TPP was just the weirdest thing ever. Democratic leadership loved it. Big business loved it. Republicans hated it. Technologists hated it. China hated it. Canada, Mexico, New Zealand, and Australia loved it. That's just weird. The strangest collection of bed-fellows anywhere. I wonder what other issues both the Democrats and Big Business agree upon? Or that Republicans and the Tech Industry can agree upon? Such a weird deal...
TPP was globalism and skullduggery. Democrats love that shit. Republicans will stomp around publicly, drop troops on the beach and pull statues down. Democrats will shoot you in the dark. TPP was globalist economic policy as only Navy SEALs can do. A force established by Kennedy, I might add. Who also brought you the A-12/SR-71 and the Bay of Pigs.
What is globalism anyway? Most of the time it sounds like people mean "anything intentional I think is bad."
You can read about it from the horse's mouth. (And I do not wish to make a habit of contradicting kleinb100, but it is in fact called Globalism by its propents. Neo-Liberalism is the 'theoretical' framework that supports the political front of Globalists.) http://www.cfr.org/sovereignty/sovereignty-globalisation/p9903 There are three general fronts opposing globalism: conservative, theoretical, and conspirational. The conservative group -- whether cultural or political -- is opposed by the self evident fact that globalism will by necessity entail the erosion of national integrity (nationalism here meaing in essence that your life for better or worse is mainly impacted by your own nation's features, culture, politics, trends, etc., which in a democratic nation means you have some say in it). The theoretical group objects to the neo-liberal (economic) and neo-con (martial) framework, by objecting to the reduction of all politics to mere economics ("end of history"); and the wars necessitated by the push to 'remove' (regime change) nations that stand in the way per the neo-con policy. The conspirationist share some (or all, depending on the tin foil envelope) of above, but go further in asserting that globalism is not motivated by the overt neo-liberal ideology but is in fact a nefarious plan to affect a gray universal culture and entirely strip the mass of humanity of our cultural and political will, and reduce us to "slaves" in the grand global plantation of a few wealthy families that subverted Europe starting in 16th century. Typically, but not necessarily, this gets reduced to (or slandered as per your pov) as anti-semitism given that the said families are banking families of Rothschilds and the Rockefellers. So you will find that conservative and conspirational opposition are highly sensitive to efforts to dismantle standing cultural institutions such as religion, family, sexual norms, etc. They view it -- and this is actually fairly supported by human history -- as a 'device' to reduce the individual into a highly programmable 'unit' in the larger socio-economic regime. Recent examples that these two fronts cite are the collectivist tyrannies of Soviet Union and Maoist China. The theoretical front is keenly sensitive to the transfer of political power to trans-national corporations (institutionalized in secret treaties such as TPP). My personal view is that some form of united Humanity is certainly inevitable short of some natural disaster or global conflict that would dismantle the current civiliation and sends us back to caves and the proverbial drawing board. But I equally believe that the current self-elected global elite are entirely unsuited -- in terms of moral, intellectual, and administrative deficits -- to lead an unwilling (and I should add, not yet ready) humanity to such a union at this point in time. Anyway, that is my 2cents and hope it is informative.
Well from skimming Wikipedia they both seem to have multiple definitions depending on who is using the terms.
Remember when you were in history class and you'd read about this empire or that, expanding as far as possible? Romans, Persians, Chinese, British, French, etc.? They did it so they could have as many resources under their control as possible, for the purpose of making money, keeping trade fluid, and so on. What's been slowly learned over time though is that keeping massive empires is hard, and literally bloody, work and you tend to piss people off in the process. Globalization/globalism is embracing ideology around trade that allows both companies and governments to make money and keep trade fluid, without resorting to trying to conquer other people through military means. It's much easier, much less bloody, and you're nowhere near as likely to be viewed as "the bad guy" by near as many people. Are there still shitty things going on by shady people? Yes. Is there still room for improvement? Fuck yes. It's still better than empire building though.
Imperialism benefits the British Empire. Globalism benefits the British East India Trading Company. Imperialism benefits Texas. Globalism benefits Texas Instruments. Imperialism benefits John Doe at the expense of Jian Do. Globalism benefits John Deere at the expense of John Doe and Jian Do.
Canada did not love it. Our government at the time (conservatives) did, but there was a huge pushback.
- Hillary Clinton You're right in that negotiations had failed. At the same time, the TPP grew out of ACTA and was the 2nd or 3rd whack by the Obama administration to pass something similar. I'm sure he'll kill net neutrality in a similar way tomorrow, but one benefit of having an isolationist dilettante for president is you don't have to worry about this particular bit of globalist overreach coming back under another name. (knocks on wood)"This TPP sets the gold standard in trade agreements to open free, transparent, fair trade, the kind of environment that has the rule of law and a level playing field," (Hillary Clinton) said in Australia in 2012. "And when negotiated, this agreement will cover 40 percent of the world's total trade and build in strong protections for workers and the environment."
I wanted to find a casino that worked well in Australia, with fast deposits and good bonuses. After searching, I found Ricky Casino. The site looked professional, and the game selection was huge. What stood out the most was the welcome package it gave me extra money to play with, which was a nice bonus. I had a lot of fun playing here.
It's not gone until it's gone. What happened to all of those Tech companies Trump wants to consult with? Who's to say they won't try and help discourage the passing of anti-Net Neutrality rules? As for the UN Bill? That's been introduced multiple times in the past and it has always died in committee, never even getting a chance to see a vote. The United States has veto power on the UNSC. Giving that up would be so monumentally stupid, I don't think even this congress would do it.
And they are going hog-fucking-wild. Remember during the election when so many crazy things happened in a week that you couldn't keep track of it all? That's what it feels like right now, with this new administration. I posted three articles this morning about stuff that made me angry and I was gonna post more but stopped only because Dala asked me to. She said, and I quote, "You're giving me a stomach ache."But for the next little while, at least, the lunatics are running the asylum.
that's the strategy. make you exhausted, make you immobile, sick, so you can't do anything.Hit you again and again so that you don't have time to process all of the awful things that are happening to you. Unfortunately, it's also how they win. Remember during the election when so many crazy things happened in a week that you couldn't keep track of it all? That's what it feels like right now, with this new administration. I posted three articles this morning about stuff that made me angry and I was gonna post more but stopped only because Dala asked me to. She said, and I quote, "You're giving me a stomach ache."
yep. Further reading on the subject - How do you negotiate a trade agreement with a president for whom facts don't matter?: Neil MacdonaldRemember: the president is a businessman — a self-declared specialist in grinding down opponents, a man with a record of withholding payment from counterparties, reneging on commitments, then inviting them to sue if they aren't happy. The only rules are his rules.
The UN has been a sacred cow for too damn long a healthy debate about if its actually doing what its supposed to be and if its effective would be nice. Complete withdraw is probably premature and unwise but I do think the UN should undergo some scrutiny from both US and abroad.
Except we have these conversations all the time (just not on Hubski). Depending on who you talk to, the UN runs the whole gamut from being well respected to being held in utter contempt. Furthermore, the UN does a lot of different shit. Some more effective than others. Wanna joke about non-binding resolutions? Most people will joke with you. Wanna tall shit about UNESCO or The World Food Program? Prepare yourself for a hearty debate, because those programs have some staunch defenders.