15 Comments
Mar 27, 2022·edited Mar 27, 2022

Globalization has been around for hundreds of years, it's nothing new. Africans were kidnapped and sold as slaves to harvest cotton cheaply and displace local workers, the British Empire conquered half the world in wars and the other half with mercantalism and plagues like smallpox were used to clear North America of indigenous populations.

Those were the good old days, but how globalization has changed and improved. Nowadays, instead of relocating slaves to new countries, they can be exploited in their home countries, unburdened with safety standards, labor laws or environmental protection, in order to produce cheap plastic crap for the west which is driven around the world in order to burn oil and fill up empty landfills. This is far cheaper, more profitable, more convenient and more palatable to sensitive liberals - out of sight, out of mind! Thanks to improvements in logistics and transportation, empire builders, regime changers and arms traders can buy, sell and deliver missiles, bombs, drones and troops to destinations far more rapidly than sailing ships which were subject to chaotic weather patterns. Totalitarian China can use mercantilism to conquer the world, it can spread successful techniques like censorship and surveillance to willing Wall Street oligarchs, not to mention plagues which can be spread within weeks instead of years. Bankers in Brussels can lure nations on distant continents into debt traps so that they can later suffer austerity and privatization. Oh yeah, dumb and useless liberals from countries all around the world can use Twitter to electronically "share" memes, praise globalization and cancel free speech.

Globalization is 99% dominated by dictators, monopoly corporations, warmongers and most importantly by privileged ivy league wokesters who praise globalization incessantly because it made mommy and daddy rich. I say good riddance to globalization, it seems like it is self destructing.

Expand full comment

Aren't"wokesters" the people who recognize systemic racism (national and international) and are down on the ivy league sharks who are all about extraction economies, exploitation, and doing anything for a profit?

Expand full comment
Mar 28, 2022·edited Mar 28, 2022

There are well intentioned wokesters who oppose things like racism and police brutality but also many who are merely non-thinking dupes of corporations, or even worse woke leaders who take money from corporate sponsors. If you oppose racism, should you not oppose or at least express interest in the racism within the PR departments of corporations who control who gets hired or the exploitation of illegal immigrants by corporations or child slavery in thailand? I don't hear much about that from social media or academia, organizations which are controlled in full by wokesters. There is always a wokester to be found who will go on corporate media and parrot whatever the establishment and corporations are pushing, or cancel people who oppose whatever the establishment and corporations are pushing. Divide and conquer is the only real tool of the ruling class and no group pushes division more than wokesters. Corporate tools.

Are there some who oppose and speak out against corporations or globalization? Probably, but generally the wokesters won't risk being cancelled by their peers or having their movement lose its most coveted asset - corporate sponsorship. Wokesters are a corporate asset, they should be on the balance sheet. Worst of all, wokesters oppose free speech. Free speech is nothing more than the ability to complain about those in power without fear of retribution from those in power. Free speech gives a voice to the person on the bottom. Free speech is what the wokesters should be defending but they do the opposite. Free speech has always been a threat to those in power, but now they have an army of fools to defend of them, trained by facebook and twitter. Facebook is a monopoly corporation, owned and controlled by an oligarch, same with Twitter - it does not love you, it will not defend you, it is not your mother but it might be Big Brother.

Expand full comment

Using "wokester" is a favourite with alt-right/cons so I avoid it. Additionally, using a term to cover such a broad swath of characters/behaviours muddles things. As you observe, it is correct that many people are hesitant/resistant to take any action that will compromise their income, lifestyle, future. The irony of course is that certain phenomena do exactly that e.g. deregulation eroding the safety of our food systems; climate change contributing to drought and food shortages. The list could go on.

Expand full comment
Mar 29, 2022·edited Mar 29, 2022

The establishment and corporations are trying to destroy the woke leaders of the FUTURE by destroying free speech NOW.

"Using "wokester" is a favourite with alt-right/cons..."

Oh really? I thought I invented it independently. It captures my perception of the philosophy in one word, without a built-in insult but if you can suggest a better word that people will understand I'll use it - it has to be one word. I've been told not to say "elite", "deep state", and "fake news" or sometimes I'm told to "shut up" more directly. If you look closely you'll probably find these terms were invented by leftists, but the leftists have gone corporate and no longer like them. Look very closely at the words themselves and observe that there is no built-in insult, profanity, or prejudice in them (on the basis of race, religion or gender) they are harmless words that have simply been redefined, along with the speaker. The speaker of those words is now defined to be "deplorable" (and that word is ok, correct?). This kind of language redefinition is creepy and Orwellian. If you disagree with a concept or a person, you can just destroy, redefine or erase their words (and thoughts?) and make it impossible for a (possibly good) idea to spread - tell me that's not creepy.

It's a strategy of neoLiberals not just to control language, but to deliberately and unnecessarily complicate, confuse and obfuscate things to defeat ideas they don't like - forcing me into a five paragraph description of the "wokesters" every time I want to talk about them will do that. "Let's form a committee to study and polish your wonderful idea" is the way that corrupt Liberals destroy every progressive idea by polishing and grinding it into the dust - why haven't the progressives figured that out yet? When the committee is finished, the "wonderful idea" will be so awkward, complicated, compromised, expensive, inefficient and unwieldy it won't have a hope in hell of working properly even if implemented. That's the formula to destroy the progressives and they fall for it everytime, possibly because woke thought leaders can come only from academic backgrounds where intensive (and often useless) study and hoop jumping to satisfy the professor is the norm. In reality, intensive study is sometimes necessary but sometimes it is not. Hoop jumping is never necessary.

Wokesters have "good" intentions but produce bad results. If Shell Oil is sponsoring your Green movement that's called greenwashing and your "green" movement will be anything but green because it does "small" favors for it's sponsors, trying to work together with them. It's called corruption. If the PR and HR departments of Amazon are sponsoring your anti-racist movement, I don't know what it's called but it's not going to accomplish anything at all besides dividing the people (many who are minorities) who need to unite (in a union for instance) against Amazon in order to improve their wages and working conditions. If the HR department can use "diversity training" to get the Black, white and Hispanic workers to squabble and hate each other, what are the odds that they will join forces to unionize? zero. ZERO. "Diversity training" was probably a good progressive idea but it's been bastardized and made toxic by corporations. Politicians do the same thing on a national level - divide and conquer by getting people of different races to hate and resent each other. While people squabble they can bring in more corporate tax cuts, more military spending and more wars. Perhaps the corporate HR departments filled with Ivy League elites are the problem....not the solution? Corporations are in business to earn a profit, they don't have "good" intentions besides making money for shareholders (which does have value but not for the environment or human rights which are the responsibility of people not corporations).

The hippies (is that a "bad" word?) did not accept corporate endorsements for things like GreenPeace when it started out, it's the last thing they would have done, in fact it is laughable. The hippies became corrupt of course in the end, now lead companies like Shell Oil and are experts at corrupting woke movements. I wouldn't be surprised if GreenPeace now takes corporate money and that's how its become mainstream, neutered and useless.

The "wokesters" need to finish waking up, get out of bed, smell the (eco-friendly) coffee and look out the window to see the world more clearly - corporate money and corporate media is going to HURT more than it helps. Your pals at Yale and Harvard who now work for Shell Oil and Amazon and MSNBC are your ENEMY - do not go to their parties, do not take their bribes and sit on the board of directors at the same time you consider yourself to be an "activist". Your friends at Amazon, Shell Oil and MSNBC are not compromised yet, but corruption is necessary in order to advance and since they are normal people they will become corrupt. No one is immune to it, power corrupts. Wokesters can stop listening to their woke professor now that they have graduated and think for themselves in order to continue learning - no more hoop jumping for authoritarians.

I expect good things from the "wokester" generation (if not the wokester leaders themselves) one day very soon, I am very optimistic and hopeful because I see that there is alot of integrity, empathy, intelligence and knowledge in the movement (compared to my generation for instance) and I say that without a trace of sarcasm or irony. The establishment and corporations see that too (and are scared shitless) and they will try to neuter the wokesters in the FUTURE by destroying free speech NOW.

Expand full comment

Matt Stoller has great insight in explaining economic issues but his ideology gets in the way of data driven solutions. He shows no evidence that the Jones act is only a minor inconvenience causing much of the bottlenecks and the inflation that comes from the bottlenecks. The US was importing Russian crude oil to avoid the Jones act for example. https://www.aei.org/american-boondoggle/oil-and-the-jones-act/

Expand full comment

Thanks I so wanted to know what AEI thinks about things, especially the Jones Act.

Expand full comment

Regulation rarely solves pricing issues. Shipping companies, like oil companies, are hesitating to invest because of ESG demands, so these problems are likely to last for a while. The government should be focusing on helping get self-driving trucks and ship technology working and easing regulations on Port expansions.

Expand full comment

Headline: The China Inc monopoly gouges American suckers.

Expand full comment

There's attributes of globalization that are of great benefit. Most countries in Africa would love to have a robust textile industry and the jobs it provides. Pulling those jobs back to the U.S. would benefit a few and harm many.

What I think is needed is a broader look at eliminating the concentration of production for goods. No monopolies is a good first step. But if we have 20 very competitive companies manufacturing chips, and they're all in Taiwan, we still face the issues of one country can shut down the world economy. One regional war can throw production into a mess.

So along with a diverse competitive set of suppliers, we need those supplies to come from a broad range of countries spread across the globe. We need it so that no one country or regional war can impact a significant share of production. Other places may need to go to double shifts, but that should be it.

Expand full comment

Eliminating the Jones act would help alleviate bottlenecks inside the US that is compounding the problem with shipments from China to the US. Also the elimination of the Jones act would revitalize Midwest cities like Detroit and Cleveland and improve the economic outlook of Puerto Rico.

Expand full comment
author

In the short-term there might be some benefits, but hardly a significant amount. In the longer term, getting rid of the Jones Act would gut what little protections we have for American sailors and domestic shipping. We need shipping subsidies to domestic shipbuilders and the domestic shipping industry.

Expand full comment

The evidence of the Jones Act being detrimental to shipping is to look at the prices and availability in Puerto Rico. In addition, eliminating the Jones Act would create more better paying jobs on shore than lost by sailors in the Intercoastal waterway and Great Lakes. Eliminating the Jones Act does not directly help China-US shipping but it would be an effective way of improving US logistics overall and may even encourage more manufacturing in the US since goods would be easier to move internally.

Expand full comment

"We need shipping subsidies to domestic shipbuilders and the domestic shipping industry."

Normally I would be against corporate bailouts, but in a "global economy" one must compete with the likes of centrally planned communist China which subsidizes absolutely everything in order to drive competitors out of business. Communist China is like the ultimate monopoly corporation - it uses techniques like price fixing and subsidies to weaken the free market and get rid of competition. That must be why Wall Street capitalists have so much admiration for their communist friends - they can accomplish what the corporations can only dream of.

Expand full comment