Michael DeLaGarza 5:06 am on March 2, 2016

Unit 3 The New Second World

Originally i thought that it was a little bit over the top for a group of 20 nations to decide how the entire world was going to be run (and the idea that so few had so much power was a bit scary as well) but it makes sense that those who have had the most success should lead. Maybe that’s too simplistic, but I don’t think that I would want someone from a country where education is scarce making big decisions without actually having been successful in their own endeavors.

tatef 4:10 am on March 5, 2016

I wanted to comment on both your posts because you bring up some good points and, even better, some good questions. Who should lead? If someone has to then the ones who are successful seems to be a good place. But how did we get to that success? I took Jim’s US economic history class last semester (I recommend it highly) and it really highlighted how much luck, good and bad, created the US (80-90% of the original inhabitants dead through plague. France’s sudden need for cash giving us the lousiana purchase, Russias disinterest in land they held in California where Gold would later be discovered, WWII wasting our competitions infrastructure etc…) If Britain hadn’t had so much coal would they have ever led the industrial revolution? Turkey was one of the most powerful areas in all of world history until the end of WWI. Now, not so much. It seems like response to crisis and a huge amount of luck play into it. Many of the least developed countries are newer countries. Most of Africa and the middle east became independent 50 – 60 years ago. It’s much harder to establish something new than to add a bit to the work of generations.

My problem with the 20 most wealthy countries leading things is that it seems it all caters to what works for them and its not about what works for the rest of the world. Even if this isn’t oligopoly its one sided. We see that this works for us so we think everyone should do it without acknowledging they arent us.
Michael DeLaGarza 7:40 pm on March 11, 2016

That’s very interesting and I appreciate the background facts. I haven’t had a lot of history courses so this helps paint a better picture for me. That being said i think you are absolutely right in that it would be much harder to tear it down and rebuild than to try quick inexpensive fixes. However I don’t know if it’s so much a matter of laziness or lack of trying. Sure there are always people who would rather do nothing than something; I’ve been there plenty in my life. It seems to come down to greediness. No one ever wants to admit that they are being greedy so they try to justify actions via righteous intentions and get away with a positive image. That being said the people with the power to change America completely are typically the people with a lot of money. I come from a lower middle to middle class family and I can say that when I see people who live in bad conditions, it reminds me of why I work to bring home a pay check and why I’m taking courses to better myself. I don’t want to live that life. I want a better life. Not every country can offer that kind of opportunity. It takes a certain kind of stability to allow people to live a life mostly free of terrorism and the stress of always needing to find your next meal.

Which brings me to my next thought.

There is always going to be, as you demonstrated, a bit of luck, or as i like to think of it, chaos in the world. For that reason we need a well intentioned power to fall back on for protection. America offers that. I see it as an insurance policy against others who would wish us harm. In Economics we begin our studies with the idea that resources are scarce. We continue to progress in thinking based off of this idea, so we know that it won’t be free to have protection because it costs resources of all kinds. So when it comes down to how the countries of the world are run, good intentions aren’t worth so much.

So I also agree with you on the point that everyone is different and we should have different expectations of other countries. However, I think that if a group of people has developed something, they should work hard to protect it. At the end of the day, our american system isn’t meant to work for everyone. I can’t remember if I have said this in a previous post, but if everyone had a phd, who would want to be the cashier behind the counter of a McDonald’s? Also, that would make PhD’s worthless because they would be a dime a dozen. If this is a system that doesn’t even cater to every american, how well could it possibly work when extrapolated the the entire world? It won’t work.

That being said, I don’t know what would work, but I know that people aren’t ready to give up what they have to create a system that would better sustain everyone in the world, and that is why it is one sided. Unfortunately the romantic idea of creating a one world united isn’t something I can see happening in the near future. People just aren’t ready for it.
- tatef 4:54 am on March 13, 2016
  
  I agree with you on most of what you said especially in a response to Stephen, “There are just as many rich people I wouldn’t trust as there are poor people.” I think that works for countries too and that it will eventually lead to the same discontent and hostility worldwide that we see in our current election. I like the idea of the US as an insurance policy and cant think of another country to fill that role. But its like the UN security council: We’ve been in power since WWII so why would we share it? Even a single voice for developing countries on these “international” (they are international yet the word suggests something broader than the same big players over and over) boards could make a huge difference in day to day life for a billion people.
  Im not expecting that the gwhatever relinquish all power, just share it by including one or two of the countries who could someday become major trade partners.
Michael Ruben 6:01 pm on March 16, 2016

While I agree that world leaders should be educated and successful, especially when making global decisions that will affect the lives of billions, I have to ask, is this too much power for twenty people? If I did my math right, that’s 1: 350,000,000. That’s a lot of people for each of the G20 members to be responsible for, if we were to break it out. My concern is accountability, and if I can make a stretch, I agree with Michael D. here. In his post above, he talked about growing up in a lower middle- income family and is seeking a better life through education; he is holding himself accountable to a certain standard, but will these G20 members do the same? In other words, modesty.
I’ve met people from very poor backgrounds and those raised with silver spoons, and I have to say, I’d rather be led by a former… too many silver-spoon leaders don’t have the background to empathize with the working class. One such example was an “heir to the throne,” executive I met, who was about as far up in the clouds as one gets: he liked to remind his exhausted employees that they worked so that he could make $750K a year. So when it comes to the G20 and world leadership, I want to hope that there is some modesty in these individuals. That the decisions they make aren’t necessarily to fill their pockets, but rather to better humanity.

Econproph[Comp. Systems 2016]

Jim Luke's Comparative Economic Systems Course

Unit 3 The New Second World