Greta Thunberg by saying that she isn't even a scientist as if somehow one needs to be a scientist to understand that climate change is a threat to our existence. Ironically, most of those who do criticize her aren't scientists either. I very much agree that there should be steep sliding tax scale places on excess wealth. I thought the most egregious example of the waste of excess wealth was putting a car into orbit playing david bowie songs in a vacuum.

[zzaa09]

41 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

It's quite possible to be a globalist and not worship rich people. The left are nowhere near as tribal as the right wing. Most educated people would describe themselves as globalist while still recognising the threat of an oligarchy. Issues like this aren't black or white, they are more nuanced.

It matters not the invented political identity. 

They're all phony. 

[Jingthing]

4 hours ago, blackprince said:

In addition to the numerous posts I've already made on this topic, I'd like to add that there seems currently be a split (not specifically here on this thread) between progressives who think globalism is good and nationalists who think globalism is bad. But this is much too simplistic. Three examples:

 

1. Keynes, a leading progressive economist, was reponsible for the Bretton Woods proposals that led to the World Bank and IMF. But he was acutely aware of the dangers of unregulated international finance, and his original proposals had mechanisms to control this. Sadly these mechanisms were not implemented as designed by him, and often the IMF has acted in a way that he would not have approved of (eg Asian Financial Crisis). Stiglitz, who I've referenced several times, goes into this in detail.

 

2. In the 70s there was a progressive movement and book called "Small is Beautiful" by a German-British economist that advocated localisation rather than globalisation. It was a bestseller.

 

3. Also in the 70s there was a progressive economics initiative called the "Limits to Growth" whose basic idea is that unlimited growth on a finite planet is unsustainable. I think most people understand this now, but most politicians of all stripes still seem to be obsessed by GDP.

 

We know that globalisation has led to issues that have given fuel to the populist right, but as informed obervers and analysts we need to get past that unnecessary binary schism.

 

An element of nationalism is inevitable while we organise things via nation states, and an element of internationalism is essential if we are to deal with things that transcend the nation state, like pandemics, pollution, and the climate.

 

OK, I'm stepping down from the soapbox now.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I completely agree the poll question is simplified. That's a poll design issue. What did you expect? Ten different complex choices of response?  But above all, this like all polls here are not scientific and are instead for entertainment and discussion purposes only.

 

Next 

...

[Golden Triangle]

If I had a clue what the OP was wittering on about I might have an answer, as it is I don't have a clue so can't really comment, I have however been to more than a few countries on this planet, does that make me a globalist ?

[Jingthing]

Just now, Golden Triangle said:

If I had a clue what the OP was wittering on about I might have an answer, as it is I don't have a clue so can't really comment, I have however been to more than a few countries on this planet, does that make me a globalist ?

If you think it does, it does. If not, it doesn't.