More globalization

What are the problems of the world? Poverty, starvation, diseases, ignorance, wars and pollution and general disrespect for the environment. How can these problems be solved? The answer is relatively straight-forward: Increased globalization. I know why.

Poverty decreases with increased globalization. In pure economic-terms, more globalization means more trade, and more trade means more wealth being generated, and more wealth has the tendency to lift the most-poor fastest up the scale of living. A country X being 10 times richer than country Y means that the poorest in country X are 10 times richer than the poorest in country Y (this has been showed empirically many times). The tiniest increase in income for the poorest can make a huge difference. A huge increase in income more often than not makes little or no difference for those who are already rich. Therefore it is a battle against poverty which is involved in the battle for increased globalization.

Starvation and diseases are common companions of poverty. Therefore it is a battle against starvation and diseases which is involved in the battle for increased globalization. Also the environment cleans up when people can afford to have other things then the next meal on their mind. A good, clean environment is a very demanded luxary as soon as the basics of living are satisfied.

Ignorance gives rise to phenomenon like racism, sexism and general prejudism. Sometimes this leads to (civil) wars, but mostly it means limitations for free individuals who want to move around the world and work, study or hang out. Increased globalization attacks ignorance at its core, by breaking down borders and barriers and encouraging hard-working individuals and growth-seeking companies to travel around the world in search of the best conditions. Who thinks of skinny little Buddha-monks when thinking about India? Some do, but others are now beginning to think of able programmers who threaten to suck up all computer-related jobs in Europe if Europeans slack of.

Companies care only about one color: The color of money. Employers care only about one specification: The capability to work. Race, gender and religion plays no role in either case. Therefore it is a battle against ignorance which is involved in the battle for increased globalization.

Wars come in two, very different shapes: Those companies fight in order to attract customers and investors, and those governments fight in order to increase their power or ego. Companies gain nothing from slaughtering their customers. Governments can gain immensely from slaughtering their neighboring country's citizens (though never economically). Since the biggest states of Europe joined hands with free-trade agreements after World War 2, Europe hasn't seen a war (excluding the parts of Europe which had the bad luck of getting the communism-flu). Communist-China and 'capitalist'-USA fight trade-wars now, and no lives get lost in the process. Those areas on the planet which do have wars don't have free-trade agreements with their neighbors. By rushing the world as fast as possible into an almost unlimited globalization (elimination of trade-barriers, relaxation of regulations, etc), we rush into world peace. Therefore it is a battle against wars which is involved in the battle for increased globalization.

The environment is a hot topic today. It's not because the environment is becoming filthier or worse than before. It's because people are afraid of the possibility of man taking the final, drastic step which tumbles the Earth's atmosphere over and pushes us into endless floods and hurricanes, and maybe even an ice-age. But fear or not the question remains: How can we protect the environment in an effective way? The answer: Increased globalization. But not just any globalization. We need a globalization based on private property-rights, and capitalism. Oil costs money. When Earth's oil-reserves become to small, oil-prices will rise enough to force people into using less. Property costs money. Therefore a destruction of a, say, forest via acid-rain gives rise to law-suites against those who polluted (given that the forest is in private ownership). A natural reserve filled with rare and exotic animals is bound to stay protected and taken-care-of while in private-hands. Everything else would mean a decrease in value, and only governments allow their property to intentionally drop in value.

There is always the problem of deciding what does what to whom, when and where. Is a car in Copenhagen destroying the wild-life in Canada? But those are small issues compared to the big picture: Those who destroy property must compensate or suffer the consequences. It makes no difference whether the property is a tree or a car. The law protects private property, and a court-system figures out who (most likely) made the damage. If some "pollution" doesn't bother anyone, no-one will prosecute!

The main-goal is to spread out globalization which will make those who damage property suffer the consequences. The acid-rains of Eastern-Europe during the Soviet-era should not be allowed to repeat themselves. Therefore it is a battle for a better environment which is involved in the battle for increased globalization.

Lets face it: Since globalization began to take of, everything it touches has been doing better. Those who hate America and McDonalds can easily verify that and still continue to hate America and McDonalds.