As you look around the world, you’ll notice that, as the economies of nation-states grow and become more developed, that the economies of the world are becoming more interconnected. This increasing interconnectedness is referred to as globalization.
We are told by world leaders that this globalism is “the future” and that we need to accept it. But, I’ve concluded that it may NOT be in humanity’s best interest to have one single unified global economy. It may actually be detrimental to our quality of life and well-being, especially if some kind of economic disaster hit us. And, it could even be bad for large multinational corporations as well – they tend to be the biggest driving factor pushing for more economic globalization.
Why could economic globalization be detrimental? Let me bring up two old adages, and then explain how they apply to the concept of economic globalism.
“Woe to the man who falls down and has no friends to help him back up.”
“Don’t put all of your eggs in one basket.”
Lessons From History
Back in 1929, the economy of the United States collapsed, ushering in what became known as the Great Depression.
Because the economies of the nation-states of Europe were strongly connected and inextricably linked to the economy of the United States, and to each other, when our economy collapsed, it pulled down the European economy as well.
Some nations around the world are a different story. Because the economies of these other nations were only loosely tied to the economies of North America and Europe, their economies remained relatively stable and intact, all while our economy was collapsing. Any effects of our North American economy on the economies of these other nations were negligible.
So, what lesson can be learned from this?
Do you remember that first adage I just gave you? “Woe to the man who falls down and has no friends to help him back up.” If we have a single, unified global economy, and one of the larger portions of that economy collapses, such as the economy of the United States, the European Union, or China, there’s a very good likelihood that it will pull down the rest of the world’s economy. And if that happens, you’ll have a worldwide dilemma. The world will have a difficult time reviving the worldwide economy.
In my opinion, this would be like a man who has no friends to help him back up when he’s fallen. Having a single unified global economy is also the economic equivalent of putting all your eggs in one basket.
A Better Way:
On the other hand, let’s say that we decide to set up the world economy in a different way. We decide to divide the world into ten to twelve semi-independent regional economies that are only loosely tied to one another in the same way that those other nations’ economies were only loosely tied to the North American economy back in 1929.
If this were the case, if one of the regional economies collapsed, it would be far less likely to pull down the rest of the world’s regional economies. They would remain relatively intact. And, we would need this to be the case. Why?
The intact regional economies of the world could then use their economic strength to revive the fallen economy. This is like a man who has friends to pick him back up after he’s fallen. This is also the economic equivalent of NOT putting all your eggs in one basket – it’s like “diversifying your portfolio.”
From the Perspective of Human Well-Being
Now I want you to think about these two different economic setups from the perspective of humanity’s collective well-being – a single unified global economy vs. several semi-independent regional economies. If the entire world economy collapsed, you would have human suffering all over the entire world.
On the other hand, if only one part of the world’s economy collapsed, only a fraction of humanity would be suffering while most people would continue to enjoy their usual standard of living and quality of life – most people would NOT be suffering. Human misery would be minimized.
Here’s another point to consider: if we had a worldwide economic collapse, world leaders would be struggling, perhaps for decades, on figuring out how to revive the world’s fallen economy – human suffering would reach all of humanity and would last indefinitely long. On the other hand, if only one regional economy collapsed, and because the rest of the world’s regional economies were intact and helped to revive that fallen economy, human suffering not only would be confined to a single region, but that suffering would be short-lived rather than long and indefinite.
Can you see how having semi-independent regional economies would be far better for humanity’s well-being than having a single unified global economy? I hope I’ve explained myself clearly.
Final Comments
There are a few final comments I need to share with you.
1. My plan for regional economies is based on the idea that the entire world has already been economically developed, and that all places have been brought up to the standards of the developed world. How to get the world to this point is something else entirely. I do have a plan, though, that I believe would work better than the system of globalization that is being used today.
2. This setup is based on the idea that our present monetary-based socioeconomic system is still being used. It is entirely possible that at some time in the future that our present monetary-based socioeconomic system will be replaced by a socioeconomic system that is based on labor-availability, one which has all the benefits of capitalism, including wealth-creation and incentive to work, without its flaws, and one which works far better than socialism to provide a high quality of life, high standard of living, and employment for all, without all of its flaws. And perhaps the money distribution and creation is based on the concept of sovereign money.
3. Governments can do a lot, in terms of policies and regulatory structures, to reduce volatility and high levels of fluctuation in the economy, which could help make our present-day free-market capitalistic system work better, greatly improve economic stability while reducing economic volatility, and greatly reduce the possibility of economic collapse. I suppose it is quite possible to have enough structures in place that we could render economic depressions obsolete and a thing of the past. In this case, there may be no need for semi-independent regional economies, although that kind of setup would still be a good safeguard in case an unexpected economic collapse did occur.
I hope you have enjoyed reading my alternative to a single global worldwide economy.
