[goldfishbowl42]

Thought this may be of interest. The BBC have created a Global Stock market index to measure the Global economy. It looks like it only starts today. This might prove to be a very useful index as time goes by. A sort of reality of oil demand predictions check tool. See what you think for yourselves.

BBC Introduction: link

BBC Global 30 index: link

[Markos101]

Yeah, I saw this today. This should roughly follow the economy, bearing in mind share prices are also vulnerable to media reports about oil as well as oil itself.

Mark

[Markos101]

Rising oil prices will spell an end to physical globalisation, which is a good thing. Our global trade will become increasingly difficult and expensive as oil becomes increasing difficult and expensive to obtain.

As this happens, workers in western countries will be competing less with those in foreign asian countries and having to work far longer hours for free in order to make the company's margin for profit due to increased competition. People will have to increasingly only compete on a national level. This is a good thing for those who live hand to mouth by working, and not living in the totalitarian state of having to work 70+ hours a week. It leads to far lower quality of life and stunts the individual's perceived options too.

Good bye to globalisation, and good riddance!

Mark

[seldom_seen]

...and don't let the door hit you on the way out.

[Doly]

What I'm wondering is: how dependant are we on things like cheap Chinese textiles and cheap Chinese gadgets? I think we will find out.

[savethehumans]

Ah, (it is) so.

[rogerhb]

So the "Race To The Bottom" is now an individual effort?

[Markos101]

Life is an individual effort. People can perceive to be some part of a collective but ultimately there are no forests but for the trees. The 'group' is an abstraction. I tend to delve away from 'collectivism' as its called because such systems tend to give 'groups' rights, or regard the rights of the 'group' above the rights of the individual. Giving an abstraction rights over individuals (who are not an abstraction) in my opinion tends to send people south even if there are idealistic reasons behind it. There is no utopia.

Mark

[rogerhb]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Markos101', 'I') tend to delve away from 'collectivism' as its called because such systems tend to give 'groups' rights, or regard the rights of the 'group' above the rights of the individual.

[Ludi]

Anarchy is not synonymous with individualism. Tribes are anarchic because there is no ruling class.

[Markos101]

Collectivism tends to lead to the 'righteous' persecution of minorities. It is the mentality of 'the greater good for the greater number as determined by the leaders'.

Individualism isn't anarchy or barbarism as I think you're assuming, individualism is essentially freedom from the coercion of government. Individualists tend to wish to limit the powers of government to only essential protection of their in-born, God given or self-enlightened rights. Collectivists tend to assume that the abstraction of the 'state' gives rights; and therefore has the power to take them away.

Another hallmark of a collectivist is that if there is a problem, the first thought that they tend to have is 'make a law', to coerce people into their line of thinking, because they assume that others are not capable of making a decision in that particular area themselves. The trouble is, collectivism leads to the empowerment of a minority of individuals who then determine what is best, in their opinion, of the greater good for the greater number. Now that seems appealing, but individualists will say that the individual is sumpreme, and also not an abstraction; that is, no individual should be sacrificed for the 'group'. A republic is such a system; the state is inhibited in its directing special interest loopholes to what it regards to be the 'majority'.

Another way of looking at this issue is that the collectivist will often seek government to solve problems, rather than the free market. The individualist will say 'let the market decide our role models, let the market decide ethics, as people don't have to buy anything. Let individual choice determine these factors affecting us all. Don't give it to just a few inidividuals in government.'. The collectivist however will look to the coercion of government to force people into their own line of thinking. I parallel collectivism with elitism; it's the same system as communism, fashism, leninism, whatever.

Essentially, collectivists tend to think that they know better than all other individuals, and are therefore justified in looking to instruments of coercion - in this current society the state - to enforce their beliefs on others, for reasons they believe are benevolent, however at the sacrifice of the individual.

It's the age-old debate that's been going on since time immemorial.

[rogerhb]

So as soon as you have an organised religion, you have collectivism?

[rogerhb]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', 'A')narchy is not synonymous with individualism. Tribes are anarchic because there is no ruling class.

[Markos101]

It depends where you're coming from. In terms of Christianity, after the reformation some Christians broke away from the Catholic Church - which yes had up to that point been the organiser of a religion - and decided that the Bible was all that was required for salvation. The Catholic Church however is hierarchical, and tends to suggest doctrine aside and in addition to that in the Christian Bible. So in the former instance, those who you would call evangelical, Anglican, or whatever Christians are individualist; their understanding of Christianity comes from their own self-interpretation of the Bible.Whereas in the case of the Catholic Church, you are required to perform religious duties, and you are tended to be expected to listen to your staff member of the Catholic Church to give you the 'official' interpretation of the Biblical writings.

As for other religions, such as Islam, I'm afraid I'm not qualified to talk about them, however I will assume that a similar divide may exist within the Islamic faith.

Mark

[Ludi]

Most tribes don't have a ruling class, they tend to be egalitarian. But not all.

[gego]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Markos101', 'L')ife is an individual effort. People can perceive to be some part of a collective but ultimately there are no forests but for the trees. The 'group' is an abstraction. I tend to delve away from 'collectivism' as its called because such systems tend to give 'groups' rights, or regard the rights of the 'group' above the rights of the individual. Giving an abstraction rights over individuals (who are not an abstraction) in my opinion tends to send people south even if there are idealistic reasons behind it. There is no utopia.

Mark

[Markos101]

The other question is about the nature of the 'ruling class'. Individualist systems do have a ruling class; it is very difficult, if not impossible I think, the ever get rid of the ruling oligarghy. But the nature of the ruling class is different.

In the individualist society, the ruling class are essentially voted for by all individuals in the society. It is the free market; those who are in the ruling class have obtained their position by offering all other individuals the most perceived value - a product or service for example, at a lower price. The ruling class may preserve their position, provided that they keep on providing value to the people. If they do not, then they lose their position in the ruling class to someone who is. Notice, however, that no one has had to give those in the ruling class their position of power; and their power is ultimately only derived from their increased purchasing ability. Some individuals may despute that everyone has an equal chance of obtaining position in the ruling class, however ultimately, anyone has the ability to obtain outside investment to fund their idea for new value for society.

In the collectivist society however, the ruling class are those who lead the government. The leaders may be voted in by individuals, who have no choice but to do so, every 5 years or so. Very often, the leader will be chosen on the basis of charisma rather than the nature of their ideas. Many of the people who do the real work in the background are not voted into position. Very often these systems lead to corruption; one doesn't have to look very far to see this happening. The key difference between the ruling class of collectivism and the ruling class of individualism is that of coercion; no one has to buy anythiing. However, the leaders of government can use state power to coerce people, without choice, into their line of thinking, depending on what the leader decides to do during his or her time in office. This may or may not be for benevolent purposes; I tend to believe that man is essentially good and will try and do his best for the better lot of humanity in the greater number of instances. It also leads to corruption from the wealthy classes, who may lobby the government to give them special interest in markets; see J.P.Morgan and the railroads that were built or Rhode's De Beers for this happening. Banks are also, in collectivist societies, also given speical interest by government.

In the individualist society, if a company is reported on a truely free media to be corrupt, people will tend to avoid that company, and they will tend to lose their dominating position; hence the individuals regulate, rather than requiring a 'state prosecutor' to come forward and claim themselves to be saving angels and using the coercion of government to do something about it.

I don't think you'll ever be rid of the ruling class, however in my opinion, the fairest ruling class is that voted for by all individuals and where the ruling class do not have coercive power.

You are, of course, as an individual, perfectly entitled to disagree!

Mark

[Ludi]

It may be difficult to get rid of a ruling class, but since cultures with ruling classes have numbered in the minority of the total of all human cultures, clearly a ruling class is not inevitable. It's a feature of our particular culture, and a few others.

[Markos101]

Hi Ludi,

Can you mention some human cultures that have not, or do not, have a ruling class?

Mark

[rogerhb]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', 'I')t may be difficult to get rid of a ruling class, but since cultures with ruling classes have numbered in the minority of the total of all human cultures, clearly a ruling class is not inevitable. It's a feature of our particular culture, and a few others.