I've been wrestling with a response to the very good article and very good comments in the last post. I still haven't come up with a response that's adequate, but I don't feel like working more, so I'll throw up what I got. If you guys rip it to shreds, I'll just say, I could have written it a lot stronger...but I didn't, so there!
Anyway, have at it!
IMAGINE
Isn't that sweet?
Jeff's interesting previous post has gotten a lot of thoughtful comments from everybody. This is what this blog's all about! To greatly over-simplify their comments, Jeff seems to think World Government is inevitable and that it is not necessarily a good thing, Melkor seems to think World Government is inevitable and that it is a good thing. I've got my thoughts about whether it is good or bad, but it's the inevitability that I am taking exception to.
I've got to say, I think Melkor's ideal view is theoretically good, but when you put real people with real cultures and selfish motives (in other words, typical humans) in these positions of authority then the theoretically beneficial system becomes a ' what can it do for me and mine ' system. I think Melkor's IMF is the most perfect super-national actor, but that's one good actor among many bad actors, or maybe a better phrase would be 'one selfless actor among many selfish actors'.
The United States works as sort of a super-national system only because the many states that constitute it are (or were) basically one primarily English culture (those that were brought here forcibly, or immigrated from other cultures were absorbed into the culture until recently), with one language and one culture (more or less). When a place like Louisiana suffers a disaster, we have a sense of community and rally to its support, gladly supporting our government. Not because it makes economic sense for us to do so, but because they are kin. They are culturally our brothers. That is an important thing that both Melkor and Jeff seem to be ignoring in their praise (or at least idea of inevitability) of world management organizations. Same when a portion of the country is economically depressed. We are not terrbily upset that our tax dollars are spent helping to build up that area (even if, as RTP&GGrs, we think that the area should figure out how to pull itself up out of the mud). By contrast, the EU is made up of many countries and speak different languages and have varying cultures. It's no accident that Germany is highly efficient/prosperous/clean, while Greece is a 3rd-world backwater. The Europeans, or at least the elite of Europe see what the US has going for it and are trying to turn Europe into the same type of place. However, it is my opinion, that this won't truly be done until Europe is culturally as uniform as the United States. The German elite may want desperately to keep helping the Greeks live their lazy socialist welfare-state lifestyle in order to hold the EU together, but I predict that the typical German will not stand for this forever, unlike the way the West Germans have consistently stood and supported their slacker East German brethren. I predict Angela Merkel will pay at the ballot box whenever her party is up for elections next (though I'm not sure how dearly as she already is the European version of a conservative, and choosing the Social Democrats or Greens would only aggrevate the situation (uhm, but to parenthesize even further, Republicans and Bush were rightly slammed for their profligate spending and we sure showed them by electing Obama and Democrats into power, so who knows!)). Europeans from different countries do not view each other as brothers. They view each other as people to do business with who talk differently and act differently. Also, they each have their own army and cannot be brute-forced into cooperating if they really don't want to. That is another huge difference. If the Greeks say "fuck you" to the EU and continue their welfare-state ways, they may be penalized economically, but the EU cops (ha!) aren't going to march in and confiscate their businesses and property. If anything, the elites will bend over backwards to bail them out some more. If a Federal bailout were to happen in the case of a defaulting California, California would cooperate regarding the conditions or else.
Taking this to the next level we go to the UN where not much of anything works and it is basically the tyranny of the many leaches harrassing the few providers. It only exists at all because of the rich countries' magnanimous contributions (possibly liberal-elites' -misplaced- guilt about colonialism) and again, a desire of the elites of the rich countries to have this 'Imagine'-like one-world paradise. That the poor countries hold out their hands and take this magnanimity while at the same time spitting in the elites' faces is a source of both amusement and anger to me. The Imaginistas in the US and Europe may be able to Imagine there are no borders, but the rest of the world will laugh at them and take their money and land. The rest of the world cares very much.
The problem with the world-wide governing authorities is that cultures are different around the world. We don't have one people with similar interests, we have many people with divergent interests, all looking out for each group's own best interests.
I think your point is valid that a completely united globe will not happen in our lifetime, short of a [M]ajor crises economic or otherwise even then short lived, because of different cultures and that this ideal of utopia won't work out. When I say that world government is inevitable, I do not intend to imply that the whole world will become one completely united globe under a single government. But the fact is that the world is growing more interconnected and will only continue to do so in the future. Global trade will increase and the interdependence and over all level of connection of the world will continue on the path that it is. This will require IO's and more international cooperation that will lead to necessary larger IO's with more power and authority. Globalization is here to stay.
ReplyDeleteOn your point that "The problem with the world-wide governing authorities is that cultures are different around the world. We don't have one people with similar interests, we have many people with divergent interests, all looking out for each group's own best interests." You make the point that the world is basically a compilation of individual cultures and nations pursuing their own self interest being a reason that will hinder or prevent a more united globe or a world government. The fact is that the major economies of the world are interdependent and economically interconnected. This is an important factor that is driving globalization and the increasing interdependence of the world that acts as an unifying factor. The cultural brothers or cultural uniformity that is present in America is called economic brothers and economic uniformity that provides a common point of interest in the international arena. This common economic interest and interdependence gives each major economy of the world the incentive to watch out for the economic and overall well being of each other and to act in the form of bailouts or intervention in those troubled economies. This is why America and the EU bailed out Greece. And this is why if there is a future world economic problem or a failure of a major player the world will bail them out or intervene in that nation. This will lead the world to become more interconnected. Note these bailouts don't solve the fundamental or structural problems that led to the need to be bailed out in the 1st place. So we have a temporary stopping measure that delays the inevetiable downward movement and bottoming out of the economy.
On the lack of power for an international body to force an indepedent nation to do anything, "Also, they each have their own army and cannot be brute-forced into cooperating if they really don't want to." This is exactly what crises achieve. The government could not have grown as much as it has or have taken over as many sectors of the private sector that it has if it were not for the economic crises it caused. Look at the past two years with the auto, housing, financial, student loan business, and what not. The economic crises led to the government taking these sectors over without having to use force.
Another element is the fact that this growing international regulation and global governance is being brought about through the economic crises that was caused by governments. There is a real possibility of the world facing a major economic downturn in the not so distanst future. This would force a choice upon the world: suffer a serious economic downturn that will lead to civil unrest and that will cause problems associated with this--wars--or the world can come together and unite under a global government of sorts and deal with this crises. The frame work for a world government is being set up. All that is needed is a crises to push the world to accept this global goverance to avoid serious pain. Whether you think this would be a good thing or not is a different story. I do see a global economic crises being a real possibility in the future from what I read and if the recent downturn is an example of how governments will react to this, then this could be a possiblity.
ReplyDeleteOverall, I think globalization is here to stay and the world will only continue to grow more connected. The common economic interest and the economic interdependence will overcome the diverse cultures and replace their selfish interest with a single interest.
I think Bud-D has a good point about the fact that we are all different cultures in the end and our own cultures will look for our own best interest. But, that idea is slowly fading. Slowly.
ReplyDeleteI will put the growth of globalization in an exponential formula. With this we can predict Lennon and Obama's one world government. The debate on if and when will be finished.
ab^x
a= will be zero. We will assume there was not a government at all when Adam and Eve were created.
b=(b^6004-b^5974=1.077)
x=years since 4004 BC (year predicted to be adam and eve's creation by wikianswers)
This equation is not exact but can give a good estimation. I got the growth factor from the fact that world wide exports grew from 8.5% to 16.% between 1970-2001(wikipedia). So I said that b must equal a growth factor that would be growing the whole equation by 7.7% in between those years. My math is truth.
My equation is retarded
ReplyDeleteMath can be applied towards just about anything that is defined. My math teacher discussed the philosophic part of higher math sometimes and it is interesting.
ReplyDeleteI think bud-d failed to make an important distinction between a global government and global governance that was made in the previous post. "Governance is not government — it is the framework of rules, institutions and practices that set limits on behavior of individuals, organizations and companies." There doesn't need to be a completely united world with everybody holding hands and singing under a single world government for the world to be under a global governance.
From watching Fox Business, there seems to be a big shift in the world and its stance on debt. Over in the UK with its government saying that is must cut its spending back and the Fed reserve chairman telling congress it must cut back spending. The national debt will reach 19t in 5 years. It is a real shift and is it meaningful?
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/67183
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2010/06/08/will-higher-tax-rates-in-2011-cause-an-economic-collapse/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Cato-at-liberty+%28Cato+at+Liberty%29
There are people out there warning of the bad consequences of not dealing with the debt now.
"I think bud-d failed to make an important distinction between a global government and global governance that was made in the previous post."
ReplyDeleteNot really. That was one of my main points: Without an army to back it up, Global Governance is "more a guideline than a rule". It only has teeth if the rest of the world stands solidly behind it economically, cf Iran, N Korea, China, Russia, et al. Or see any of the super awesome Carbon Reduction rules the UN's ICCP enacted and most everybody but a few Imaginista-nations in Europe ignored.
Regarding Debt: Nations are/were going to respond to it regardless. That's what we've been saying. Harsh reality forces them to respond, not gentle prodding by 'global governance'. Adam Smith will force them to respond one way or another. And the best thing to happen is for everyone to see the crisis coming and learn a little bit of discipline to stop a complete meltdown. This is what we want to see happen.
Regarding the lack of teeth: The world is becoming more economically interconnected and interdependent. This will only continue to progress in our lifetime. This will give plenty of incentive for the world to stand solidly behind this framework of global governance later down the road. But as of now, yes it does lack a certain level of authority as of now. Later down the road, it will have more clout as the major world economies of the world have more of a reason to stand behind this framework of global governance due to their own economic interest. Look at how interdependent the economies of the world are today. Look at how one player acts affects everybody else--China and its currency. Look at America to some extent bailing out Greece and the EU. To see how an economic crises or other events can force a people to accept a larger government, look at America and how the government has grown over the years especially the last two years. The government did not directly force the American people to accept a larger government. It did not point a gun at them. It did not strong arm them. It brought it about by nudging them and herding them to react a certain way by external events, i.e. the economic situation. Look at the 1930's. The government grew to a large extent as a result of a situation it brought about on the America people. Compare this with the global debt problem and a very possible world economic downturn in the coming decades I am reading history about Hitler and how he took advantage of the economic and overall national situation that Germany was in at the time to bring Germany under his rule. He did not appear to be the dictator he was. The German people expected him to stay out of war nor did they expect him to slaughter the Jews, this had to be kept secret from them. The point being that external events can make a people except a government that they would otherwise not accept. There are potential paralles in the world economy and the global framework of governance with America and Germany.
ReplyDeleteOn debt: Yes it is an economic fact that this debt will have to be dealt. The question is with what action and will governments grow or shrink as a result of this? As of now there is [T]alk among the world about curbing this debt and reigning it in: UK, world bank, IMF, the fed chairman. This is a reactionary response by governments and its population. This is not a fundamental change or shift. It is not as if during the good times they decided to make the tough choices or they realized that the welfare state was not the way to go. I don't know if they have realized this yet. This call to deal with debt is good and hopefully there will be meaningful action to deal with this problem. But it is yet to be seen if this will happen. If the correct actions are taken there will be a recession and downturn. If this moment is delayed, then the downturn will only be worse. I don't know if people will be willing to accept this downturn. So what I am saying is that there are external events that can shape how nations and people react to their government and how they view what the proper role for that government is. There doesn't need to be an army to force the world to accept global governance. The world economy has some serious structural problems. I do not see EU or America correcting the fundamental problems but only a reactionary response due to the situation at hand that won't bring real and fundamental change.
ReplyDeleteOn the carbon regulation. The EPA can regulate carbon now. There is a globalist agenda and it is not necessarily a bad thing.
On the overall subject: I am not completely done thinking on this whole subject. There is a lot of information and a lot that I can not properly communicate as there is a lot of information that I can present in a logical manner. This whole topic could cover a 1000 page book. I do see the world becoming more united. When I look at the history of the world and its governments, I see this has having the potential to not be a good thing. This is not going to stop it nor should it. It is the natural course of mankind's development. Human history repeats itself. This is because human nature stays the same. So have we humans evolved any? Are the people living today special or any different than those that did several thousands years ago minus the advancement in technology? Has the fundamental human nature changed? Are we so special that we won't make the same mistakes that mankind has done over and over again through out history? It is only normal to think that we are special and above others. I find it interesting as to how people could accept or vote in a tyrannical government such as Germany did or the Soviet Union, or China. How did these governments come about? What was the situation that gave rise to them? Could this situation or conditions happen again? This is a lot of questions. This will be my last say on the topic for some time to come since I am basically repeating myself.
The days of small government are over. The world population is growing rapidly and communication has never been so easy. Whereas you once had only governments that had the possibility of being imperialistic we now have imperialist corporations that reach into even the most remote parts of our planet. Where there is business there will be a form of government. Worldwide communication makes it possible for massive entities to communicate across national lines at the speed of light. Business decisions in Tokoyo can affect Mobile Alabama, Anchorage Alaska and thousands of other places across the world. As far as the types of government are concerned the same mistakes will be repeated over and over again. The question is not...will we have a tyrannical government...its when? Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union are just the most recent of the large scale tyrannical governments but lets not forget that history is littered with them. Rare is the government that does not outgrow its use. Governments operate much like forests. Forests provide oxygen and clean the air so like governments they provide a service. Over time forests grow to excess and that excess starts fires that burn the forest down. The forest regrows and the cycle starts all over. Governments do the same thing. They start by providing a service and then become cluttered with excess. People get fed up with the excess and start all over...sometimes violently and sometimes peacefully.
ReplyDeleteJeff & Cyclist make points that can't be ignored, and I know Melkor supports: mass global communications, high population, and the obvious economic benefits of free trade make the impetus and ability for global governance to happen stronger. However, there are many developments that clearly counter this: The collapse of the Nation-State in Africa, the devolution of the United Kingdom, the coming racial convulsions in the United States, the narco-pseudo-states in SE Asia and South America, increased Balkanization of central and southeastern Europe, the collapse of the Soviet Union, the irrelevence of the UN, I could go on.
ReplyDeleteAgain, these are not happening because of economic reasons. Or more correctly, these happen when the economy is bad and the cultural/racial stress points reach breaking point.
It's not all about economic theory. Race/Religion/Culture still matter. And you can see from my list above that they have mattered a great deal in our own lifetimes.
The most ridiculous book ever published was Fukuyama's "End of History"
And, welcome Cyclist! I think one more good comment out of you and we'll have to give you publishing rights!
Not to mention my favorite little separatist movement:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/world/europe/14belgium.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
Thank you for the welcome and the vote of confidence Bud-D!
ReplyDeleteYou make an excellent point when you bring up Race/Religion/Culture.
It is easy, when one lives in the western world, to forget that those three boundaries are far more important to most people in the world then the almighty dollar.
I am more confused now politically then ever before. Part of me wishes for autonomy and limited government and the other sees a growing world that is comming together rapidly and will require an international government that supercedes the authority of the nation-state. I desperatly fear the latter.
But time they are a changing. Intermarriage around the world is on a sharp increase. Global/mass communication are slowly dissolving the differences around us. languages are dying out every year and more and more people are speaking multiple languages. Through flight you can travel anywhere in the world in 24 hours. If you wanted to you could be in Thailand tommorow night enjoying the seductive and relatively affordable advances of a Thai prostitute or you could be at St. Peters Basillica patiently waiting for the Pope to give an evening message. You could be relaxing on a beach in Trinidad, skiing the swiss alps or hunting elk in canada. The possibilites are endless.
ReplyDeleteToday you can trade on the NY Stock exchange or buy european commodities. You can trade on the numerous asian exchanges all with the click of a mouse.
I think people around the world long for individuality. The evidence of this can be found in the balkaniation of central and SE Europe, the collapse of the nation-state in Africa and the devolution of the UK. But individuality does not equal security. And people will make Faustian Bargains for security. I see those international issues as the excuse that will give way to the creation of a world government model. I see the world government model as a continuing evolution that started with the earliest empires, transformed itself into the League of Nations and now can be seen as the United Nations.
It is my belief that the next evolution will be an international military attatched to the UN or whatever its offspring will be. The excuses for such a creation are all around us. Piracy off the coast of africa. So we create a World Navy that deals with such things. No-fly zones that need to be patrolled. Why not have a UN Airforce? Problem States such as Sudan that need to be regulated. Why not an international army under the sole authority of the UN to keep the peace or to enforce sanctions?
Up until now the United Nations has had to borrow its military personnel but I have a gut feeling that within my lifetime we will see a professional career military loyal only to the UN or its offspring, whatever that may be.
The idea scares me. Im not for it at all. But I see it as the next logical evolution of the United Nations and comming under the guise of Peace, Equality, and Security.
We are animals. While I want to tread carefully in the area of culture and religion I feel it is important to remember that humans are a species of animal just like any other. Unlike other animals we have evolved to the point of having complex language. Language brings forth ideas. Ideas bring forth civilization and civilization brings forth differing points of view. This is my oversimplified and grossly inadequate explanation of culture/religion.
ReplyDeleteAs animals we tend to be an organizational species. Where two are gathered one is senior. That in itself is a form of "government." We are highly competitive, very adaptative, and extremely intelligent. Wherever we are on this planet we like to organize. Generally speaking we form on family ties, ethnic lineages, and geographical locations. We establish hierarchies. Some are simple like the Native Americans and others are complex such as the Arab tribes. We use our language to explain the world around us and in doing so create religions, gods, myths, and elaborate stories. As different as we may appear we all do things in pretty much the same way with only visible variations. Examples of this would be things like the following:
The Roman Catholic Priest who holds up the Eucharist is hardly different then the Priest of Mithras in ancient Rome who broke bread in order to the eat of the god and therby attain eternal grace.
All militaries around the world have complex rank systems to better organize themselves on the battlefield.
Every group of people on earth has established some sort of government to better organize themselves.
Every group of people on earth has gods, goddesses, or a religion/supersition of some sort to explain their existence.
We all eat, sleep, shit, think, procreate, work, play, and fall somewhere in a social hierarchy.
Bottom line: As different as we are, we are really one and the same.
What separates us is not money. Its culture, religion, and race.
Cyclist has to be from the north east talking about trees and such. I agree with you for the most part. I think the soft version of communism is becoming the dominant system. It has infected our culture which determines the direction we are going.
ReplyDeleteI read the thesis of Fukuyama's book that liberal democracy will be the prevalent system and I would disagree with it because liberal in-the-classical-sense democracies don't exist. But the world is progressing towards becoming more alike. The prevalent economic system is a mixed economic system.
I agree that culture and religion are important. These determine the direction a people are going. A good book on this is "The Closing of the American Mind" by Alan Bloom.
On all of the division and disunity that you are talking about: this has happened before in history and look at what it lead to?
Africa is a shit hole with little despotic regimes that are glorified and upheld by the black communities leaders of today.
On economics: only we Americans living today in an economic system where basic needs are not even a thought could say that economics is not above everything else. Step back and look at what economics means: providing food and basic human needs: shelter, food, clothing, and substance for oneself and their family. When these needs are not able to be met due to economic upheaval, look at the not too distant past, this leads to pissed off people that are united under a common problem. This will overcome any race or religion or cultural differences. Note that as the standard of living rises the level at which people find their standard of living to be unacceptable also rises.
Jeff, I think I strongly disagree (based on acutal history as opposed to theory) with most of your last comment. Note that I do backtrack and say that economics will be what exposes the cultural/racial/religious fault lines, so I do not discount it, but I point out that the results of the crises are based on (I'll just call it 'race' to simplify), race and almost always in the economically imprudent direction.
ReplyDeleteLet's look at my examples:
Sub-Saharan Africa: the states set up by the Europeans at the end of the colonial era have steadily devolved further and further over time, I would say entirely on tribal lines. The standard of living as eroded correspondingly. I agree that perceived economic distress may force the upheaval, but the upheaval will break on 'race' and almost every time to the economic detriment of all.
When Russia broke up, I would agree it was primarily because of the economic failure of Socialism, but it broke up entirely on 'race'.
The United Kingdom is going through a slow, steady devolution that, though -possibly- based on perceived economic unfairness, is devolving entirely on 'race' and to the economic detriment of those pushing it hardest (Scots, Welsh).
Belgium is breaking up because of economic unfairness, but it is breaking up entirely on 'race'.
The Balkans broke up entirely on 'race'.
If America breaks up, it will be on 'race' and it won't be for economic benefit.
Narco states may be one case where it is breaking up because of economics and not breaking on 'race'.
So, no, though it would seem only rich Americans should care about things other than economics, it is in fact other countries where 'race' is paramount.
And if you want, we can look at the Middle East.
Cyclist brings up the idea of racial intermarriage as a calming influence on the pulls of 'race'. That, on the surface, also seems logical. However, there are strong exceptions to it, and, going back in history, you can see it didn't really make any difference at all. In Europe, and I'll bet throughout most of the world, leaders of tribes would send their daughters to be wives of young leaders of other tribes. This continued into recent history. Women were called peaceweavers because this intermarriage was supposed to bring the tribes together. It almost never did.
ReplyDeleteYou may say "well, that was ancient history", well, you can look at Yugoslavia which had a high degree of intermarriage. In spite of that, it broke up entirely on 'race'. People intermarry and then identify with one or the other race.
I do think it's possible your point may be good and overall intermarriage may tend to calm the tribal impulses, but I think that's far from proven.
Finally, for the night, I'll say that my favorite non-Anglo-Saxon nation, India, is a big counter-example to all I've said above. My favorite because they do seem to be able to accomplish what all you guys are talking about, and also, because they are an example of British colonialism 'done good'.
ReplyDeleteOn bud-d's point: I can guarantee that when you are hungry and you can't meet you or your family's basic needs, that is all that matters to you. An global economic downturn in coming. How big or what the impact will be is unknown. The way to deal with this economic problems in the [P]ast has been to come together as a race or culture. I think that in the case of a possible global economic downturn, the people of the world will view coming together as a global community the way to meet their basic needs. Look at the results of the recent global downturn? The world will be nudged into accepting this global goverance as the economies of the world are tied together and to undo this would lead to an economic downturn that people won't accept.
ReplyDeleteI think you fail to recognize the nature of today's interconnected world. In the past economic upheveals such as the interwar period ,1918-1939, did led to divisions based on race and culture. You make a good point and my statement in the previous comment was made to point out what you are describing leads to. Soros states that the EU could be breaking up and this is leading to, "'If there is no exit, (it) is liable to give rise to social unrest and, if you follow the line, social unrest can give rise to demand for law and order and (sow the) seeds of what happened in the inter-war period,' he said." http://www.cnbc.com/id/37723118
What happened in the interwar period? Look it up in wikipedia. It lead to a radical change in the international order and WW II. I am pointing out that today this radical change in the international order could lead to a more united world with stronger IO's. This won't be a permanent union nor a completely united world holding hands and signing for the reasons you mention. I say this coming together of sorts will happen because the economies of the world are interconnected and interdependent and all of the other reasons cyclist and I have stated before. Nuclear war makes it unlikely the world will go into a massive world war. This might be a utopia fantasy, but these people do get together and the major powers have learned that, "Those of us in Bilderberg felt we couldn't go on forever fighting one another for nothing and killing people and rendering millions homeless. So we felt that a single community throughout the world would be a good thing." I agree that people divide up around common bonds such as race and culture, but I believe the economic ties will out way racial or cultural divisions in the future. It appears to me that the possibility of a break up of the EU is the result of economics.
There is a global framework of global governance being set up. The world is on edge and the major economies are running out of ammo, central bank actions etc, to deal with economic problems. Short of some major world disaster, there won't be a truly united world because of the reasons Bud-d states, but in the advent of some major world disaster economic or otherwise, these divisions will be put aside for a short period of time. From what I read this could happen. America's true debt is around 130 trillion. The states will need to be bailed out. Europe has major problems. China has issues. None of the policies being carried out are dealing with the basic structural problems. They are only kicking the can down the road.
(looks over shoulder)..cough...I think Jeff is entirely right about economics being the cause of division. I think Jeff and Bud-D are in a "chicken before the egg" debate. All of Bud-D's arguments about devolution are true, but when you look at the context from which they fell apart you'll see that economics is the primary determinant of separatism. Bud-D is 99.99% correct that devolution occurs based on constructed racial/religious lines, but that doesn't mean that such lines CAUSES devolution. If this were true, devolution would occur irregardless of the economic condition. Every single historical example that Bud-D utilizes shows it's not true (I'll explain the Balkans below).
ReplyDeleteThe reason this occurs, as Jeff says, is because people are not willing to fight or risk their life and property for a risky new independent gamble when economic conditions are good (or a government sees a benefit in forcing the state/empire to stay together). My addition to this argument is that when conditions are bad, it's much easier for elite/politicians to exploit more obvious racial/religious fractures then to do harsher more expensive economic reforms that would likely get them voted out of office in the next election. THIS IS ENTIRELY WHY the Balkans split up. If you research Milosevic a little, you can literally see him do an about face during a speech in Kosovo (1987 Kosovo Polje), he was sent by the Communist leadership to calm tensions between the Serbs and Albanians, and came out of the experience as a fierce Serbian Nationalist. After the collapse of Communism in 1989, it proved far more lucrative to push ethnic hatred than to consider the costly reforms that Eastern Europe was about to undergo.
The current economic situation and Belgium is no different in my opinion. It's a lot easier for the Flemish to head separatist lectures about the waste of the Wallonians when they're hit by a recession. In fact, I think the challenge for you race/religion determinists is to show when division occurs amidst times when the economy is working smoothly.
This comment thread has gone in an interesting direction. I feel like someone might have Post ideas that can explore this in more detail.
Melkor & Jeff, I'm not debating your points about economic conditions pushing the breaks. I would agree that it's probably overwhelmingly economic conditions that push the break. What I'm debating is that the resolutions are based at all on textbook theory of what's the right answer economically. When the break happens, it breaks for 'race'. And not at all necessarily in the textbook correct economic solution. That's my point. And, drawing from that, there's as much breaking as there is unifying happening, and that this gradual Imaginista future is highly dubious.
ReplyDeleteBut, yes, time to move on.