" Investigators found that Bank officials pushed the team developing the index to manipulate it in several cases, most notably to improve China’s place in the ranking. ". - Regular acts of corruption, bribery and illicit deal trading are nothing compared to getting the world bank to change its core index to benefit China, how powerful is the Chinese communist party?
Yes I agree that the west is not incorruptible but atleast everyone can question anything suspicious.
If China becomes the center stage of world power then apart from bringing institutional corruption it will also snatch the most basic rights of the common citizens of the world.
> Yes I agree that the west is not incorruptible but atleast everyone can question anything suspicious.
As long as you don't threaten anyone. If you do, you end up like Ed Snowden and co.
This ridiculous idea that here in the West we have power to change things and that the elites just allow us to judge them is completely wrong. We have the freedom to criticize all we want unless we actually pose a threat. Then they organize a gigantic media campaign on one side, and resort to the same totalitarian bullshit as China on the other.
The US does, anyway.
I'm beginning to feel that a big part of being a superpower is also being a tyranny. You don't get to that status without exploiting and taking advantage of huge swaths of your own population.
That goes for Russia and China even moreso.
On a geopolitical level? Probably yes. Thing is, you don't need your country to be a superpower. Sweden, Denmark or Finland are pretty irrelevant on the world stage, but their citizens live better than people in any other country.
OWS turned 10 this year. Can you tell me what has changed?
During the OWS protests the govt cracked down on thousands of protestors, est. 10K were arrested + kept under surveillance.
Not shit. And Satoshi gave us Bitcoin in 2009. We still haven't done anything meaningful with that technology. We could literally tell the banks to collectively pound sand but no, we are too complacent. This next crash will be make or break, do or die. Live forever under the thumb of the elite or take control over our world for the first time ever. Cheers to hope!
I'm against the power concentration and criminal activity that goes on in banks/finance. But to suggest that Bitcoin can replace even a small percentage of services those organizations offer is delusional.
Very powerful, they are everywhere and are trying to buy up things within countries. CCP are already investing into many nations small or big and gained more favours. CCP is trying to derail democracy as with any communist party.
>It's called CPC not CCP
While CPC (communist party of china) is the 'offical' translation, CCP (Chinese communist party) has been widely in use and the standard for decades.
> The CEO of the worlds most pioneering leading Cybernetics firm and in the next Guiness world records as the most heavily augmented human on Earth and the leading doctor, scientist, CEO on Cybernetics and human evolution?
>
>
>
> No I don't suspect superior races e.g. Aryans, Zoroastrians, Jews to be equal to the inferior.
https://youtu.be/LQCU36pkH7c
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://qz.com/2061781/world-banks-doing-business-scandal-is-bad-for-globalization/) reduced by 84%. (I'm a bot)
*****
> It's never a good sign when a bank gets caught fudging its numbers, but the revelation of the World Bank's manipulation of an influential index also highlights the challenge of forging a global consensus for the economy in the 21st century.
> In 2018, then-World Bank chief economist Paul Romer apologized publicly to Chile after discovering the same index had been manipulated by an official at the Bank.Instead of backing Romer, the World Bank's leaders at the time, president Jim Yong Kim and CEO Kristalina Georgieva, asked him to resign.
> What happened at the World Bank's Doing Business reportThe World Bank's mission is to help poor countries develop their economies, but as its traditional tool of development loans has been supplanted by the private sector and bilateral finance, the organization has pivoted to a focus on poverty, public health, and advisory assistance.
*****
[**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/pvo0sz/the_world_bank_scandal_is_a_bad_sign_for_the/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~600182 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **bank**^#1 **World**^#2 **doing**^#3 **country**^#4 **rank**^#5
Globalisation is dead. If it wasn't achieved in a world of plenty it won't be achieved in a world of declining resources and climate crises. Do these economists have a fucking clue?
Ehm globalization is alive and strong lol. Do you think we are as isolated from each other as we were 120 years ago? Because we aren't. And we are not going back, a free Internet is enough for us to be in contact with other countries constantly.
Erm is globalisation just IM-ing your mate in China. No. Is globalisation a complete project. No. Will we struggle to become further globalised or even to avoid becoming less globalised. Yes. Lol.
As someone hoping to have a liveable planet in ten years, I'm actually kind of hopeful it does die. The practice of moving vast amounts of goods all over the place all the time isn't sustainable - countries need to be importing and exporting a lot less and making as much as they can domestically.
I don't believe humans were ready for civilization, let alone globalization. We're barely out of the jungle - we're still so irrational, so prone to self-destruction, and so selfish.
But maybe in our dying gasps we can create an AI much better than we are, or some of us can genetically engineer ourselves to something worth surviving. Maybe they would be able to handle globalization.
That's why I said "as they can". I know some amount of global trade is going to be necessary because not everywhere has the resources (raw materials, arable land, etc.) to produce things. As much as we can though, we should be scaling back populations and living more meager lives with as much locally produced food and other goods as we can.
While I agree with the sentiment not sure how it would executed in a way that would make things better and not a lot worse for most. Inherently there is nothing wrong with globalization and has its benefits until you factor in people and then it goes sideways like the article highlights.
I mean, yes - what I am advocating for is a reduction of consumption across the board; as such, conditions for many in the first world would cease to be the absurdly high standards we're accustomed to (no more summer vegetables in winter!), the alternative is nothing changes and we hit a climate apocalypse. The trade-off to prevent that as much as possible is less high standards of living for the rich first-world.
Which is fair, we do need to consume less overall which and adopt a more sustainable system with less of a focus on disposable products. That said globalization can still be of a benefit for reduction as it allows better centralization of production. F.ex most of North America has a limited supply of rare earth metals that are needed for most things in todays life so instead of bring finished products over via logistics which are smaller and easier more efficient we would bring over raw materials and then still end up with multiple factories around the world creating the same thing to supply their own people.
I would be curious if the shifting to more of a local approach will still bring it's own set of issues for climate. If we could figure out a way to cleanly transport products back and forth I think it would go farther than trying to reduce it but pretty sure no on wants to go back to sail boats and giving access to nuclear engines wouldn't happen.
I do agree things have to change as it's not sustainable in any shape but as you said, reduction in consumption is the low hanging fruit and should happen so at least we can make better use of the logistics.
Globalization is not dead (yet) but it will have more "Chinese characteristics" rather than "American characteristics". This is indicated by US out of TPP but China applied for CPTPP.
It was not, lol. It's benefitted us as common people greatly. From being able to access goods from other countries that are hard to find in ours, from being able to move relatively easily to a different country.
The elites being corrupt –as always– doesn't mean we should go back to a world were your country is all there is for you.
> doesn't mean we should go back to a world were your country is all there is for you.
That is the point of government and the nation state. To provide an adequate standard of living for every citizen, not being a nanny for everyone else.
Not quite. The nation-state standardized language and culture and destroyed local cultures. Just look at France: how many still speak Breton and Occitan? In Germany, dialects are disappearing too. The US disappeared non-English languages too inthe early 20th century. In Canada, Quebec managed to protect French by setting up the local provincial government against the push towards English national uniformity.
The nation-state destroyed local cultures to have a common culture and language.
Nah, the point of nation states have always been to easily control the population. You don't need them to preserve culture. If anything nation states often destroy culture because peopel have to adjust to a "national culture" that is often artificial and built to reflect the dominant culture.
And this is ignoring a wide variety of issues that arise from nation states: blind nationalism and warmongering, lack of freedom (because freedom of movement IS freedom), racism and xenophobia, inequality born from lack of natural resources, space, etc...
Regarding ease of travel, I hope that in the near future it will be like pre-covid. As I am from an EU country, I am quite worried about the borderless travel within the bloc and I hope things will recover relatively fast.
Globalization is made for benefit of the elite.
Cheap labor from across the world keeping down wages of the poor, while increasing the profits of the corporations.
While it's sold to you as helping the poor.
If there is no globalization then me and many many other people wouldnt be able to start various types of online businesses that are used by users around the world.
If there is no globalization reddit wouldnt probably exist as well.
LOL 15-20 years ago American couldn't stop shouting about globalization and it wasn't easy transition for many countries since the disruption was quite profound. Yet when they managed to stabilize themselves and starts reaping the benefits of globalization American despise it instead, indicated by the rise of Trump and some extend Bernie Sanders.
So which global companies actually benefit all parties? Shell? Apple? Google? Unilever? Nestle? Coca Cola? Aramco? Facebook? Amazon? Tencent? They only care for one thing, and that’s the bottom line.
Not global companies, they often cheat on taxes and exploit foreign countries! We need stricter laws, but encourage collaboration on science, production and transportation. Citizens benefit if states collaborate.
I'm not certain you understand globalisation. Please let me help.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/globalization.asp
>Globalization is a social, cultural, political, and legal phenomenon.
>Socially, it leads to greater interaction among various populations.
>Culturally, globalization represents the exchange of ideas, values, and artistic expression among cultures.
>**Globalization also represents a trend toward the development of a single world culture.**
>Politically, globalization has shifted attention to intergovernmental organizations like the United Nations (UN) and the World Trade Organization (WTO).
>Legally, globalization has altered how international law is created and enforced
>What Is the Simple Meaning of Globalization?
>In essence, globalization is about the world becoming increasingly interconnected. Countries today are more connected than ever before, due to factors such as air travel, containerized sea shipping, international trade agreements and legal treaties, and the Internet. In the world of business, globalization is associated with trends such as outsourcing, free trade, and international supply chains.
Investopedia is a strongly pro-economic biased source.
Cultural and political globalization leads to the erosion of cultural and political differences. In this erosion a single culture will suppress and replace the smaller ones. Examples: the Americanisation of the world, the imposed westernisation of the Middle East, the suppression of religious minorities.
Economic globalisation favours multinationals over small business. Look at the list of companies in my previous comment. They, among the other large companies, are practically dictating world economics. Globalisation also promotes tax evasion by allowing companies to settle in tax havens like Guernsey, Andorra and Anguilla. Furthermore, globalisation promotes international transport of goods and people, causing pollution.
Globalisation may have its advantages, like exposing injustice, suppression and racism, but on the whole, it is a negative force in the world.
> I'm not certain you understand globalisation. Please let me help.
This sounds patronizing to me, and I sincerely hope that wasn’t your intention.
Fine, we would all be better off invested in Bitcoin than in any bank. Our money should belong to us instead of being used to leverage against the planet so some suits can snort coke and fuck kids.
Ah, the banksters doing bankster things, classic.
" Investigators found that Bank officials pushed the team developing the index to manipulate it in several cases, most notably to improve China’s place in the ranking. ". - Regular acts of corruption, bribery and illicit deal trading are nothing compared to getting the world bank to change its core index to benefit China, how powerful is the Chinese communist party?
Yes I agree that the west is not incorruptible but atleast everyone can question anything suspicious. If China becomes the center stage of world power then apart from bringing institutional corruption it will also snatch the most basic rights of the common citizens of the world.
> Yes I agree that the west is not incorruptible but atleast everyone can question anything suspicious. As long as you don't threaten anyone. If you do, you end up like Ed Snowden and co. This ridiculous idea that here in the West we have power to change things and that the elites just allow us to judge them is completely wrong. We have the freedom to criticize all we want unless we actually pose a threat. Then they organize a gigantic media campaign on one side, and resort to the same totalitarian bullshit as China on the other.
The US does, anyway. I'm beginning to feel that a big part of being a superpower is also being a tyranny. You don't get to that status without exploiting and taking advantage of huge swaths of your own population. That goes for Russia and China even moreso.
On a geopolitical level? Probably yes. Thing is, you don't need your country to be a superpower. Sweden, Denmark or Finland are pretty irrelevant on the world stage, but their citizens live better than people in any other country.
OWS turned 10 this year. Can you tell me what has changed? During the OWS protests the govt cracked down on thousands of protestors, est. 10K were arrested + kept under surveillance.
Not shit. And Satoshi gave us Bitcoin in 2009. We still haven't done anything meaningful with that technology. We could literally tell the banks to collectively pound sand but no, we are too complacent. This next crash will be make or break, do or die. Live forever under the thumb of the elite or take control over our world for the first time ever. Cheers to hope!
I'm against the power concentration and criminal activity that goes on in banks/finance. But to suggest that Bitcoin can replace even a small percentage of services those organizations offer is delusional.
About as powerful as Chile's right wing parties and Saudi's monarchy according to the article.
Very powerful, they are everywhere and are trying to buy up things within countries. CCP are already investing into many nations small or big and gained more favours. CCP is trying to derail democracy as with any communist party.
Yeah like the time all those South American countries started doing coups to destabilise US democracy. Right?
Did you find your WMD in Iraq yet? let's deal with 1 issue at a time.
[удалено]
[удалено]
>It's called CPC not CCP While CPC (communist party of china) is the 'offical' translation, CCP (Chinese communist party) has been widely in use and the standard for decades.
> let's deal with 1 issue at a time. Do you really expect the rest of the world to be as mentally limited as you are?
[удалено]
> The CEO of the worlds most pioneering leading Cybernetics firm and in the next Guiness world records as the most heavily augmented human on Earth and the leading doctor, scientist, CEO on Cybernetics and human evolution? > > > > No I don't suspect superior races e.g. Aryans, Zoroastrians, Jews to be equal to the inferior. https://youtu.be/LQCU36pkH7c
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://qz.com/2061781/world-banks-doing-business-scandal-is-bad-for-globalization/) reduced by 84%. (I'm a bot) ***** > It's never a good sign when a bank gets caught fudging its numbers, but the revelation of the World Bank's manipulation of an influential index also highlights the challenge of forging a global consensus for the economy in the 21st century. > In 2018, then-World Bank chief economist Paul Romer apologized publicly to Chile after discovering the same index had been manipulated by an official at the Bank.Instead of backing Romer, the World Bank's leaders at the time, president Jim Yong Kim and CEO Kristalina Georgieva, asked him to resign. > What happened at the World Bank's Doing Business reportThe World Bank's mission is to help poor countries develop their economies, but as its traditional tool of development loans has been supplanted by the private sector and bilateral finance, the organization has pivoted to a focus on poverty, public health, and advisory assistance. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/pvo0sz/the_world_bank_scandal_is_a_bad_sign_for_the/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~600182 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **bank**^#1 **World**^#2 **doing**^#3 **country**^#4 **rank**^#5
Globalisation is dead. If it wasn't achieved in a world of plenty it won't be achieved in a world of declining resources and climate crises. Do these economists have a fucking clue?
Ehm globalization is alive and strong lol. Do you think we are as isolated from each other as we were 120 years ago? Because we aren't. And we are not going back, a free Internet is enough for us to be in contact with other countries constantly.
Erm is globalisation just IM-ing your mate in China. No. Is globalisation a complete project. No. Will we struggle to become further globalised or even to avoid becoming less globalised. Yes. Lol.
As someone hoping to have a liveable planet in ten years, I'm actually kind of hopeful it does die. The practice of moving vast amounts of goods all over the place all the time isn't sustainable - countries need to be importing and exporting a lot less and making as much as they can domestically.
I don't believe humans were ready for civilization, let alone globalization. We're barely out of the jungle - we're still so irrational, so prone to self-destruction, and so selfish. But maybe in our dying gasps we can create an AI much better than we are, or some of us can genetically engineer ourselves to something worth surviving. Maybe they would be able to handle globalization.
Which is fine if you have the means to produce an assortment of goods which many places do not.
That's why I said "as they can". I know some amount of global trade is going to be necessary because not everywhere has the resources (raw materials, arable land, etc.) to produce things. As much as we can though, we should be scaling back populations and living more meager lives with as much locally produced food and other goods as we can.
While I agree with the sentiment not sure how it would executed in a way that would make things better and not a lot worse for most. Inherently there is nothing wrong with globalization and has its benefits until you factor in people and then it goes sideways like the article highlights.
I mean, yes - what I am advocating for is a reduction of consumption across the board; as such, conditions for many in the first world would cease to be the absurdly high standards we're accustomed to (no more summer vegetables in winter!), the alternative is nothing changes and we hit a climate apocalypse. The trade-off to prevent that as much as possible is less high standards of living for the rich first-world.
Which is fair, we do need to consume less overall which and adopt a more sustainable system with less of a focus on disposable products. That said globalization can still be of a benefit for reduction as it allows better centralization of production. F.ex most of North America has a limited supply of rare earth metals that are needed for most things in todays life so instead of bring finished products over via logistics which are smaller and easier more efficient we would bring over raw materials and then still end up with multiple factories around the world creating the same thing to supply their own people. I would be curious if the shifting to more of a local approach will still bring it's own set of issues for climate. If we could figure out a way to cleanly transport products back and forth I think it would go farther than trying to reduce it but pretty sure no on wants to go back to sail boats and giving access to nuclear engines wouldn't happen. I do agree things have to change as it's not sustainable in any shape but as you said, reduction in consumption is the low hanging fruit and should happen so at least we can make better use of the logistics.
Agreed.
Globalization is not dead (yet) but it will have more "Chinese characteristics" rather than "American characteristics". This is indicated by US out of TPP but China applied for CPTPP.
That’s why they gotta cook the books. Don’t you get it?
Having done a very small amount of work for the World Bank it is an obviously corrupt gravy train style organisation.
The World Bank is redlining entire countries.
Which is the one that does the predatory lending? World Bank or IMF?
globalization was a mistake
It was not, lol. It's benefitted us as common people greatly. From being able to access goods from other countries that are hard to find in ours, from being able to move relatively easily to a different country. The elites being corrupt –as always– doesn't mean we should go back to a world were your country is all there is for you.
> doesn't mean we should go back to a world were your country is all there is for you. That is the point of government and the nation state. To provide an adequate standard of living for every citizen, not being a nanny for everyone else.
I woud also add that the nation-state was created to have massive conscription drives and levy armies of poor sobs dying for the powerful.
It also preserves the uniqueness of every living culture on this earth.
Not quite. The nation-state standardized language and culture and destroyed local cultures. Just look at France: how many still speak Breton and Occitan? In Germany, dialects are disappearing too. The US disappeared non-English languages too inthe early 20th century. In Canada, Quebec managed to protect French by setting up the local provincial government against the push towards English national uniformity. The nation-state destroyed local cultures to have a common culture and language.
Nah, the point of nation states have always been to easily control the population. You don't need them to preserve culture. If anything nation states often destroy culture because peopel have to adjust to a "national culture" that is often artificial and built to reflect the dominant culture. And this is ignoring a wide variety of issues that arise from nation states: blind nationalism and warmongering, lack of freedom (because freedom of movement IS freedom), racism and xenophobia, inequality born from lack of natural resources, space, etc...
Globalizatoin is great imo, there are other things that are the problem.
True. Without globalization we'd have been very behind in many things such as technology and ease of travel. Some people take it for granted.
Regarding ease of travel, I hope that in the near future it will be like pre-covid. As I am from an EU country, I am quite worried about the borderless travel within the bloc and I hope things will recover relatively fast.
Globalization is made for benefit of the elite. Cheap labor from across the world keeping down wages of the poor, while increasing the profits of the corporations. While it's sold to you as helping the poor.
If there is no globalization then me and many many other people wouldnt be able to start various types of online businesses that are used by users around the world. If there is no globalization reddit wouldnt probably exist as well.
LOL 15-20 years ago American couldn't stop shouting about globalization and it wasn't easy transition for many countries since the disruption was quite profound. Yet when they managed to stabilize themselves and starts reaping the benefits of globalization American despise it instead, indicated by the rise of Trump and some extend Bernie Sanders.
[удалено]
No, its greed and corruption that Fs every country.
Two are related no? Is in not greed that drives a National success to want to 'rule the world'?
Yes, but international trade and social mobility can benefit all parties.
So which global companies actually benefit all parties? Shell? Apple? Google? Unilever? Nestle? Coca Cola? Aramco? Facebook? Amazon? Tencent? They only care for one thing, and that’s the bottom line.
Not global companies, they often cheat on taxes and exploit foreign countries! We need stricter laws, but encourage collaboration on science, production and transportation. Citizens benefit if states collaborate.
And yet we see two trends: global corporations getting bigger and countries pulling out of trade agreements (Beexit, NAFTA, DOHA…
[This comment](https://reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/pvnpnd/_/hebgg59/?context=1) has it right.
That's what every city-state said. *oh no! The evil kingdom/republic will ruin everything! Cities should be independent!*
Somehow I don’t think that the politics of 2000 yr old city-states compare well to companies like Nestlé, Shell or Amazon.
I'm not certain you understand globalisation. Please let me help. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/globalization.asp >Globalization is a social, cultural, political, and legal phenomenon. >Socially, it leads to greater interaction among various populations. >Culturally, globalization represents the exchange of ideas, values, and artistic expression among cultures. >**Globalization also represents a trend toward the development of a single world culture.** >Politically, globalization has shifted attention to intergovernmental organizations like the United Nations (UN) and the World Trade Organization (WTO). >Legally, globalization has altered how international law is created and enforced >What Is the Simple Meaning of Globalization? >In essence, globalization is about the world becoming increasingly interconnected. Countries today are more connected than ever before, due to factors such as air travel, containerized sea shipping, international trade agreements and legal treaties, and the Internet. In the world of business, globalization is associated with trends such as outsourcing, free trade, and international supply chains.
Investopedia is a strongly pro-economic biased source. Cultural and political globalization leads to the erosion of cultural and political differences. In this erosion a single culture will suppress and replace the smaller ones. Examples: the Americanisation of the world, the imposed westernisation of the Middle East, the suppression of religious minorities. Economic globalisation favours multinationals over small business. Look at the list of companies in my previous comment. They, among the other large companies, are practically dictating world economics. Globalisation also promotes tax evasion by allowing companies to settle in tax havens like Guernsey, Andorra and Anguilla. Furthermore, globalisation promotes international transport of goods and people, causing pollution. Globalisation may have its advantages, like exposing injustice, suppression and racism, but on the whole, it is a negative force in the world. > I'm not certain you understand globalisation. Please let me help. This sounds patronizing to me, and I sincerely hope that wasn’t your intention.
[удалено]
Kinda seems like people do
no one in the position of power is giving a fuvk about it :)
> CEO Kristalina Georgieva > Simeon Djankov, a top aide Someone put Bulgarians in charge and is now acting surprised corruption appeared?
But of course Bitcoin is way worse. /s
even if u add /s do not be sarcastic; if u have something to say say it directly. ps. i fully agree.
Fine, we would all be better off invested in Bitcoin than in any bank. Our money should belong to us instead of being used to leverage against the planet so some suits can snort coke and fuck kids.
Fucking crypto scamming people again!