Regionalism: The Next Step for Globalization

Reposted from JohnBrianShannon.com

Globalization was inevitable. Both the positives and negatives of globalization were inevitable. And we’re now moving into a more mature phase of globalization — a phase where common sense must play a larger role.

After all, does it make more sense to import onions from thousands of miles away in Chile or Indonesia for example, or to grow them on the rooftop of your local big box grocery store?

Think of the CO2 emission savings alone as one way of many to demonstrate how unrestricted globalization works against our common good.

Regionalism
Regionalism can lower costs, improve profits and create more local jobs for workers, while improving product freshness and delivery times.

For years I’ve talked-up the benefits of ‘Regionalism‘ where the largest share of goods and services are provided to consumers and business by producers and manufacturers within that economic or geographic region.

It’s not only in regards to fresh produce. With 3D printing and a regional facility ‘the latest thing’ can be manufactured in minutes, regionally, although the online order may have been received thousands of miles away — resulting in faster shipping and larger numbers of (regional) jobs, as opposed to the One Big Factory model, building ‘the latest thing’ in Shenzhen, China.

Of course it works both ways.

For Chinese consumers who want the latest Ford F-150 pickup truck, does it make sense to have one shipped from thousands of miles away in North America, or does it make more sense that Ford builds an assembly plant in China (and hires local workers) and fills orders from there?

I think there is still more growth to be milked out of globalization, but the next logical step is Regionalism which will cut costs, improve profits, and give consumers and business more and better choices. In high unemployment jurisdictions I would expect to see rates fall — perhaps dramatically, while low unemployment jurisdictions may see tiny improvements.

Although I agree with international trade agreements in principle, TPP seems excessively weighted toward corporate interests and not toward consumers or national sovereignty. For that reason I’m against it. The cloud of secrecy surrounding TPP certainly hasn’t helped. And the fact that someone of the rare and high calibre of Elizabeth Warren has doubts about it, tells me everything that I need to know about it. Full stop.

However, any trade agreement that enhances trade flows while enhancing national sovereignty and can show a distinct benefit to consumers and business alike should be aggressively pursued.

For me it isn’t about abandoning globalization, it’s about globalization reaching its full potential without destroying sovereignty, consumer trust, and entire segments of the economy.

It’s more about continuing to grow globalization (whenever that makes sense) and adding regionalism to the mix (wherever that makes more sense) and enhancing national sovereignty.

The day that Apple Computer is building iPhones in factories in every region of the world, that Ford Motor Company has assembly plants in every second country, every piece of clothing is manufactured regionally to the designer’s exact specifications, and most fresh produce is grown within 100 miles of its target consumer, that’s when we will see the maximum benefit from our investment in globalization.

We are where we are in regards to globalization and it has been a qualified success. But the potential of globalization + regionalism is one whole order of magnitude greater.

by John Brian Shannon

Image courtesy of www.intechopen.com Creative Commons Attribution License

Related Articles:

International Law vs. Western Nations & ISIS

by John Brian Shannon  John Brian Shannon

International Law vs. Western nations and ISIS originally appeared here and at Department of Homeland Security News

International law says that it’s illegal and considered an act of war when military aircraft enter another nation’s airspace to kill people there even if those people are members of a heinous terror organization.

It’s a matter of international law. There’s no ambiguity and it’s not under debate by constitutional lawyers anywhere.

Two exceptions are allowed under international law

If a country has a mandate from the United Nations (via Security Council resolution or UN General Assembly resolution) it allows them to enter and engage hostile combatants under the specified terms.

The other exception is when the host country has formally requested foreign intervention inside their borders.

International laws apply equally to every nation. They aren’t like an à la carte dinner menu where you can simply choose which laws you wish to follow

No matter how evil some terror groups are, countries that break international law are just as guilty of breaking laws as those terror groups.

If Western nations send their fighter-bomber aircraft into Syria; a) uninvited by the host government, or; b) with no UN mandate to do so — they are just as guilty of breaching international law as ISIS, perhaps moreso, as nation states know full well the responsibilities of international law and they know that they are bound by those laws. Protestations by government officials to the contrary are irrelevant.

ISIS isn’t a country. Having pretensions at being a country, isn’t the same thing as being a country

ISIS is a terror group, and although bound by the criminal and civil laws of every country they operate in, they’re not a country and are therefore not bound by the same laws that nation states must uphold.

My point is, if we in the West are saying that we’re a great moral force in the world, then we better start acting like it

In no way should Western nations be invading the sovereign airspace of any country with our fighter aircraft, no matter the pretext. So…

Who are we as a people? And do Western nations respect international laws, or not?

When we abide by international laws, we are setting a good example and we should expect to always be treated accordingly by other nations. And if occasion arises when our good example is not reciprocated, then we can claim full legal recourse with support from (all) other law-abiding nations.

When we don’t abide by international laws, but instead rely on the law of the jungle — then we must realize that we will be treated accordingly by the UN, by other institutions, and by other nation states. And by groups like ISIS, not incidentally.

One way or another, we’ll reap what we sow

We should stay on the right side of international law and stop flying into Syrian airspace to bomb civilians — remembering that only some of those civilians are also ISIS-member civilians.

Until then, the West continues to break international law by flying into Syrian airspace and bombing civilians

Let’s not forget that ISIS members are merely civilians who have joined a terror organization — they’re not members of the Syrian Army and we aren’t at war with Syria — therefore, we have no legal right to be there regardless of how evil the ISIS entity is. The anger we feel at their horrific terror attacks doesn’t entitle us to become lawbreakers.

Our best way forward for dealing with ISIS is to operate within Iraq – a country which has formally asked for our assistance

The West can contribute to operations on the ground and in the air in the fight against ISIS within Iraq. We’ve been asked to be there, therefore, we should show up and contribute our best effort.

If we claim that we’re part of a great moral fight in the world, then let’s start by being moral.

Related Articles:

Job Sharing – The Silver Bullet for the Economy

by John Brian Shannon — reposted from JohnBrianShannon.com

How balancing the economy can give us the best work/life balance.
Or is it the other way around?

By legislating job sharing programmes into existence so that every worker is guaranteed a minimum of 25 weeks of paid work every year, we could solve inequality, poverty, and most social ills.

balance

For those of us fortunate enough to be born in a Western nation, life is mostly about balance, and for our elected leaders it’s about how to achieve balance in the wider economy, and about the kinds of policies we’ll need for the future.

Thus far, our political and economic model has evolved. But let’s never forget that it wasn’t designed, it evolved. Big difference. (It might be the best Model T Ford ever built in history, but it’s still a Model T, if you catch my meaning)

And that’s exactly the conversation that we need to have

Here in North America, it requires only 1% of the workers to produce enough food to feed everyone on the continent. Yet, we see major food distribution problems and it’s getting worse.

With regards to agricultural output and distribution, our North American model is the best ever devised but it is far from perfect. And that is my point, instead of waging trillion dollar wars we should have continued to improve our economic model, and especially in regards to the food distribution aspect.

I don’t think that we should be giving food away for free (except in emergency situations) but there are far too many Food Banks in operation for such an affluent society, and there is constant demand for more of them.

Q: And why do we have this particular symptom that I’ve singled-out for discussion?

A: There are far too many idle hands, and it’s because their jobs picked up and went to Asia — a process that began in 1973.

We could put an end to many social ills by employing every worker for a minimum of 6 months per year

By legislating mandatory job-sharing, every worker in North America would be guaranteed a job appropriate to their particular skillset for a minimum of 25 weeks of full time employment, per year.

That means every worker has a full time job for a minimum of 6 months of every year and is then eligible to receive automatic unemployment insurance benefits during their (short) layoff period.

Mandatory job sharing eliminates the need for ‘Welfare’

We know that long-term unemployed individuals eventually turn to welfare in order to be able to eat, have shelter, etc. once their unemployment insurance payments run out.

We also know that long-term unemployment eventually turns into substance abuse, crime, homelessness, etc.

More crime = bigger policing budgets = bigger insurance claims/higher insurance rates = more citizens injured or terrorized by crime, etc… and all of that is just the symptoms of high unemployment and long-term unemployment, migration to welfare, and changes in the thinking of the individuals in such circumstances (long term depression, withdrawing from society, anger, resentment, and more)

But with mandatory job sharing the yearly unemployment rate would be 0% — that is, over the course of the year, every worker will have worked a minimum of 6 months. However, at any given point throughout the year the nominal unemployment rate would settle at 2.5%-3.0%.

With a job (and full unemployment benefits during layoff) long-term unemployment would become a thing of the past.

Keeping some workers in a permanent state of unemployment brings on an OCEAN of troubles

Job sharing is the answer.

By legislating that every healthy worker can have a job for a minimum of 25 weeks per year, we could solve the worst inequality, poverty, other social ills, and dramatically and positively lower crime rates, insurance rates, policing and court costs, and enjoy a safer, more egalitarian society.

It’s so simple.

Related Articles: