Comments by "Nigel Johnson" (@nigeljohnson9820) on "Pragues's digital shift: Czech republic sees business opportunity in global lockdown" video.
-
3
-
@leherion4276 in the uk we did, and were vilified for our trouble, labeled as racists xenophobes by the EU zealots who were blind to their own faults.
The word populist is interesting as it is used as a term of abuse, yet its origin is in the idea of being popular, as in the view of the majority. According to EU leaders, the popular view is undemocratic. This is a logical contradiction.
The myth perpetuated by the EU is that what is good for one member state is good for all. At a long stretch this might be true if the EU was a true federal system, but it is not. So moving industries from a rich state to a poor state to maximise profits, does nothing for these people in the rich state made redundant. Making German citizens richer, has little effect on the citizens of other member states.
Even under the ideal federal system, there will be winners and losers, it is just more difficult for the losers to do anything about it.
The US provides one model of how the federal EU might evolve, the former USSR provides a federal model from the opposite end of the spectrum. In both, the winners and losers are still represented. Those pressing for a federal Europe, are either deluded, or consider themselves to be winners.
3
-
2
-
@leherion4276 I am not defending the Chinese system, I am pointing out the flaws in what the west has done to make a quick profit.
I prefer the model of independent sovereign states cooperating where their interests coincide. This is much closer to the common market that the uk originally joined. There are significant advantages in states being as self sufficient as possible, not least for the environment. Diversity produces resilience, all be it through a certain amount of duplication. It is globalisation that has allowed China its dominant position, making it the source for all manufactured products. The EU supports globalisation because it believes there will be big power block who will trade with each other. In practice the system is unstable favouring the growth of just one that will come to dominate all others. It is unlikely to be the EU or even the US, as both made the early mistake of contracting out their manufacturing and failing to protect their home producers
The only way to win this battle is to refuse to play the game. Only the very smallest nations are too small to developed all the technology they need. The defence of the home market producers must be based on a divergence in technical standards. Until now the Holy Grail has been global standards adopted by all countries, this is a mistake, since it plays to the needs of the dominant producer, such as China. The alternative to different technical standards are trade barriers, designed to protect the local market and its producers. In the absence of both options many western countries will become nations of consumers, with little understanding, or control, over the technology on which they depend.
In terms of giving up the fight, it is easy to accept that China, or the US, has a commanding lead in a particular technology and simply decide it is no longer cost effective to compete. It being far easier to import what is required. This would be a serious error on many levels, not least because it puts all the world's technological eggs in the one basket. Defining a direction of development right or wrong.
The winners from globalisation are the super rich few who facilitate the trade and finance it. My argument is that the world is going in the wrong direction, rushing towards destruction, consuming finite natural resources at an unsustainable rate. One of the reasons why China will become dominant is because of its complete lack of concern for the natural world and its limited resources, profit at all cost is the priority. Neither the EU or the US can compete with this destructive mentality, thought Trump is attempting to make the US do so by adopting the same regulation free environment.
1
-
@leherion4276 I do not draw the political spectrum from communism on the left to fascism on the right. I see it more as a circle, where a fascist state is practically indistinguishable from a communist one. Diametrically opposite to these extremes is the liberal democracy, and somewhere at the 90 degree positions to the right is capitalism with socialism at the 90 degree position on the left.
I suspect the liberal democracy is unstable, as it can so easily degenerate to either the left or right, ending in the communist/ fascist side of the circle. The purists of political theory will no doubt point out the significant differences between the left and right extremes, but in terms of government they both tend to be dictatorships of one form or another.
Now to the heart of the matter, China is supposedly a communist system, yet it has embraced capitalism to make it efficient,but it is really no more than a dictatorship, with a parliament that rubber stamps what ever the leader wants. Russia is very similar, only in the case of Russia it is more like a criminal organisation like the Mafia.
There are a number of analogies which explain how I expect trade will change. For example, if you put cannibalistic fish in a pond, very slowly the pond is occupied by just one very big hunger fish. Even the biggest of its competitors having been eaten.
If you want a more benign analogue, consider how the little high street shops have been replaced, first by the super stores, and they in their turn by the multinationals such as Amazon. Soon only one will be dominant.
If it is desired that the high street shops survive it is necessary to set rule that prevent the inevitable degeneration to one multinational supplying all the customers needs. The idea that there will be three or four world trading blocks is unlikely, as one will become dominant. As I said in my earlier post, this won't be the eu, the us or Russia or even India. China will dominate because it is ruthless and cares little about the damage it does, unless the world changes the rules to make a better system more likely evolve.
There will be opposition to a change in the rules, because vested interests stand to make a lot of money on the way.
There is always the possibility that military conflict between the remaining power blocks will halt the evolution, but with nuclear weapons that will reset the system back to the Stone age, assuming anyone survives.
1
-
1
-
@leherion4276 at the moment Switzerland's problem is the eu, who in recent years has been pushing Switzerland to follow its laws and rules, with threats of sanctions if it refuses. So placing your hope in the performance of the local bully o protect you from the greater threat of the global one seems to be misguided, particularly as the local bully is all bluster and no real power, when faced with a real thug, like China. In the 21st century, you cannot seriously be contemplating a military conflict with China, that boat sailed in the late 20th century, when China became a nuclear power. The best you could hope for is that a strong military force might limit China's expansion, by forcing to be the first to take action. This seems to be the policy that the US is taking. It is certain that if the Chinese government is pushed into a corner by military action, it will lash out with all the weapons at its disposal. China is already destroying the planet, I do not think they would stop at total nuclear war.
The idea that the eu stands any chance of establishing a military to rival, Russia, China or the US, any time soon is ridiculous. The three have a seventy year lead and a determination lacking from the EU. An aggressor would just pick off the member states off one by one. Now the uk has left the EU, France is the only remaining nuclear power, and French nuclear weapons are reserved as a deterrent to protect France alone, not part of an arsenal for fighting EU Wars.
The way to stop China is to make its economic power irrelevant. That means becoming sufficiently self sufficient to stop importing from China. At the moment the west is feeding the beast.
1
-
1