Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Hyeon Een]

Finally the wait is over, the New World Order is here ^^.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20090403/tuk-new-world-order-hailed-after-rescue-6323e80.html

[BS.Dos.]

I don't know. I've just got this nagging suspicion that we're not getting the complete picture regarding both the cause and extent of this global economic mess. I certainly don't understand this jubilant, back-slapping triuphalism being punctuated with soundbites like 'The world came together to fight back against the global recession' What the f*ck does that mean? It just equates to yet more borrowing and lending and denotes nothing less than an even more desperate attempt to bring about the restoration of the economic growth paradigm.

I can't help but see it for what it is; yet more rhetoric underpinned by yet another staggeringly large string of zeros.

[dmbfan]

I really can't relate with ANYONE who thinks that a one world goverment is a good idea and looks forward to it.

OP, I really hope you are in fact being ironic. I find it sad that people actually think it is a good idea.


dmbfan

[3MB]

[Bucheonguy]

[BS.Dos.]

I think there's a certain amount of interpretation at play with concepts such as the 'New World Order'. One could interpret ideas of a NWO as being defined conceptually as being economical, cultural or political in nature. However, in doing so, would leave you open to the suggestion that you believe the three are mutually exclusive and I don't see that they are. Furthermore, I don't see the European model as being evidence of anything other than an ideal grounded in progressive socialism - old wine into new bottles if you like.

Ultimately, I have a problem with concepts such as a NWO as I interpret it as being defined as an intrinsically political concept. As far as I can tell, at the heart of notions of a NWO is this idea of ideological convergence which (I believe) will result in political singularity. Where such singular thinking should take us is open to speculation. However, I believe political discourse should be a divergent pluralistic process and not one shaped by positivist reductionist thinking that supposes that what is good for some will be good for all.

To this end, I believe that we should be challenging the continuation of our passive endorsement of political ideologies that are directionally bilateral, not reducing them still further. Too many think of our political choices as being choices that are made latitudinally i.e. somewhere between the axis of the diametric left and right. We need to develop our political understanding so that people start thinking about political choices as having dimensions that are longitudinal as well. Ultimately, political discourse should be guided by a multi directional joystick, not by some metaphorical steering wheel, doomed to spin in ever decreasing circles.

[Pluto]

I am not a big fan of the left/right dichotomy either. I grew up in a conservative household, and have always thought of myself more or less as a conservative. However, if you're on 'the right' you are for free markets, but then you're labeled as being socially intolerant. On 'the left', there is more tolerance for people's lifestyles and a more dovish outlook on foreign policy, but making too much money and being successful is something to be disdained. So the question is, what if you're economically conservative and socially liberal? Where does a person who embraces free markets and free trade yet accepts gay marriage and the occasional toke lie? The Nolan Quiz attempts to answer this. I agree with BS Dos that we should be looking for more plurality and do our best to ignore the current left/right dichotomy.

[bucheon bum]

[Pluto]

Yes, I am describing a more libertarian philosophy. I believe it was David Boaz who coined the term 'economically conservative and socially liberal.' the post was in response to BS. Dos who thinks we should have more plurality I/R/T political philosophies. I happen to agree.

[mistermasan]

of course the ultra-elite were giddy and backslapping. they just get to be rich while the remaining 99.9999999999% get socialism, higher taxes and lowered expectations.

[harlowethrombey]

The European Union cant find a mutual fiancial policey (or force England to use the Euro) with a flashlight, a map and all 3 hands. The Asian countries cant get over ancient hatreds/rivalries long enough to seriously consider an Asiatic Alliance. Much of Africa remains a gawdawful mess the aforementioned places ignore.
The U.S. has absolutely zero interest in absorbing mexico (if your neighbour was a poor, drug-dealing gangster in a house with no indoor plumbing would you want to take over his lease?)
South America can decide if they hate Chavez or the U.S. or just each other.
And Australia. . . well they got lots of diggery-doos.

Most countries can barely keep their own people happy, much less consider forming some conspiracy-theorist wet dream of a monolithic world government.

The only way this will happen, and it probably will in a few dozen centuries, is if a congolomerate takes over. That is very forseeable. But, again, this stuff wont happen in our lifetime.

[Otherside]

[Beeyee]