NATURE AND THE ORDER OF THE WORLD
NATURE AND THE ORDER OF THE WORLD
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
It is a natural law that the weaker creatures always receive extra protection.
As a result, would-be predators rarely have protective shells. However, their potential victims always do. Overall, nature does advocate for some kind of equilibrium. A hard shell, spikes, or color camouflage would provide no creature with protection from predators if they had their way.
However, nature has its own priorities, in contrast to humanity. There are a few obvious differences that can be seen.
For one thing, nature does not support multilateral treaties that heavily favor the powerful.
Instead, only those who are in extreme need are given weight, not those who already have too much money.
Since you've come this far, you owe the reader a plausible explanation. When confronted with man-made laws in this rather unfair world of ours, it is necessary to rely on the natural laws.
In countries like the Land of the Pure, this is even more important.
Today, when there is talk of "globalization," it might be a good time to take a closer look at how nature designed the world as a whole (not to be confused with how the world designed nature!).
According to reliable sources, globalization implies open borders for financial, commercial, trade, idea, and cultural value flows.
That sounds good, doesn't it? The many proponents of globalization present this as a solution to all of the world's problems.
The most widely used adage aimed at those who do not have access to resources is "Globalize and all will be well."
Unfortunately, this one, like all such catchy slogans, has a catch. It is predicated on the idea that what is beneficial to one goose is also beneficial to another.
The industrialized developed world, which believes that what is good for itself should be pushed down the throats of the rest of the world, is the goose in the current context.
Consequently, despite the generous sugarcoating, it may come as a surprise to the developed world that the developing world may find their concoction somewhat unpalatable.
The economic system that the winners came up with after World War II was heavily biased against the poorer countries in the world, especially former colonies.
Instead of the reverse, the unavoidable outcome has been a massive transfer of resources from developing economies to industrialized nations.
This has been made possible, among other things, by the extremely straightforward mechanism of maintaining an unjustified disparity in the price structure of primary produce and industrial goods.
In direct proportion to the rise in the standard of living enjoyed by the inhabitants of these favored lands, the international prices of finished goods exported by the industrialized world have consistently increased.
The economies of the less developed nations rely on the global prices of primary produce, which have not only failed to increase in a proportionate manner but have also, in some instances, actually decreased.
Through an intrinsically unfair international economic system, this imbalance has persisted.
A quick look at some economic statistics might be interesting to get a sense of the inherent economic disparity.
The economies of the oil-producing nations in the Middle East that are frequently referred to as "rich" and those of the "Asian Tigers," such as Malaysia and Indonesia, that have experienced some economic successes, do not even remotely compare to the "economic performance" of the industrialized nations in the West.
When compared to the GDPs of individual industrialized nations like France, Germany, and Japan, the Islamic World's total GDP, which accounts for nearly one fourth of humanity, pales in comparison.
All of this demonstrates that both developing nations and industrialized nations are firmly rooted in ruts from which there is little chance of escaping.
It would appear that globalization is yet another effort to maintain the unequal status quo. There has never been a fair deal for economies that are heavily dependent on the export of primary commodities.
There should be a logical connection between the global prices of primary produce and finished industrial goods that use the first as a raw material.
Sadly, this is not the case, with the prices of both always being manipulated by rich industrialized nations to their advantage.
The proverb goes, "Public memory is short." The gallant struggle that oil-producing nations waged in the 1970s and early 1980s is nearly forgotten.
When the oil producers demanded a fair price for their oil, all hell broke loose. The producers of other primary products, seeing the layout, joined the protest with their weak voices and demanded a piece of the cake.
The subsequent negotiations in multilateral economic forums took several years to complete. The "haves," as usual, won the war as well as the battle.
The "have-nots," with the exception of oil producers, were unable to negotiate a fair price for their goods.
In addition, in addition to the more expensive industrial products they imported from industrialized nations, they were burdened with an additional bill for the pricey oil.
The so-called "international assistance" regime is another aspect of the New International Economic Order that has not been discussed extensively.
This regime led to a game of "lend lease" that worked in the lenders' favor and combined with horrendous bureaucratic corruption in the borrowing states.
Again, the outcome was as expected, namely: a massive net transfer of resources from the less developed economies to those with more resources.
Why isn't anyone surprised?
But, as the saying goes, that's another story.
As a result, would-be predators rarely have protective shells. However, their potential victims always do. Overall, nature does advocate for some kind of equilibrium. A hard shell, spikes, or color camouflage would provide no creature with protection from predators if they had their way.
However, nature has its own priorities, in contrast to humanity. There are a few obvious differences that can be seen.
For one thing, nature does not support multilateral treaties that heavily favor the powerful.
Instead, only those who are in extreme need are given weight, not those who already have too much money.
Since you've come this far, you owe the reader a plausible explanation. When confronted with man-made laws in this rather unfair world of ours, it is necessary to rely on the natural laws.
In countries like the Land of the Pure, this is even more important.
Today, when there is talk of "globalization," it might be a good time to take a closer look at how nature designed the world as a whole (not to be confused with how the world designed nature!).
According to reliable sources, globalization implies open borders for financial, commercial, trade, idea, and cultural value flows.
That sounds good, doesn't it? The many proponents of globalization present this as a solution to all of the world's problems.
The most widely used adage aimed at those who do not have access to resources is "Globalize and all will be well."
Unfortunately, this one, like all such catchy slogans, has a catch. It is predicated on the idea that what is beneficial to one goose is also beneficial to another.
The industrialized developed world, which believes that what is good for itself should be pushed down the throats of the rest of the world, is the goose in the current context.
Consequently, despite the generous sugarcoating, it may come as a surprise to the developed world that the developing world may find their concoction somewhat unpalatable.
The economic system that the winners came up with after World War II was heavily biased against the poorer countries in the world, especially former colonies.
Instead of the reverse, the unavoidable outcome has been a massive transfer of resources from developing economies to industrialized nations.
This has been made possible, among other things, by the extremely straightforward mechanism of maintaining an unjustified disparity in the price structure of primary produce and industrial goods.
In direct proportion to the rise in the standard of living enjoyed by the inhabitants of these favored lands, the international prices of finished goods exported by the industrialized world have consistently increased.
The economies of the less developed nations rely on the global prices of primary produce, which have not only failed to increase in a proportionate manner but have also, in some instances, actually decreased.
Through an intrinsically unfair international economic system, this imbalance has persisted.
A quick look at some economic statistics might be interesting to get a sense of the inherent economic disparity.
The economies of the oil-producing nations in the Middle East that are frequently referred to as "rich" and those of the "Asian Tigers," such as Malaysia and Indonesia, that have experienced some economic successes, do not even remotely compare to the "economic performance" of the industrialized nations in the West.
When compared to the GDPs of individual industrialized nations like France, Germany, and Japan, the Islamic World's total GDP, which accounts for nearly one fourth of humanity, pales in comparison.
All of this demonstrates that both developing nations and industrialized nations are firmly rooted in ruts from which there is little chance of escaping.
It would appear that globalization is yet another effort to maintain the unequal status quo. There has never been a fair deal for economies that are heavily dependent on the export of primary commodities.
There should be a logical connection between the global prices of primary produce and finished industrial goods that use the first as a raw material.
Sadly, this is not the case, with the prices of both always being manipulated by rich industrialized nations to their advantage.
The proverb goes, "Public memory is short." The gallant struggle that oil-producing nations waged in the 1970s and early 1980s is nearly forgotten.
When the oil producers demanded a fair price for their oil, all hell broke loose. The producers of other primary products, seeing the layout, joined the protest with their weak voices and demanded a piece of the cake.
The subsequent negotiations in multilateral economic forums took several years to complete. The "haves," as usual, won the war as well as the battle.
The "have-nots," with the exception of oil producers, were unable to negotiate a fair price for their goods.
In addition, in addition to the more expensive industrial products they imported from industrialized nations, they were burdened with an additional bill for the pricey oil.
The so-called "international assistance" regime is another aspect of the New International Economic Order that has not been discussed extensively.
This regime led to a game of "lend lease" that worked in the lenders' favor and combined with horrendous bureaucratic corruption in the borrowing states.
Again, the outcome was as expected, namely: a massive net transfer of resources from the less developed economies to those with more resources.
Why isn't anyone surprised?
But, as the saying goes, that's another story.
No comments