What do the anti-globalists want?

[dogukan]

Yes I've been hearing for years by all types of marxist offshoots that whatever happens wrong in Capitalism is not because things were badly done, but exclusively because Capitalism by itself causes sudden crisis that seem to come from nowhere. The people are good, but the system is very very evil and very very flawed.

This point is mostly what has been repeated by USSR professional propagandists since whole Cold War.

Thats not a reply to the point I am making. It doesn't matter if I am a Marxist or not, if I go into the banking sector, my business model will dictate me to behave in a certain way. I will have to be pro-high interest rates, pro-low capital requirements, pro-eased regulations on finance, anti-capital control measures, eased conversion models...etc.
Surely, individuals can have their opinions, but each sector you go into, given the conditions are stable(e.g high debt can change redistributive aspect), you can get an idea of what the "interests" for each sector group are.
Fixed capital and mobile capital have competing interests, labour has different interests, pensioners have different interests, investors have different interests, exporters have different interests, import-competers have different interests, service economy/intangible assets have different interests, central banks have different interests, consumers have differents interests....etc
These are all structural phenomena and are not tied necessarily to a marxist analysis.

In fact, Marxism simplifies all this into a class based analysis, merely ptting labor and capital against each other, whereas in reality capital and labour within a given sector have cooperating interests.

You really believe there is no data to show that unproductive firms are being protected by some type of banks? Are you sure you're paying attention to development economics classes? Why would you even be against mercantilism then?
Even when things go as planned, the phenomena of unprofitable firms getting special protection does happen, it's mentioned in endless working papers related to development economics, by Rodrik, Mazzucato and Chang for example.

Thats not the point they are making.
First of all, PROTECTIONISM is LIMITED by WTO, a "globalist" regime that governs trade. Therefore such protection is only likely for domestic-oriented firms which are small in scale and have lower productivity than exporting firms.
For instance, as we speak, Trump is trying to pass protectionism measures on unproductive sectors simply to create jobs(that will not be sustainable on the long run anyways), something the "globalists" see as a step backwards.

Banks don't have any means to "protect" firms....I guess what you are trying to say is banks are giving out easy loans? If you are against that, that means you should be backing Obama's regulations, not Trump trying to give free-reign to banking.
Since 2008, there had been many regulations to decrease systemic risks but due to slowed down economy, they tried to keep a balance.

I am not against or pro-mercantilism. I don't take sides in economics based on my beliefs. I look into the purpose and the outcome that is trying to be achieved and weigh it according to what kind of a world I imagine is best to be. This means that protection under some circumstances can be good, in some circumstances it can for populist purposes.
Most of the protectionist ideas coming from right-wing are for unproductive, dying sectors so that a dying breed of labor can live without adapting to these changes and primarily to the growing economic importance of the non-western world which is competing their privileges.
There are things like debt and unchecked trade deficit that Trump wants to fix which makes sense, but he wants a short-cut to gain votes from the losers of the century. Which will come back to hurt USA as it will lose its prominance by not trying to innovate and structurally change and instead backtrack to an old economic model to increase employment. The EU right-wing has a similar attitude.

You keep calling all kinds of heterodox analysis as "conspiracy theory", acting as if everything is relatively normal, the simple fact bankers killed themselves like flies means something is not correct in how things happened. Groups of qualified people don't start a trend of suicide simply out of randomness. But I guess assuming there was a reason is "conspiracy theorist" when talking with this types

I don't understand how this ties to a heterodox theory. Bankers tend have tons of investments in various assets and crises simply tear down the value of their investments in such a short time leacing them with large, unsustainable debts. Bankers have killed themselves over this before, its not the first time. Their mistake is that just because they are in the sector, they can have more certainty and therefore less risks.

The solution you offer is more Obama regulations? Don't realize in your dialect Obama should be considered part of the Capitalist Elite who keeps the Prolet down? So now you believe Capitalism can work well if the correct people are in charge (Obama in charge = good capitalism; Trump in charge = bad Capitalism)? So good Capitalism can exist after all? (provided the correct people are in the Elite?)
You keep refuting your own points.

We are not discussing capitalism.
The problem is the right-wing mishmash of reality without any academic basis to make ridiculous points like calling the elite a jewish marxist alien conspiracy to destroy the western world and blaming all this on a "left".
You are talking about the evil of the financial elite and how they ruined the world and caused a crisis etc and now yo uare telling me that you are against banking regulations? What do you want? How will banks function? If you doN't want banks, how will capitalism function?
And I am refuting my points?
I am telling you, Trump is trying to tear down the walls that keep financial elite containted and you are telling me he serves the proleteriat.
He FOOLS the proleteriat and serves the elite.

Now I can't blame the left for picking the only defensors avaliable. If you think their power is too monopolistic, wonder why the only ones who have patience to protect Prolet as likes of Trump and Brexit.

The Brexit and Trump isn't pro proleteriat on the long-run. What west needs is a brave structural transformation. Stagnating in dying sectors for short-run to gain populist will only speed up the convergence of the non-western world and further deepen the competitive pressures on the west on the long-run.
The language of populism has taken over the west. This is desperation, not power.

[fkizz]

Banks don't have any means to "protect" firms...

Do you really believe this?
Because this is the Keystone in what we're debating, given it's about Central Banks.
Of course Banks have means to give special protections to firms with plenty of deals under the table. Mainly Central Banks and Big Biz.
It's all fun and games until the nation has essentially given up investing in innovation.

But this is the Keystone, if you don't believe Banks and Central Banks have means and resolve to give liquidity to Olipolies and Gigantic sized firms with both market and lobby power, it's futile to continue. (in fact it can be argued to be in their interest to provide such liquidity, despite being a huge waste of cash no longer pushing for creativity, hence the "too big to fail" euphemism going viral on MSM)

The worldview where this does not happen is very naive and very optimistic. I mean beautiful too, but suffers from being too naive.

We are not discussing capitalism.
The problem is the right-wing mishmash of reality without any academic basis to make ridiculous points like calling the elite a jewish marxist alien conspiracy to destroy the western world and blaming all this on a "left".

I made no mention of jews, you did just now, that's not what I said. More strawman projection.

What I said was, the way the Banks were instructed to handle the 2008 crisis was long term much more damaging than projected (promotes stagnation). Which can be empirically confirmed by seeing state of western economics.. today.

No academic basis? I even mentioned a trio of academics part of the area you claim to be studying (development economics). They mention that unprofitable firms getting help from special banks does happen many times. Point being if it's good or bad (outside of 2008 crisis pov)

Rest of post too long, 1 am here will read tomorrow.

[dogukan]

Well, when you read tomorrow try to see that I am not arguing for free reign on banks.I am all for regulating and limiting banks which is an unproductive and over-bloated sector that is destroying real economy.

But that CBs are protecting big business? You have to clarify that. You talk of it if they are doing cash transfers. They can't give anything "under the table". These organizations are thoroughly checked, they are not my uncle's business. Gazillions of people are involved in these processes and the whole world stock markets have a special interest in what is going on in detail. There is no way to hide any substantive capital movement there. (you probably can't even hide a dollar in the most observed phenomena on the world quiet literally, 24/7)

If you are referring to quantitative easing and how CBs buys corporate bonds cheaply with low interests, aka, giving out easy loans...yeah that had been the case. It was a strategy to make sure the global economy picks up in growth rates and it failed in some cases and succeded in some cases. And now it is creating a lot of inflation. My point was that the left were the side that wanted to regulate this and now Trumps wants to deregulate it like in 1990s and 2000s which created the conditions for the economic crisis. And Trump still chooses to deny the structural problems and decrasing productivity that caused the crisis by leading people to increase their status through cheap mortgages and buying houses.
Coal mines won't increase American aggragate efficiency. Nor steel. It will increase employment. Return to such policies are likely to increase American inflation on the long-run like in 70s.

As for the damages of the 2008....I dont agree with you. It was handled a lot more smoothly give the size of the potential catastrophe. The long-term damage imo wasn't a product of that crisis but the de-levelling of the bloated western-led financial economy that was making baseless money. What happened is simply that the real economic dynamics of convergence in the world started to catch up. You have to remember that the crisis was a western phenomena, it effected the developing world a lot less, except for decreases in FDI.

Again, I am not exactly understanding how that trio argues that banks are supporting unprofitable firms and under what circumstances? They are all against the large size of financial sector, that I understand and agree. But what exactly do you mean by banks supporting unprofitable firms? Can you send me their work that specifically explains this? I know for a fact that Mazzucato is highly critical of size of UK financial sector and that it prevents productive development as it soaks up everything. But she doesn't say that banks are "protecting" any particular firms. On the contrary, she argues that state should protect and incentivize future sectors and innovate.

[fkizz]

Well, when you read tomorrow try to see that I am not arguing for free reign on banks.I am all for regulating and limiting banks which is an unproductive and over-bloated sector that is destroying real economy.

But that CBs are protecting big business? You have to clarify that. You talk of it if they are doing cash transfers. They can't give anything "under the table". These organizations are thoroughly checked, they are not my uncle's business. Gazillions of people are involved in these processes and the whole world stock markets have a special interest in what is going on in detail. There is no way to hide any substantive capital movement there. (you probably can't even hide a dollar in the most observed phenomena on the world quiet literally, 24/7)

Our biggest difference seems to be the moral quality of the agents in CBs. You seem to believe the average person to be of outstanding moral integrity by default, pointing to a a world free of corruption, while I seem to assume that if they can do something more shady that will give them advantage (with low chance of being caught), they will do it.

You project your view putting corruption on upper echelons to a minimum, I project my view expecting agents to maximize their payoffs even if it comes in possible frictions with Law. (but they have an army of lawyers ready for that case).
You seem idealistic romantic minded, while I seem to be pessimistic minded, expecting a good amount of the people to attempt to break the law and sabotage the other if that can make them more powerful or richer.

I mean this is the biggest disagreement, really. The rest of the opinin is not -that- different, save for politics.

Possibly the disagreement comes from the huge amount of news that passes in our media about offshores, money laundering, mafia disputes, traffic of influences and corruption, plenty of times dealing with capital flows from foreign countries, from both north europe and africa.

It becomes hard to believe in that corruption-free world.
There are other non profitable institutions who receive privileged loans such as political parties for example.

But to go further one needs a mind more receptive to the existance of corruption and influence game first, and how it affects growth, otherwise it's a waste of time.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

It gets more interesting when you enter revolving door theory and shadow finance

Again, I am not exactly understanding how that trio argues that banks are supporting unprofitable firms and under what circumstances?

Nothing on development banks and industrial politicy by Chang? Not that I'm against it, but it's a fairly empiric example of a scheme to give out very generous loans to businesses without commercial intent has been happening for decades now.. but this is the face of the thing when it happens correctly.
What would the reverse of the coin be? Introduce a more corruptible person model into your projection, and behold
Also, for an introduction on the very old existance of loans without profit or commercial mindset, have a Chang paper;

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

http://www.tek.org.tr/dosyalar/Chang-ABCDE-09.pdf

The point of the paper is to normalize you the idea that the existance of banks who give out "non-commercial non-profit loans" is fairly evident, rather than to make a point for the Revolving Door theory.

[Magnum_Opus]

Personally I just want power decentralised as much as reasonably possible. I don't want to see supra-national bodies made up of elites ruling over humanity.

[Love Mountain]

Personally I just want power decentralised as much as reasonably possible. I don't want to see supra-national bodies made up of elites ruling over humanity.

I don't and quite frankly nobody should. "Elites" is just a slur word. Experts and bureaucrats have the responsibility to rule over unruly masses. A world without a powerful central authority is appealing only to gunowner SHTF nuts.

[fkizz]

I don't and quite frankly nobody should. "Elites" is just a slur word. Experts and bureaucrats have the responsibility to rule over unruly masses. A world without a powerful central authority is appealing only to gunowner SHTF nuts.

supra-national bodies made up of elites ruling humanity will intra-class war, with different elites each having different expertises, alliegeances and traditions fighting over supremacy. Which is already kinda happening, as how you could see it on US elections. Many elites dislike the idea of One World Government. And they are willing to put aside differences to fight such a thing.

Either way, the concept of a supra-National body ruling over and mediating over several governments is just a re-make of what the Papal States did in Feudal Europe. There is a yearning for such lost paternal government body.

Imitation is sincerest form of flattery.
These "progressives" of today do little more than mimick the system that the Church/Papal States had adopted in the middle ages.

[Love Mountain]

I disagree with that framing. I prefer technocrats competing with ideas over how to best ration scarce resources. Geopolitical conflicts are independent of who's in power as national interests will always be the same no matter who is in power. Well, no that's not quite right, but there will always be national interests is my points. Solutions to distribution of scarce resources will only be solved optimally by technocrats who balance freedom vs needs. Letting the masses and the market determine who gets what and who lives how is only going to lead to misery and ruin.

Supranational consolidation is one solution towards making resource use more efficient. Think of cohesive border security, intrastate infrastructure, and open inner markets. It would also be great for people to start moving towards a true official business language instead of the numerous lingua francas today. German in business, French in NATO, English for leisure. I'm sorry but I'm far too lazy to learn all three

[Aexodus]

I disagree with that framing. I prefer technocrats competing with ideas over how to best ration scarce resources. Geopolitical conflicts are independent of who's in power as national interests will always be the same no matter who is in power. Well, no that's not quite right, but there will always be national interests is my points. Solutions to distribution of scarce resources will only be solved optimally by technocrats who balance freedom vs needs. Letting the masses and the market determine who gets what and who lives how is only going to lead to misery and ruin.

Distribution based on needs only leads to economic ruin, I thought the Soviets proved that.

Supranational consolidation is one solution towards making resource use more efficient. Think of cohesive border security, intrastate infrastructure, and open inner markets. It would also be great for people to start moving towards a true official business language instead of the numerous lingua francas today. German in business, French in NATO, English for leisure. I'm sorry but I'm far too lazy to learn all three

Im sorry what? Abolishing languages for globalist convenience i.e. because you're too lazy to learn them flies in the face of all of humanity's cultural history. This is why people don't like globalism. It puts the global interest over the national interest.

I don't know about you, but unrestricted centralisation does have a tendency of obstructing individual rights, liberties, and interests. Take Yugoslavia for instance. They could have adopted the UK model and been successful, but no.

[Magnum_Opus]

I don't and quite frankly nobody should. "Elites" is just a slur word. Experts and bureaucrats have the responsibility to rule over unruly masses. A world without a powerful central authority is appealing only to gunowner SHTF nuts.

Your position is exactly the same as the 20th Century socialists, you think that the common people, a.k.a "unruly masses" are too stupid to be responsible for their own lives, and thus need to be governed by an intellectual elite who control society with social engineering. Take a hint from the experiment of communism: that doesn't work very well. The common people, a.k.a. "unruly masses" despise the arrogant elite who you obviously identify with.

[Love Mountain]

Distribution based on needs only leads to economic ruin, I thought the Soviets proved that.

Distribution works. I would think the European experience would've taught you that already. Not only do you have some of the highest taxes, but some of the highest living standards.

Im sorry what? Abolishing languages for globalist convenience i.e. because you're too lazy to learn them flies in the face of all of humanity's cultural history. This is why people don't like globalism. It puts the global interest over the national interest.

Is this serious? Or are you actually being ignorant on purpose?

I don't know about you, but unrestricted centralisation does have a tendency of obstructing individual rights, liberties, and interests. Take Yugoslavia for instance. They could have adopted the UK model and been successful, but no.

There is no significant case of unrestricted centralization in Europe. There are isolated cases but the European experience as a whole is relatively free. The nations of EU are not oppressed. They have a fair exchange of liberties vs security.

Your position is exactly the same as the 20th Century socialists, you think that the common people, a.k.a "unruly masses" are too stupid to be responsible for their own lives, and thus need to be governed by an intellectual elite who control society with social engineering. Take a hint from the experiment of communism: that doesn't work very well. The common people, a.k.a. "unruly masses" despise the arrogant elite who you obviously identify with.

Unruly masses are too stupid to be responsible. Social engineering is necessary to promote healthy, productive lives of the citizenry. It wasn't the "unruly masses" who came up with recycling, safety, and labor rights. It was thinkers, elites, and leaders. People who imposed their views on everyone else.

Take a hint from any desolate and poor society in the world. You are far better off living in a society that provides services in exchange for liberty. There is a case to be made for authoritarian overreach, but you don't live in such a society. By far, most Europeans and even Chinese who live in a Communist hellhole are better off living in society with a government. Take note. All extremely advanced and productive centers of culture and commerce are not in a libertarian fantasyland where Government only exists to man the foxholes surrounding their shining metropolis.

[Aexodus]

There is no significant case of unrestricted centralization in Europe. There are isolated cases but the European experience as a whole is relatively free. The nations of EU are not oppressed. They have a fair exchange of liberties vs security.

I believe the majority Brexit vote would have something to say about that.

[Magnum_Opus]

Unruly masses are too stupid to be responsible. Social engineering is necessary to promote healthy, productive lives of the citizenry. It wasn't the "unruly masses" who came up with recycling, safety, and labor rights. It was thinkers, elites, and leaders. People who imposed their views on everyone else.

Take a hint from any desolate and poor society in the world. You are far better off living in a society that provides services in exchange for liberty. There is a case to be made for authoritarian overreach, but you don't live in such a society. By far, most Europeans and even Chinese who live in a Communist hellhole are better off living in society with a government. Take note. All extremely advanced and productive centers of culture and commerce are not in a libertarian fantasyland where Government only exists to man the foxholes surrounding their shining metropolis.

What utter . Yes, let's just ignore the countless failure of authoritarian governments and social engineering and ascribe all of the successes of Liberalism and Capitalism to central authority "imposing their will" on the rest of society. Your outlook is really too infantile to take seriously. Just have a look at this graph and reflect how it shatters your world view.

[Love Mountain]

I believe the majority Brexit vote would have something to say about that.

You mean the people who were lied to and still want to know when the money will be coming back? Yeah I'm sure they're all about that Brexit at the moment.

What utter . Yes, let's just ignore the countless failure of authoritarian governments and social engineering and ascribe all of the successes of Liberalism and Capitalism to central authority "imposing their will" on the rest of society. Your outlook is really too infantile to take seriously. Just have a look at this graph and reflect how it shatters your world view.

This doesn't support your assertion at all. Europe has some of the highest taxes in the world and her citizens enjoy some of the best living standards in the world.

[fkizz]

This doesn't support your assertion at all. Europe has some of the highest taxes in the world and her citizens enjoy some of the best living standards in the world.

Because US pays for Europe's defense and intelligence efforts. Europe stopped being anything close to "self-sufficient" or "self-innovating" (in power-sphere game) after WWII. Europe also inherits a lot of R&D from the US, and enjoys a protective Dad-State behaviour from the US.

You could argue that Europe kinda managed those things for itself on its own merit before WWI or even WWII. But after WWII, the continent was a cake to be split between Moscow and Washington.
The countries not inside US influence umbrella (East Europe) turned out fairly miserable.
The exception could be Yugoslavia but that couldn't resist collapsing too after USSR collapsed.

[Love Mountain]

Because US pays for Europe's defense and intelligence efforts. Europe stopped being anything close to "self-sufficient" or "self-innovating" (in power-sphere game) after WWII. Europe also inherits a lot of R&D from the US, and enjoys a protective Dad-State behaviour from the US.

You could argue that Europe kinda managed those things for itself on its own merit before WWI or even WWII. But after WWII, the continent was a cake to be split between Moscow and Washington.
The countries not inside US influence umbrella (East Europe) turned out fairly miserable.
The exception could be Yugoslavia but that couldn't resist collapsing too after USSR collapsed.

Which is irrelevant. We're discussing living conditions. Whether Europe should spend more on defense is an entirely different conversation. Countries like German, France, and UK can bankroll the entire NATO if they wanted to. It's a choice not a necessity.

[Aexodus]

Which is irrelevant. We're discussing living conditions. Whether Europe should spend more on defense is an entirely different conversation. Countries like German, France, and UK can bankroll the entire NATO if they wanted to. It's a choice not a necessity.

So if Russia hypothetically invaded Europe, living conditions wouldn't change? Defence is absolutely linked to living conditions, it defends them, acting as a deterrent as much as anything.

[Magnum_Opus]

So if Europe were to pay its share on defence, then living standards wouldn't decrease at all? Where exactly would the money come from?

And so, you try to rebut my graph which is a multifaceted analysis of economic freedom with some banal claim that "Europe has the highest tax and also the highest living standards". Guess what, there's more than one factor if the economy than just taxes. Even with the Nordic countries with taxes so high that people have to slave for the state 9 months a year, the corporate tax rate is still low, there is still open markets and good trade freedom, there is still low regulatory barriers on business. Whats more, Switzerland and Australia have low taxes but living standards comparable or better than most of Europe.

[Love Mountain]

So if Russia hypothetically invaded Europe, living conditions wouldn't change? Defence is absolutely linked to living conditions, it defends them, acting as a deterrent as much as anything.

We don't live in such a world. Stop fantasizing.

So if Europe were to pay its share on defence, then living standards wouldn't decrease at all? Where exactly would the money come from?

It's called Federal debt and it can be serviced in a number of ways.

And so, you try to rebut my graph which is a multifaceted analysis of economic freedom with some banal claim that "Europe has the highest tax and also the highest living standards". Guess what, there's more than one factor if the economy than just taxes. Even with the Nordic countries with taxes so high that people have to slave for the state 9 months a year, the corporate tax rate is still low, there is still open markets and good trade freedom, there is still low regulatory barriers on business. Whats more, Switzerland and Australia have low taxes but living standards comparable or better than most of Europe.

Your graph has no context, no countries on it, no accompanying analysis and its not even related to what we are talking about. Powerful governments are necessary to maintaining and distributing the fruits of a prosperous market equitably. It has little to do with my "banal" claims and more to do with you not knowing wtf you're talking about.

Here's a tip. You can't stick a graph in the middle of a conversation and it expect it to do the work for you. And really? Nordic people "slave" for 9 months? Nordic countries have some of the best labor working conditions anywhere thanks to strong unionization and coordinated collective bargaining efforts by the State on behalf of labor. And why is there open market and good trade freedom? It is due to the EU and strong inter-European integration, again thanks to the EU. Coordination of eliminating market barriers and creating a single open marketplace for all of Europe is precisely the result of a supranational body and technocrats, not because "Freedom!".

So goes the insinuation that high incomes and open markets are associated with libertarian notions of government. They're not, and as Europe has shown, high social benefits like healthcare, strong labor rights, and unions contribute to a skilled and healthy workforce that allows for a reasonable tradeoff between incomes, taxes, and social benefits. So I think I'll go take my "infantile" look and stick with it since its how reality actually works as opposed to fantastical tales of a libertarian paradise that have never existed and never will.

[Magnum_Opus]

in terms of economies, most of the countries in Europe are far closer to "Libertarian paradises" than your vision of communist-like Central planning. Here's a newsflash: you don't need a central government for collective bargaining. It's called collective bargaining, it's not state-mandated labour laws. You don't need to EU for free trade (it's the default position without any national or supra-national entity blocking it), and really you're just shifting goalposts because all these European countries have Capitailist economies, and Capitalism itself is based on individual choice and freedom. And all successful countries are capitalist, who then incidentally might go on to redistribute the wealth generated by capitalism to various degrees. Countries today are some of the freest they've ever been in human history.

One of the most successful country in Europe, Switzerland, is as much a "Libertarian paradise" as any, is has low taxes, it isn't in the EU, is isolationist in its military, it has high gun ownership, high labour and economic freedom, it doesn't have single-payer healthcare and it has a highly-decentralised, federated political system with referendums in which the citizens decide on certain issues through direct democracy. In other words, it's basically the opposite of everything you stand for, yet it works remarkably well.