Globalization or Armageddon?

These days’ presidents and prime-ministers in our world are either distancing themselves from globalization like the British exit (Brexit), or they are easily convinced to promote the «global community» either through EU membership and trade agreements like TTIP. I will try to establish some facts about what globalization involve. Will it be in the best interest of the people on our planet, or will it be in the best interest of the already rich and powerful.

The global idea

A very interesting idea is the idea of all people living together on our planet in peace. We are all equal and all humans. We should make love, not war.

The ideas foundation is fantastic, but we know that humans are not entirely equal and it would be unrealistic to think otherwise. It would be stupid to use our differences in arguments to either promote a globalized community or denounce it. But whatever these differences are, they exist through religion, genetics and mentality. The strongest difference between us, is our difference in ownership and freedom.

But still, people are working hard to achieve the goal of a globalized world. The world of free movement, free trade, free speech and all the aspects of freedom which is today bound by national borders and military forces.

Is the global idea about freedom?

According to an online dictionary (Merriam Webster) freedom is defined in the following way:

  1. the quality or state of being free: as:
    1. the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action
    2. liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another
    3. the quality or state of being exempt or released usually from something onerous <freedom from care>
    4. ease, facility <spoke the language with freedom>
    5. the quality of being frank, open, or outspoken <answered with freedom>
    6. improper familiarity
    7. boldness of conception or execution
    8. unrestricted use <gave him the freedom of their home>

From the definition, it is difficult to understand that freedom is connected to globalization. What about ownership? Let’s see where this question leads us.

If you own a house, it is your God, your sanctuary, your heaven and your religion; the place where you would raise your children. From the definition, (8 – unrestricted use), owning your home is directly connected to the definition of being free.

Monetary access is essential to people’s freedom, and is directly related the definition of freedom. (e.g. 1 – constraints in choice or action, or 2 – from the power of another). Without money, it would limit any man or woman in their freedom, by limiting their choice or limiting their voice!

If you do not own anything, it is more likely that you must rely on other means to get support in a troubled life.

The basic understanding of welfare and freedom, can be understood by studying our systems of money and ownership. Without any ownership to anything, you are not free, and you are bound to others to get the feeling of freedom. This freedom can quickly become chaos if you possess nothing and lose your job.

I believe we can establish a fact:

Ownership is directly connected to freedom!

This is not a new idea, since our entire economy is actually based on this fantastic fact. Money and ownership is actually what makes us free!

But what is globalization when it is not about freedom?

The global ownership

Most likely borders between countries will continue to exist in a globalized world, because the people living in this country have ownership to its existence, its natural resources, and the food their country provide for them.

The borders of private ownership within a country are even stronger than the collective ownership. Borders are usually allowing fairly free movement between countries, but mechanisms like language barriers, access to social welfare and other mechanisms like green cards, indicates that the borders are still representing the collective ownership. If the collective ownership is weakened, people will react, because this ownership is directly linked to people’s private ownership.

Corporations and their private ownership

Many have experienced working in an international company. Maybe a company with foreign headquarter and a local workforce. Many people have also experienced how strange it is to relate to such work when you cannot influence decisions or the path forward. At some point, most people are disconnected to the pride in working for a foreign company. Especially when the profits are moved to another country, and the gains are shared amongst the shareholders who you do not know.

Pride of working in a global company, might even turn into resentment, when people understand that the profits of the company is not the result of the owner’s hard work and abilities, but rather their hard work and abilities.

Usually this will not pose a problem as long as the company provides salaries compensating for the negative impact of a foreign ownership, because the jobs provides freedom for the workers through money and ownership. But still it is much more difficult to sustain such a relation, because the profits are moved offshore and people understand the impact of the losses when the profits are used elsewhere.

It is probably easy to understand that international companies are experiencing the same as ordinary people when they want to expand throughout the world. Limitation exist because they enter boundaries and ownership of other companies and countries. In the financial world, where there is a feeling of disconnection from these boundaries, it might be difficult to understand that people will not give away what they have worked hard for, to people who inherited their capital.

Is inherited capital connected to your freedom?

If you are capable of understanding that most of the capital existing in the capital marked are inherited and accumulated capital, it is more reasonable to understand a stagnation in globalization. Since freedom is connected to ownership, it is reasonable to conclude that people’s freedom is directly connected to inherited capital. It is also reasonable to understand that inherited capital are directly connected to other peoples lack of ownership, through acceptable levels of freedom.

The able man will not sell his company to the incapacitated man. He would rather go bankrupt before he surrenders to such stupidity. This philosophy was understood by Ayn Rand; explained in her most famous book Atlas Shrugged. It must be noted that her philosophy was created after the World Wars, when extreme regulation was conducted by the governments. But her story is mainly about people with great abilities, and how important they are in our society. Some might say that her story is about rich people, but according to her philosophy it is about the people with exceptional abilities, and with a rational self-interest who requires them to make causal decisions. In her story she clearly depicts the situation where the able men and women was removed from the society. This is a clear warning, where she transmits the vital knowledge about how all able men and women will perish.

The understanding she conveys is about the traits of able men and women, and how unlikely it is that these abilities are preserved by their children since their parent’s abilities are not inherited by them. It might be difficult to comprehend that inheritance is a degrading factor in social development, but the consequenses if we do not understand what Ayn Rand tried to tell us is chaos. The underlying fact supporting her philosophy is that accumulated capital through inheritance have an profound influence on peoples access to ownership and freedom.

It is meaningless to say that social degradation through inheritance is a rule that we are bound by. But mathematically the pattern of inheritance can show us the unlikelihood of children inheriting their parent’s traits. The normal method would probably state a 25% likelihood of such inheritance, but in today’s genetics the recessive or dominant inheritance patterns are considered a simplification. The real numbers would probably reduce this likelihood to a fraction of what have been the current understanding.


Based on the abovementioned statements we can establish some facts:

  1. Peoples freedom is not limited by countries, borders or boundaries, but by ownership. If the ownership is not directly connected to the people, they have no freedom.
  2. Ownership is more likely to be poorly handled by those who inherit it, and thereby the freedom or lack of freedom that is connected this ownership.
  3. International corporation’s freedom is limited by countries, borders or boundaries because it limits their ownership
  4. International corporations are not representing a sound business model, because it does not give people freedom, but the opposite.
  5. Globalization is promoting a global accumulation of capital, thereby reducing people’s freedom

Most of the abovementioned statements are proven facts within the field of economics and genetics, while some might be open for discussion to a certain degree depending on how capital ownership is regulated in different countries.

What if we go global?

When we look at the arguments both for and against globalization and mix them all together we will get the following results:

  1. World stability
  2. Good economy
  3. War
  4. Lower prices
  5. Migration
  6. Instability
  7. Increased bureaucracy
  8. Leadership disconnected from the people affected by its decisions
  9. Bad economy
  10. Higher prices

Let’s break down these arguments into fact based knowledge, and try to understand their purpose.

  1. World stability is most likely in the hands of our leaders, unless the people get some new tools to strengthen their democracy. World instability will only happen if our leaders are unable to do their job. Most people do understand if the ownership to their country and its resources are threatened it is more likely to create instability. If their government have been importing resources to cope with their populations needs, we can understand that this can create instability within their own borders. But will this threaten world stability? Most likely not, unless somebody is stealing from their neighbours.
  2. Good economy is when you do what you were taught by your grandparents. Do not overshoot and borrow more than you can handle, would be their words. This knowledge is disregarded as a thing of the past. We can probably assume that the low interest rates we are seeing globally, probably is a result of this old knowledge. It is hard to understand that globalization is going improve your economy. Most likely it is going to improve the ownership of global corporations when your governments loans defaults. But this will not improve anybody’s economy, and most likely deteriorate a country’s ownership to its own resources, and thereby its inhabitants freedom.
  3. War, is likely to happen if we do not accept the already specified borders and ownership. Trying to limit our ownership is equal to a limitation of our freedom, and instability might be the result. This is not likely to happen, unless international corporations do not accept the risk that follows an ownership in foreign countries. This risk, might easily become a direct loss, if people’s ownership and freedom is put to the test. Globalization will not remove peoples private or collective ownership to where they live, the resources that place provides etc. It is hard to understand arguments against such old philosophies.
  4. Lower prices are not connected to globalization. We can assume that our global trade, makes it possible to trade with many people and companies regardless of membership in a global community or a union. The competition between multiple countries are probably better for the prices than in a globalized world, where companies will start to merge and create international dominating production and corporation
  5. Migration/free movement is more likely to be a problem in a globalized world. It is directly destabilising for countries when their freedom is crushed by an inrush of people who need to be taken care of. It would be totally unreasonable not to help people in need, but they need to be helped where they are. A globalized world can fill gaps in our ability to sustain higher populations, but the cost of doing this will in the long run be devastating to our world. The climate crisis and the limitations this poses to population-growth is very uncomfortable. This means that our governments must cooperate and limit migration on both sides of our borders with strong support when crisis or terror is occurring. It would be reasonable to think that most rational governments would understand the strength of such agreements. It preserves our freedom, and strengthen our ability to help those in need. The ability to travel will not change if stronger border control is implemented. I might limit air traffic and the income of airline-companies because of a more difficult visa-management. This is probably just healthy for our climate and healthy for communication technologies, limiting a wasteful tourism industry and the extreme pollution it creates.
  6. Instability is connected to freedom. Any man or woman are likely to become fairly angry if their freedom is put to the test. And since we already have stated that freedom is connected to ownership, globalisation will then be the direct cause of instability, not the other way around. It is strange that some people think that our ancestors created borders because it is better without them. Borders have been the pinnacle of our development, and is the direct cause of stability due to the fact that it provides ownership and freedom. When instability occur within a country, the boundaries and borders are usually the barrier preventing this from escalating. Other nations and countries will be stabilising factors, providing the “error correction” through help and communication.
  7. Increased bureaucracy is definitely a result of a globalised world. I do not think anyone needs to start an argument about this question. A global institution would never be a good institution to govern your country. When the Soviet Union collapsed, it enabled us to understand that too big is bad. Too big is also uncontrollable, in particular when our populations are increasing.
  8. A Leadership disconnected from the people affected by its decisions is not a good thing, and people who have experienced to work for big international corporations can relate to that. It is far better to be able to talk to your boss, and understand that he is the man who can change the path, or decide not to. A real decision is made when you are confronted with the argument of how, when and why. Humans are verbal beings. E-mails and other written communication is creating barriers rather than resolutions.
  9. Bad economy is probably unavoidable in our future, and globalization will not change this. Our economy is limited to the available resources contained and maintained by our planet. These resources are now being threatened by climate change. The need to contain our borders are probably more vital now than ever. Instability must be contained within our countries, and our governments must communicate that to the people. People are not stupid, and understand that long range missiles are not needed when the one you probably should blame is your appointed leader.

Notice that all the above arguments are only speculations. In many cases the arguments are connected to the fact that ownership and freedom is negatively impacted.

One argument never occurring in the press, is how much of your countries properties are owned by foreign companies. Or how much profits are moved out of  your country due to static capital ownership. It does not matter if such ownership is balanced through your country’s ownership in other countries. Depending on the corporations size, foreign ownership can reminds us about the negative impact a state-ownership have on our freedom. With this in mind, remember that some companies have more capital assets than entire countries, and that these organisations are not democratic entities since they are not governed by their employees. In this context remember that mergers and acquisitions are the normality, not the opposite, and the grave concern this rises.

The resent promotion of Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), includes an Investor-State Dispute Settlements (ISDS). We can only speculate about what a non-democratic company would do to a democratically elected government if they are allowed to sue them. The smart man would probably say that these companies are just making progress through global trade and is promoting freedom and ownership in the name of Ayn Rand, but the intelligent man would say that the democracy is under siege from despots, trying to strengthen their monopolies. I wonder what Ayn Rand would have said if she could understand that despotism might be the result of capital accumulation in a free marked.

It would be irrational to say that corporations are a bad thing, because they are not. Corporations are a great invention in our society because they are representing freedom for their owners and freedom for their workers. But again, have in mind that big is bad; uncontrollable and unstable. Not because of the size, but because their ownership is connected to a lot of peoples freedom or lack of it.

Globalization means instability

All the arguments for a globalized world are opposing freedom, ownership and stability. We know that the last time people were talking about globalization, the World Wars started. We do not want that to happen again.

We have only seen the beginning of problems EU might experience, unless they understand that big is bad; uncontrollable and unstable. Dissolving EU, and strengthening cross-border agreements would be better for a stable world, than a global community. It is actually more reasonable to think that we will experience a dissolved American Union than a globalized world the next 50 years.

Let’s try to establish this as a fact.

First, let’s provide an exercise where we look at all the systems in our world that are unstable. It is up to you to find these systems, but as an example we can mention is the Tacoma Narrows Bridge. When you have found enough systems and understood its unstable nature, you will se that many of these systems are involving engineering to be able to regulate and control these systems. Our entire world is organized through the business of engineering, and regulation.

Most of the things engineers do to make systems stable is to implement control, implying a control system. If the parameters to maintain control is vast and uncontrollable, the normal strategy is to subdivide these parameters into controllable smaller entities, not the other way around.  When we have control over the smaller entities, we can create a management system surrounding the smaller entities and in this way create a bigger, greater and more complex system with extreme stability. We can assume that the population with it’s numerous needs, are representing many of these parameters, and that the parameters are increasing in numbers.

Most likely economists and financial analysts have less knowledge about regulated systems in engineering and control systems and how extremely difficult it actually is to create stable entities for use in complex engineering tasks. In a world where humans are making decisions in anti-causal manners, and often based on feelings, it is stupid to think that it is easy to create a deregulated and financially sound global society.

But it is also fairly irrational to think that regulation is not a part of our world, and that a deregulated global marked will be stable. It is far beyond total insanity to think such thoughts, even when your freedom seem to be taken from you when regulation is implemented.

Regulation represent the collective ownership, but is sometimes mistaken because it does not actually remove peoples freedom but rather provides access to it. The problem with regulation is that governments does not seem to understand the connection between regulation and ownership, and how this impacts freedom.

Ayn Rand did actually promote deregulation of the economy. But this was based on the assumption that all beings were rational, following logic deduction and promoting causal decisions. We know that very few people are capable of such reasoning. This can be seen when Wall Street tycoons are pursuing their self interest in the name of Ayn Rand, without any connection to logic deduction or reasoning. Due to this fact, regulation is needed.

It would be irrational to speculate about the future, or conclude with something that is merely an hypothesis. But our world is a complex system, maintained by a fragile economy. To maintain its reliability with higher populations, we need to control our smaller parts with exceptional precision before we even consider to agree to a global world. I think most people know when a country is overshooting its capabilities. This is already increasing our concern, especially when the countries overshooting are the ones who promotes the global world. Will they be able to contain the downturn?

The idea of a globalized world is fantastic, and the thought is initially good. But it seems that all facts are against its construction. The economy and finances are more likely to collapse if the idea is pursued in its current form. People seem to forget how people’s freedom will be influenced, probably the most important factor in such a discussion.


Notes about Brexit 2019

Two years after the great British democratic voice, Brexit it is now postponed.


This seems a bit like an inverse coup d’état performed by the British government against its people. A bit similar to the Norwegian government who entered the EEA agreement when the people rejected any membership in a democratic voice.

Basically, any agreement the government perform on the behalf of the people without their consent, will have no effect. It seems that the politicians belive that the population is a bunch of morons, and belive that they will succumb to regulations or rules provided in an unilateral fashion through an imposed EEA agreement. If EU face any problems, I belive that the EEA agreement will be treated like garbage because none have ever agreed to it. Some politicians should look deeply into the mirror when they belive that they can overrule the decision of the people and tell them that they entered this unilateral abomination for the sake of the people.

A democracy is a democracy when the people decide, after listening arguing and contemplating on all the aspects of the questions provided by the politicians

The democracy was developed due to natural laws, favouring this form of government. Usually the peoples collective decision is formed by the same rules; the inherent logic in what they belive is reasonable when they have to make a difficult decision. To go against this logic is a sign of madness, and a belief that the decision of one man or woman is right. It is what an inventor would say is a failing product; the product no-one would buy, but is imposed by force because some investors belive that the market is big enough to fool at least 10% of it.

If you do not listen or are unlucky to be deaf, any decision is simply guesswork

The people seem to be loosing the game, and one of the worlds strongest democracy is becoming a hypocrisy.  The battle is now the group versus the individual, the union versus the country – where the group is determining the outfall of a democratic voice. This might be the beginning of a storm, where the group are not giving the individual its freedom, but determines its destiny. A group-mentality where the group belive they are right and that the individual is wrong.

Many would argue that this is money talking, and global corporations are now influencing policy so that the democracy is efficiently loosing its effect. This is speculations, but the global society is not about money but ownership and freedom. If money is determining the outfall of this situation, it will in effect reduce peoples freedom and the outfall will be determined by history. Our future history.

Money is a prospective, because you earn them by reward or you manage them after you have made a decision

If you determine anything on the basis of money, you have made the wrong decision. The decision is existing in the present, not the future, and a decision in the present made by an assumption on the future is disrupting the logic of monetary management. This is why financial institutions have defined the “bubble” term, because stocks are based on hope, not cash or facts. The logic is more easily expressed by the popular expression – Cash Is King!

It is fairly reasonable to belive that a failing Brexit will increase the peoples discontent with government and the democracy they are living in. Will this increase the possibility to create a globalized world, when democracy is undermined and a country’s borders and ownership is being wiped out?

It would be utterly devastating for politics in Brussels when they undermine the people in one of the worlds oldest and greatest democracies. The fate of EU is not determined by the Brexit but a failing Brexit. The game is now at its peak, where the intellect of the man or woman in charge will determine what it means to be free.

Currently Great Britain is suddenly a step closer to be an underdog in the Western Roman Empire, or what we could speculate is a beginning of “Das viertes reich“.

We should not speculate in the future, but we can be certain that a failing Brexit will reduce the British peoples freedom, ownership and determination. Then the politicians must determine what future they want.

An empire, or a future forged by freedom!

Be the first to comment on "Globalization or Armageddon?"

Leave a comment