That doesn’t mean that globalization is an unalloyed good. By its nature, economic liberalism exaggerates the downsides of capitalism as well as the upsides: Inequality increases, companies sever their local roots, losers fall further behind, and — without global regulations — environmental problems multiply.
"Yet liberalism has also dragged more than a billion people out of poverty in the past three decades and, in many cases, promoted political freedom along with economic freedom. The alternatives, historically speaking, have been wretched."
Citations fucking needed
edit: this fucking rag - look at the graphic for GDP divided as free/partially free/not free. "Come on Mexico don't you want us to refer to you as a free nation? Just be a good colony again..."
edit 2: I can't finish it, it's just so nakedly biased. "Serpents".
Not to mention the millions that counted as exiting poverty that were only in poverty in the first place because of the disastrous and illegal dissolution of the USSR
It bolsters the point, if you take China out of the consideration, there’s actually been an increase in poverty and polarization of qualities of life and I imagine a lot of those people were/are part of it.
This is after talking about "The first great age of globalization, which started in the 1860s and was underpinned by British power and coordinated by British statecraft". Shocking to hear that that wasn't an unalloyed good.
All those "corruption" cliches in Blizzard's hackey storytelling repeated for years, and all along the corruption was coming from inside the house. :surprised-pika:
Steady on now, old chap!
"Yet liberalism has also dragged more than a billion people out of poverty in the past three decades and, in many cases, promoted political freedom along with economic freedom. The alternatives, historically speaking, have been wretched."
Citations fucking needed
edit: this fucking rag - look at the graphic for GDP divided as free/partially free/not free. "Come on Mexico don't you want us to refer to you as a free nation? Just be a good colony again..."
edit 2: I can't finish it, it's just so nakedly biased. "Serpents".
deleted by creator
Not to mention the millions that counted as exiting poverty that were only in poverty in the first place because of the disastrous and illegal dissolution of the USSR
It bolsters the point, if you take China out of the consideration, there’s actually been an increase in poverty and polarization of qualities of life and I imagine a lot of those people were/are part of it.
Fuck I really need to remember this point, it's such an easy burn when it comes up
That’s because China actually capitalist in that case - just bad “mercantilist” capitalist
:galaxy-brain:
"dragged more than a billion people out of poverty"
The "dragged" there seems Freudian, considering the colonial regimes and their ground enforcement policies.
Lol that's where I stopped too, the psychic damage was too much
This is what all the most reasonable people I know say. Some famous person once said capitalism sucks but it sucks the least.
"— without global regulations —"
And who the fuck prevents and thwarts those global regulations and makes enforcement impossible, you bazinga brains? :guts-rage:
also states can't be regulated as law without enforcement by force is just a piece of paper
This is after talking about "The first great age of globalization, which started in the 1860s and was underpinned by British power and coordinated by British statecraft". Shocking to hear that that wasn't an unalloyed good.
First age of globalization was the Atlantic slave trade
What is "statecraft?" Is that some sort of hobby that involves making things out of severed children's arms?
Some Blizzard game, probably.
Check out my APM (Annexations Per Minute)
All those "corruption" cliches in Blizzard's hackey storytelling repeated for years, and all along the corruption was coming from inside the house. :surprised-pika:
Just yada-yadaing poverty, demolishing a lot of communities, and the destruction of the planet.