So, the world clearly wants a change... now what?

Jonathan Mendoza17 said:Well, being irrational is quite human! And I do wish people would at least pause to think. This whole "pulling the handbrake, spinning 180 degrees, and reversing" vibe? That’s exactly what Trump represents—he is the pure product of irrationality. Just look at the US election cycle; it’s the ultimate proof. They focus so much on Hillary that they push her as the only alternative, seemingly forgetting to rationally evaluate who Trump actually is or if there’s any substance behind his promises. And frankly, many of those promises are nonsense that only lead us backward. Moving manufacturing to China made goods accessible to the masses, sure, but now things are shifting again. On top of that, pushing certain groups out of the country is totally counterproductive—it fuels racist thinking and drives away productive people. You have plenty of lawyers, doctors, and hardworking, exemplary individuals among the Mexican community and others. Meanwhile, you certainly find criminals among immigrants from Europe too. I read just yesterday that Germany has already employed 50,000 refugees. Most of them aren't criminals or extremists; they're just regular people who were pillars of their own societies and are fleeing war. They're simply trying to save their lives, much like people fled from here during the war years. Trump, Farage, and the rest are just reopening old wounds to exploit the situation. It almost seems like Trump doesn't even want to be President or know what he'd do with America; he just ran to prove he could.

Brexit is an even better example of irrationality. Literally the day after the vote, voters start changing their minds, claiming they were misled or fell for media misinformation. Their reasoning was that foreigners were taking their jobs, yet in the end, they won't actually kick the foreigners out—they'll just lose jobs because so many companies will pull out of the VB to stay in the EU.

Liberalism has brought so much benefit to the modern world, and the ideology is mostly sound. People forget that we have never lived this well before; the problems we face didn't spring from liberalism, they've always been here—liberals just haven't found the fix yet. The conservatives coming up now are just trying to drag us back to the end of the last century. We've seen all their ideas and methods before, and we rejected them with disgust. As for their economics? It's just throwing sand in people's eyes; conservatives don't offer anything truly different from the status quo. Their real program is just attacking human rights and pushing for isolation. Conservatives can't make a "step forward" because they never actually took one—that's the very definition of conservative, isn't it? Being against change. In fact, that's the crux of it: conservatives never accepted the changes liberals brought, and now they just want to dismantle them. That isn't progress; it's a retreat.

Man, where did the beginning go? 🤦
Are you planning on labeling everything you disagree with as "irrational"?? Someone who spent decades voting Democrat (like the working class in the Rust Belt) and saw zero benefits—or even direct harm—is now deciding to try Trump. For them, things couldn't get worse, so they're just trying something different. You're acting like it's written in the stars that everyone should aim for these specific liberal values, like it's some ultimate goal for humanity. It's definitely not a universal truth, not even in the West, let alone the rest of the world. And that liberalism "that gave us so much good"? It also brought us wars in the Middle East. This constant propaganda about "universal values" like freedom and democracy is nonsense. We've tried forcing Western-style democracy on countries where it clearly doesn't work using guns and bombs. The result? Failed states and massive migration waves.
We’ve been over this whole Trump and Mexican situation a million times already—he’s talking about the criminals hiding in the migrant groups who need to be deported, but those liberal media outlets just won't stop spinning it...
You’re out here talking about refugees "just fleeing war." Please. They wouldn't be running if it weren't for people like Hillary Clinton and that whole agenda of forcing liberal values on everyone under the guise of "saving" the Middle East.
And don't even get me started on your takes regarding conservatism—it’s honestly painful how little you actually know. Just curious, though... who were the biggest political heavyweights in 20th-century Europe? Which parties did they represent, what were their core values, or who gave the UK its first female Prime Minister and Germany its first female Chancellor? It definitely wasn't the liberals!

In my opinion, people who are constantly clamoring for radical change are just being naive.

What young people in The West are actually looking for is an improved standard of living. They seem to think globalization is the thing standing in their way, but they have it backward. The truth is, globalization was the very engine that drove up living standards over the last fifty years—largely because we could access incredibly cheap goods, which was only possible thanks to minimal regulation and dirt-cheap labor in countries that opened up to foreign capital, like China. Now, labor costs in those places are rising, yet these pampered, low-skilled workers in developed nations still expect Chinese laborers to work for pennies an hour. That is really the heart of the matter.

Low-skilled workers in The West can cry about it all they want—they can weep even harder than the ultra-leftists did after Trump won—but nothing is going to save them. At best, the growth of living standards in developed nations will be relatively slow. The real winners at the turn of the century were the people who, just 30 or 40 years ago, were struggling just to eat.

If they opt for populists, they are only going to end up hurting themselves even more. Just as a side note, I don't think Trump will deviate much from standard USA policy, so the average citizens in the USA shouldn't see any real damage there. However, Brexit is definitely going to have a negative impact on the British working class.

Richard Clark36 said:Man, where did the beginning go? 🤦
Are you planning on labeling everything you disagree with as "irrational"?? Someone who spent decades voting Democrat (like the working class in the Rust Belt) and saw zero benefits—or even direct harm—is now deciding to try Trump. For them, things couldn't get worse, so they're just trying something different. You're acting like it's written in the stars that everyone should aim for these specific liberal values, like it's some ultimate goal for humanity. It's definitely not a universal truth, not even in the West, let alone the rest of the world. And that liberalism "that gave us so much good"? It also brought us wars in the Middle East. This constant propaganda about "universal values" like freedom and democracy is nonsense. We've tried forcing Western-style democracy on countries where it clearly doesn't work using guns and bombs. The result? Failed states and massive migration waves.
We’ve been over this whole Trump and Mexican situation a million times already—he’s talking about the criminals hiding in the migrant groups who need to be deported, but those liberal media outlets just won't stop spinning it...
You’re out here talking about refugees "just fleeing war." Please. They wouldn't be running if it weren't for people like Hillary Clinton and that whole agenda of forcing liberal values on everyone under the guise of "saving" the Middle East.
And don't even get me started on your takes regarding conservatism—it’s honestly painful how little you actually know. Just curious, though... who were the biggest political heavyweights in 20th-century Europe? Which parties did they represent, what were their core values, or who gave the UK its first female Prime Minister and Germany its first female Chancellor? It definitely wasn't the liberals!

This whole thing is weighing on me too, but honestly? I don't think it's worth the effort. It’s just like that other thread—most people don't actually grasp what liberalism entails, so they end up projecting all their personal hang-ups and frustrations over various social trends onto the concept itself. And frankly, it's pretty incoherent. Just ask yourself: is Angela Merkel really running a conservative platform?

"Quote"

Harold Martin10 said:In my opinion, people who are constantly clamoring for radical change are just being naive.

What young people in The West are actually looking for is an improved standard of living. They seem to think globalization is the thing standing in their way, but they have it backward. The truth is, globalization was the very engine that drove up living standards over the last fifty years—largely because we could access incredibly cheap goods, which was only possible thanks to minimal regulation and dirt-cheap labor in countries that opened up to foreign capital, like China. Now, labor costs in those places are rising, yet these pampered, low-skilled workers in developed nations still expect Chinese laborers to work for pennies an hour. That is really the heart of the matter.

Low-skilled workers in The West can cry about it all they want—they can weep even harder than the ultra-leftists did after Trump won—but nothing is going to save them. At best, the growth of living standards in developed nations will be relatively slow. The real winners at the turn of the century were the people who, just 30 or 40 years ago, were struggling just to eat.

If they opt for populists, they are only going to end up hurting themselves even more. Just as a side note, I don't think Trump will deviate much from standard USA policy, so the average citizens in the USA shouldn't see any real damage there. However, Brexit is definitely going to have a negative impact on the British working class.

To kick things off... 🙄

"Quote:"

Young people in The West just want a decent standard of living—period. They’re convinced globalization is the one thing standing in their way.

It all comes down to who actually wants what... or rather, how you’re setting your priorities in the first place. Maybe it's just about chasing sustainable growth—you know, aiming for standards that aren't exactly skyrocketing, but at least they're steady instead of hitting zero.
Plus, what actually defines that "standard" anyway? What goes into quality of life? That’s exactly what the older generation—the ones who aren't exactly fresh out of college—are actually fighting for.

"Quote:"

Look, let's be real—globalization was the only reason everything stayed so cheap over the last 50 years. It worked because companies could dump capital into places like China where regulations were nonexistent and labor costs were basically nothing. Now that wages are actually rising there, these pampered, low-skilled workers in the West are throwing a fit because they can't get someone to work for fifty cents an hour anymore. That’s the whole damn game.

Look, it’s obvious—everyone’s looking out for number one, or more accurately, everyone just gives a damn about their own selfish interests. It’s just human nature.
So what now... we just tell these low-skilled workers to jump in the ocean or pack their bags for the Third World? Like, sure, try retraining them—we all know that’s easier said than done, and God knows who’s footing the bill—but honestly? It’s still a hell of a lot cheaper than watching our entire social fabric rip apart and dealing with a massive wave of nothing but precarious laborers and a permanent underclass.

"Quote:"

Low-skilled workers in The West can throw whatever tantrum they want—they’re gonna cry harder than those ultra-leftists did after Trump won—but nothing's gonna save them. At best, the standard of living in developed nations is just gonna crawl along. The real winners at the end of the 20th and start of the 21st century? The people who were starving just 30 or 40 years ago.

And those big winners you’re talking about? They won't stay on top for long if this "spontaneous" globalization keeps rolling. Globalization was already a massive global thing once before—back from the late 1800s right up until WWI.
We all know how that ended... You really think history isn't going to repeat itself? Maybe not in the exact same way, but things are still headed for a massive shitshow regardless.
The losers of globalization aren't just gonna sit around crying—if the elites keep playing blind, we're all gonna end up screaming together.

"Quote:"

If people vote for populists, they’re basically just digging their own graves—seriously. Honestly, I don't think Trump is actually going to deviate from standard USA policy all that much, so the average American shouldn't see any real damage there. But Brexit? That’s a whole different story—that's definitely going to screw over the British working class.

Look, I'm not saying Trump is gonna flip the script overnight either—but seriously, do you think the cost of globalization in The West is actually gonna drop? Or are we just looking at even higher prices for those "globalization winners" we've been talking about?

A globalized world has always been a step up from a non-globalized one. When you say "we know how this ends," you seem to be overlooking the fact that "how it ended" previously—essentially a state of perpetual warfare—was actually quite the norm for Europe in its "local" era. The last 70 years have been a massive outlier, and honestly, it isn't just an issue for Europe. Historians often point the finger at the USA when discussing WWI and WWII, arguing they failed to step into the role of the global policeman that naturally belonged to them as the preeminent superpower at the time.

As for the working class in developed nations—let’s be honest, they live better than the vast majority of people on this planet. Because of that, perhaps there could be a shift away from pure materialism toward finding fulfillment in other areas of life? Sadly, I don't see that happening anytime soon. And if those material desires and the constant hunger for "more" are truly that overwhelming, well—there is always more education, more effort, and more work to be done.

The reality is that growth rates fueled by cheap Chinese and Indian labor simply weren't sustainable. It was an artificial situation, and eventually, the market had to correct itself by raising labor costs. To make matters worse for the working class, we hit a second shock: the crisis caused by everyone collectively pretending nothing was wrong. We had banks handing out bad loans, governments turning a blind eye, and borrowers acting like the money was free. So, you had one unsustainable period of cheap labor followed immediately by another unrealistic period where society was essentially spending its future prosperity today. Everyone got used to a high standard of living, and now, through some strange miracle, they’re shocked and blaming globalization for it.

Just a little side note...

Here are a few things I heard from friends and family back when the crisis first hit the USA:
1. "The administration is on great terms with the Germans and Austrians; they’ll bail us out if a crisis hits here."
2. "Our big corporate leaders will pull us through this mess."
3. "There is no crisis as long as the construction sites are busy."
4. "The crisis is only happening in the USA; what does that have to do with us?"

And a few things said once the crisis actually arrived:
1. "It's the central banker's fault; he should have just printed more money to fund the budget and kickstart consumption (he's not the only one who can do that)."
2. "Employers are to blame for low wages—if every boss doubled their employees' pay, they'd see higher profits and everyone would be better off."
3. "There is no crisis, the goods are all there—the wealthy are just playing games with us."

If the working class truly wants to return to the era before 1945, they certainly possess the political power to make it happen. But then again, those who don't learn from history are destined to repeat it. At the very least, historians will have plenty to write about after humanity manages to tear itself apart once again.

Harold Martin10 said:A globalized world has always been a step up from a non-globalized one. When you say "we know how this ends," you seem to be overlooking the fact that "how it ended" previously—essentially a state of perpetual warfare—was actually quite the norm for Europe in its "local" era. The last 70 years have been a massive outlier, and honestly, it isn't just an issue for Europe. Historians often point the finger at the USA when discussing WWI and WWII, arguing they failed to step into the role of the global policeman that naturally belonged to them as the preeminent superpower at the time.

As for the working class in developed nations—let’s be honest, they live better than the vast majority of people on this planet. Because of that, perhaps there could be a shift away from pure materialism toward finding fulfillment in other areas of life? Sadly, I don't see that happening anytime soon. And if those material desires and the constant hunger for "more" are truly that overwhelming, well—there is always more education, more effort, and more work to be done.

The reality is that growth rates fueled by cheap Chinese and Indian labor simply weren't sustainable. It was an artificial situation, and eventually, the market had to correct itself by raising labor costs. To make matters worse for the working class, we hit a second shock: the crisis caused by everyone collectively pretending nothing was wrong. We had banks handing out bad loans, governments turning a blind eye, and borrowers acting like the money was free. So, you had one unsustainable period of cheap labor followed immediately by another unrealistic period where society was essentially spending its future prosperity today. Everyone got used to a high standard of living, and now, through some strange miracle, they’re shocked and blaming globalization for it.

Just a little side note...

Here are a few things I heard from friends and family back when the crisis first hit the USA:
1. "The administration is on great terms with the Germans and Austrians; they’ll bail us out if a crisis hits here."
2. "Our big corporate leaders will pull us through this mess."
3. "There is no crisis as long as the construction sites are busy."
4. "The crisis is only happening in the USA; what does that have to do with us?"

And a few things said once the crisis actually arrived:
1. "It's the central banker's fault; he should have just printed more money to fund the budget and kickstart consumption (he's not the only one who can do that)."
2. "Employers are to blame for low wages—if every boss doubled their employees' pay, they'd see higher profits and everyone would be better off."
3. "There is no crisis, the goods are all there—the wealthy are just playing games with us."

If the working class truly wants to return to the era before 1945, they certainly possess the political power to make it happen. But then again, those who don't learn from history are destined to repeat it. At the very least, historians will have plenty to write about after humanity manages to tear itself apart once again.

Look, globalization itself isn't the issue for me... it's hard to deny its logic or even its fairness in certain ways. The real goal should be mitigating and making its costs politically tolerable—making it sustainable. Beyond just national governments, international organizations actually have this on their "job description."

I mentioned "wild" globalization before WWI as a historical warning shot that we absolutely need to manage these processes somehow.

Dani Rodrik laid out a fascinating thesis in his 2011 book, "The Globalization Paradox"... he argues you can't simultaneously have deep globalization, democracy, and national sovereignty. You can pick any two, but trying to juggle all three is impossible.

He made his choice—which I agree with—by prioritizing democracy plus national sovereignty.

Democracies have a right to protect their social contracts, and when that right clashes with the demands of the global economy, those economic demands have to take a backseat.

Some might think this principle would kill off globalization, but it won't... My hope is that by the end of the book, I'll convince you that empowering national democracies will actually put the global economy on much firmer, healthier footing. That’s the ultimate paradox of globalization: a thin layer of international rules that still leaves plenty of room for national governments to maneuver is better globalization. These rules act as a safeguard against the systemic failures of globalization while keeping the economic perks.
We need smart globalization, not maximalist globalization.

Here are a few things friends, acquaintances, or relatives said back when the crisis first hit the USA:
1. We're fine with the Germans and the Austrians; they'll bail us out if things get ugly here.
2. Big business will pull us through the crisis.
3. There is no crisis as long as construction is booming.
4. The crisis is only happening in the USA; what does that have to do with us?

And a few things people said once the crisis actually arrived:
1. It's the Fed's fault; they should have just printed more money to fund the budget and jumpstart spending (it wasn't just one guy's call).
2. Employers are to blame for low wages—if every boss doubled pay, they'd make more profit anyway and everyone would be better off.
3. There's no crisis, there's plenty of stuff on the shelves—the rich are just playing games with us.

Absolute pearls, but I honestly think most people learned something... some illusions finally shattered.

If the working class actually wants to claw its way back to how things were before 1945, they definitely have the political muscle to make it happen. But people who don't learn from history? They’re just asking to repeat it. At least historians will have plenty of material to chew on after humanity finishes slaughtering itself again.

Look, this isn't some "take it or leave it" situation... and I couldn't care less about whether we face another global catastrophe if people stay blind.