Lord Ashdown outlines his view that we are entering a global shift of power that the workd has never seen before. He predicts three major shifts which will have implications for us all. 1 - Power will shift vertically from the nation state to globalised power. i.e. the G20. 2 - There will be a power shift from the west to the east and pacific rim. Alliances will change and remain fluid and we will have to work with countries with whom we share common interests not values. 3 - As nations become more interlinked we can no longer rely on military or economic might to defend ourselves. It is an interesting and thought provoking talk which I fell is linked to some of the other discussions on going in the forum.
Half way through I thought I was listening to Jeremy Clarkson! POWER! He did elude (3:40 - 4:30) to globocorps in the way scripted politico speeches like to scare, sidestep or sooth. Perhaps at 5:30 he had in Umbrella mind, also 'economic power' used later. And the general idea that they will have a finger in the pie of what ever is in their interest. Semantics - lots of fun. Oo - congrats The Smart Baboon on having forum post number 2,944,444. Nothing unusual to my mind, and whats wrong with dealing with people with different values? If the values are that wrong for them they'll have a civil war to sort it out. And how does the UK having nukes for 'defense' fit in with globalised power, I've for a long time felt they are a waste of time because, if the enemy want to use their own they will. We need a shield, not a defensive postured weapon. If an event did occur, there could be two outcomes; 1) global blacklisting of the aggressor, or; 2) world war 3. Maybe 'polypolar' politics could actually make a difference to this attitude. Err can't remember what I was thinking of, I had a delivery of computer parts and opened them all like a virgin getting ready for sex . So I'll stop here.
Quite a bit to be honest. Make a deal with the Chinese and you will find that their values does not include your right to your own products, your intellectual property or stay "true" if they can find a slightly better deal elsewhere. There are plenty more, and there are positive ones as well but you get the idea. They will not have a "Civil war" as they believe these values to be right, like an extremist believing that killing is a good thing. Values does change over time but it may just be ours that will change.
I don't know anything about business in China, just that HSBC is the way to go (sorry that's a local joke). I honestly like the sound of that, competition would be fraught, profit margins tighter than a smack head's veins. With the war thing that was exactly my point, that seemingly there isn't widespread civil unrest, to continue - in China, whereas England, Bahrain and Libya have had riots+ last year. My earlier thought of right and wrong: HSBC background:
Corporations don't have power, they have influence. There is a key distinction that needs to be made. One has a gun, the other has money. The lack of integrity in power to the influence of money does not transfer the power to the corporations. The fact that the power can always be taken away proves that fact and also insures a constant flow of money instead of a one-time transfer. *Power as I define it for clarification as "The ability to limit other people's options". As opposed to say others definition such as John Kenneth Galbraith who defined it any way it suited his purpose. What he described as "power" was mostly disproportionate influence that needed to be dealt with.
Can you provide examples of a corporation compelling anyone (specifically customers - the recipients of the corporations' product) to do anything the do not wish to do without the use of government power? Bear in mind, violations of existing law does not count as the lack of enforcement would be a use of government power as well.
Like you pointed out in the other thread, Nexxo: The exchange of "technology" has been going back and forth for years.. lol
Nope, the trick is to use your power to convince the government to change the law so that it makes people buy your products. Low emission zones for instance. German cities cut out the (older) 20% of ALL vehicles, even if you live there. Forcing the inhabitants to buy new (while devaluating the old cars). "Old" in this case beeing as young as four years old. Start shooting rioters in England, see riots stop... The question is, do you want to live in a country that does? Interestingly, Libya did have a harsh regime for as far as protests/rots are concerned, and it hasn't helped them.
The key words in your argument is "convince". If you have power, you don't need to convince anyone of anything. The business influence those in power. I'm not playing semantics just for the sake of arguing but because it is vital to determine what causes what. I'm sure in Germany there are all kinds of business that would love to be able to compel people's behavior but can't. It is a breakdown in government when these things happen. It is the responsibility of the government to say "no" when asked it if is a breech of their role. Plenty of businesses lobby for special benefits that don't get what they wanted.
You lot are fine. It's living in Taiwan that's potentially ****ing scary. If everyone cuddles up to China cause they have the cash, it's only a flick of interest for them to selling out 23M to the wolves in preference for a better deal on a loan or trade agreement. There's already talk of it in the US. It's extremely difficult to convey the feeling here. See what's happening to immigration in Hong Kong and Singapore and multiply it. They speak the same language (or, not, in some cases) but the cultures and values are VASTLY different: it would create hell. It would be like a billion British going to Canada or Australia and saying "OK now you're all governed by our law and system again". You can imagine how big the **** you would be. I worry about giving too much power to the Chinese. For all their failings at least the United States is countered by a free-ish media and a certain degree of global morality bearing down on it. Asia in general has too much isolationism and government power to achieve what Paddy expects. The only companies that do exceptionally well in all countries are tied to governments in some way.
Actually, come to think the Taiwan thing was similar to the Hong Kong thing back in 97. Huge panic. It worked out and Hong Kong still has it's own thing for the most part. But still I can see your concern.
I can see both cases, but not being a rioter (or stupid enough to watch from 10ft away) I don't care. It is just civil disobedience rather than a concerted effort towards reform, which would conceivably lead to war (or terrorism) just about anywhere.
Not sure about the point made earlier about economic or military might being less relevant now. Ultimately, all power and authority derives from violence or the threat of it. Anything else is wishful thinking. Reduced to an extreme level:- many talk about stocking up on gold or beans ahead of any global cataclysm caused by collapse of the financial system. Ask yourself, if that were to happen, would you rather be the guy who stocked up on beans, the guy who stocked up on gold, or the guy who kept his 12 bore in good working order with a nice stack of ammo to go with it? I'd agree that nation states can't be as indiscriminate in their use of violence against each other as in the past, due to things being interlinked more these days, but you see first hand in the news every day which countries "get away" with things, and they are usually the big guys with lots of military hardware who are simply not worth attacking. My take on it is that any country with their own water, metals, minerals, hydrocarbons and large armed forces and a government smart enough to play their hand well is laughing. That is why the USA did so well in the immediate aftermath of WW2. Everyone else either needs to form an alliance with the big guys, be small enough not to bother with or talk softly but carry a big stick.
