After all, globalisation also has its disadvantages

by Profesor Dr Eberhard Hamer, Mittelstandsinstitut Niedersachsen e.V

Since the end of the previous century, “globalisation” has been celebrated by science, journalism and corporations as a major step in development, and at “world economic summits” critics of globalisation have even been declared “a world problem, like international terrorism” (Davos).
  Economics sees globalisation as a further stage of development from domestic economy to urban economy, regional economy, national economy and via supranational economic areas (EU) to world economy.1

Not only an economic dimension

Globalisation is not only an economic dimension, it also exists technologically, politically, socially, culturally and militarily. Significant contributions have been made, for instance, by technological developments in aviation, telecommunications, the new media (Internet) and digitisation. The idea of the “one world” has long been emanating from them.
  There are now a number of international organisations, such as the UN, NATO, IMF, GATT, ILO, the World Bank and others, which presume a competence for the whole world and aim at centralising the sovereignty and competencies of people and states in the hands of a few globally ruling forces.
  To this end, the “four great freedoms” were proclaimed: global freedom of capital, production, labour and services.

Freedom of capital above all

Large international corporations and banks wanted to use the freedom of capital, above all, to leapfrog national borders, legal systems and tax systems, in order to enjoy unlimited financial and tax exemption in tax and legal oases of the world. What stayed behind were the nationally bound medium-sized companies, which had to take over the tax and social deficit of those corporations and banks, i. e. were exploited to a correspondingly higher extent.
  The production of the international corporations was also relocated internationally to where there were the least regulations, the lowest taxes and the cheapest wages, i.e. to the cheapest production locations. This enabled those corporations to sell more cheaply from global cheap production than the indigenous medium-sized companies working with nationally more expensive production factors, and to outcompete the latter.
  The services of international banks and corporations have also been relocated to where it is cheapest (e. g. billing in India), where it is politically ordered (e. g. billing of Telecom in Israel) or where this seemed appropriate for military or espionage reasons (cloud concentration from Europe in the USA).

Objectionable free movement of labour

In the last few decades, the free movement of workers required by corporations has been particularly disputed. The international corporations wanted to recruit the cheapest labour for their mass production or services globally, while the small and medium-sized businesses pointed out that they had to provide individual production and services with trained specialists and high national tax and social costs, and were therefore not relieved by migration, but would be burdened with additional social costs.
  The fight for globalisation, and then that for diversification, multiculturalism and gender ideology was exacted by the USA from all of its “colonies”, especially from Europe. A global unitary culture has been prescribed, so that today you may no longer even mention different peoples, cultures or religions without running the risk of being globally periphalised. Accordingly, the sovereignty rights and competencies of the nation states were dismantled and collected in intermediate stations (EU, NATO). Globalisation seems to continue to prevail. However, one may not name its driving forces in international big business (Gates, Soros, Bezos, Zuckerberg, Rothschild, etc.) without being socially marginalised as a “conspiracy theorist”.

The losers from globalisation

As early as 2005, SME research in Hanover2 worked out in many individual studies3 that there are not only winners but also losers from globalisation.4 “Just as high finance and corporations are the big winners of globalisation, medium-sized personnel companies are the losers of this development, and this also applies to social groups: the small upper class of the rich has the highest profit from globalisation. It is only they who can use the global freedoms for themselves extensively.”5 In contrast, medium-sized companies and employed members of the middle class are place-bound and cannot relocate their activities internationally, because medium-sized companies are only successful in the presence of the entrepreneur and members of the employed middle class have to exercise their service contracts on site.

Global corporations as opposed to medium-sized personnel companies

In our economy, this has led to a split between, on the one hand, global corporations and banks making use of globalised freedoms and, on the other hand, the down-to-earth medium-sized personnel companies. The former can use the great freedoms for tax exemption, cheap labour and cheap international deliveries and, above all, escape the excessive laws and bureaucracies of our old industrialised countries through global relocation. The small and medium-sized enterprises in Germany, on the other hand, which are loyal to their home country, are subject to the highest taxes and social security contributions in the world, to a constantly growing and no longer controllable legal network and a bureaucracy that makes fewer and fewer decisions itself but instead shifts the responsibilities and increasing control efforts on the companies. Only joint-stock companies, corporations and high finance have globalised freedom, have grown out of the national legal systems into a legally free area – on the other hand, the small and medium-sized enterprises, as remaining subjects, have to pay maximum taxes, maximum social security contributions and maximum wages and, on top of this, to accept the monopoly prices of global players, their conditions and discounts and to face their cheap competition on the market. They are therefore clear losers in the game of globalisation.

More dangers than benefits for the lower class

The lower class has also understood by now that globalisation means more danger than benefit for them: If the global corporations relocate to low-wage countries, what remains in Germany will be unemployment.
  When the central banks keep heavily indebted states as well as bankrupt companies and banks afloat with ever higher credit levels, when they are about igniting a debt explosion in the world and thus destroying the value of currencies and money, not only does real income dwindle, but so do savings, and all our employees’ old-age security loses its value.

Controlled media

And when the media of the western world are financed, controlled, manipulated and bred to a uniformly desired political ideology6 by US high finance, the lower class, being most influenced by media propaganda, is also most directly controlled by this.
  The freedom of movement of all people in the world demanded by globalists has naturally led to the migration of peoples to economically prosperous and open countries. Angela Merkel even invited the world’s poor and failed people to enjoy our social system (social immigration), and the lower class is increasingly seeing this as its own exploitation, but is not allowed to express this publicly.

The role of the Greens

Since the turn of the millennium, the globally US-controlled Greens have been pioneers for global feminism, Black Lives Matter movement, and mass migration. They also control the language and the minds of people working for the media they direct as well as their political propaganda. If the leadership of the Greens “can’t do anything with Germany”, if national thinking is called “Nazism”, Christianity is antagonised “because Islam belongs to Germany” and, following the American example, broadcasters (NDR) are required to present 17,5 % coloured people7 in television programmes and to show 65 % of the management positions in films to be held by women, this shows how strongly the US globalisers mentally dominate the world and especially their colonies.
  Until the coming collapse of the world financial system and the dollar empire, globalisation will continue to shape our politics, society, economy and our thinking globally and anti-nationally, and it will also bring great advantages to globalists8, but bondage, exploitation, loss of freedom and impoverishment to all losers from globalisation.

The real ecological questions

While the green idealists want to save nature globally, the author himself, as a forest owner, has to bear the consequences of globalisation, in that the elm bark beetle introduced to Europe from East Asia in 1979 destroyed all elms, and the also adventive horse chestnut bacterium has equally been infesting and destroying our chestnut trees since 2000; in that the ash fungus was also introduced from Asia at the turn of the millennium and has destroyed most of the ash trees in Germany, in that a soot bark disease with the greatest danger to humans was imported from Canada in 2006, destroying our maple stocks. On the grounds of green ideology, many “forests were left to themselves”, and there millions of adventive oak processionary moths, bark beetles, etc. were bred, which now extensively invade and destroy our forests.

Monopolisation of food production

Our food production has also been globalised and monopolised. With a lot of money from Monsanto et al., politicians and patent officers have declared genetically modified organisms patentable.9 Six global players own 90 % of all approved transgenic plants, hold the patents on them and collect global patent fees from all farmers in the world year after year. “With the monopolisation of our food resources that has emerged in this way, a global power instrumentarium has come into being”10, which keeps the food supply of most of the world under control and exploitation.
  With the further developed “terminator” seed the life span of the gene seeds is limited to only one harvest, so the world’s farmers annually have to pay no longer only license fees, but instead expensive purchase prices for the new sowing.
  Monsanto and Co. have played the same game with pesticides, such as for example glyphosate, which is matched to the monopoly seeds supplied by monopolists, and kills everything else. So, whoever uses monopoly seeds must also buy monopoly pesticides. Thus national farmers are kept in double dependency on international corporations; the global corporations outmanoeuvre self-administration and national sovereignty.

 

Conclusion

So far it is clear that globalisation is a major advantage for international corporations, banks and organisations, but predominantly a disadvantage for the self-employed as well as the employed middle class and the lower class. Whether globalisation as a whole will be the doom to our prosperity is likely to be shown shortly by the largest world economic crash to date, that has developed out of the world debt spiral. •



1 see Hamer, Eberhard and Eike (eds). Wie kann der Mittelstand die Globalisierung bestehen? (How can SMEs and the middle class meet the challenges of globalisation?) Hanover 2005
2 ibid
3 These are studies of monopolisation through globalisation, of the global money fraud, of global networks instead of nations, of the tax state in the globalisation trap, of the fact that globally open social systems never last, of de-democratisation through centralisation, of the monopolisation of our food, of the grabbing for water.
4 Hamer, Eberhard and Eike (eds). Wie kann der Mittelstand die Globalisierung bestehen? (How can SMEs and the middle class meet the challenges of globalisation?) Hanover 2005, p. 251ff.
5 ibid, p. 258
6 For example Genderism, Black Lives Matter, Fridays for Future, environmental hysteria etc.
7 There are not that many in our population.
8 For example the anti-national Greens
9 In 1980 the US Supreme Court ruled with 5:4 judges in its “Chakrabarty decision” that genetic engineering forms of life were patentable.
10 see Fuchs, R. “Monopolisierung unserer Nahrung” (Monopolising our food). In: Hamer, Eberhard and Eike (eds). Wie kann der Mittelstand die Globalisierung bestehen? (How can SMEs and the middle class meet the challenges of globalisation?) Hanover 2005, p. 226

Our website uses cookies so that we can continually improve the page and provide you with an optimized visitor experience. If you continue reading this website, you agree to the use of cookies. Further information regarding cookies can be found in the data protection note.

If you want to prevent the setting of cookies (for example, Google Analytics), you can set this up by using this browser add-on.​​​​​​​