Careers, ambition, personal gains and group mentality A7 TDS

Any change that takes place will require somebody to be involved to get some gain from the situation. There is no point in being part of something if you are not going to gain something from it. Two of the factors involved in this are principle and ambition.

On the one hand, you can have your principles which affect how you would think based upon some moralities and gains. So there should be a moral gain that helps the most people in most situations. What can be looked at in this situation is how can a situation help the most people. If that situation does not help a lot of people then there is a moral loss.

Time is also a factor that hasn’t been addressed here. On the one hand, we do not know what gains we will get from brexit. They are hypothetical or idealist at the moment. We know we will have to go and renegotiate on tariffs and any services and products we will need in the future. On the other hand, we can bypass this at a later stage by remaining in the EU agreement.

The problem with a crisis is, somebody will appear to get personal gain from it. We should be able to measure the principle of an individual before we can see what gain they are asking for. On the one hand, we have careers and needs and desires of ambition. What principles exist there?

If an individual doesn’t operate in trade or international business (not business, international business – two differences) how can we believe them on issues on leaving trading agreements with hundreds of millions of people and over 2 dozen countries?

Anybody can create a group and then anybody can join that group based upon the belief the group has merit, simply because a number of people agree with the group. One thing you would need to ask yourself before joining the group is, personally, why would you want to join the group. Secondly, how much will I change from joining the group. Who you are before you join the group and after joining the group will be two very diffierent people – but you will be influencing other people to change as well – influencing them in a way that could affect the lives of tens of millions upwards of hundreds of millions of people.

There has been constant talk of the majority had spoken on brexit, but they hadn’t. There have been many changes to the economy, how we work and also how we negotiate and communicate with other countries since and before the brexit vote. There has been a loss in finances and resources and our position on the global stage has changed as well. Far less people have gained from this simply because of the way the crisis is unfolding.

If this was a good idea, wouldn’t everybody be behind it? Wouldn’t those behind it be able to explain how it works to everybody’s benefit. If it is to the detriment to somebody outside and inside of the UK – isn’t that a detriment to us all?

The paradox of bureacracies A6 TDS

As has become apparent or may not have done by this point, my main approach to trade and the choices of individuals in estimating and looking at trade (protectionism, isolationism or liberalism etc) is selective reasoning. If we were to address one individual with one assessment, we must assess all actors, all individuals in the same way.

So this is where the notion or wording of bureaucrats appears a lot. It has become a loaded word and emotive at that. Somebody hears the word bureaucrat now and they think this is a self serving individual who doesn’t think about anybody else, other than the benefits they will achieve from something.

So in order to look at this subject, in around 500 words again, we have to look at the benefits of an individual when they are called a bureaucrat and also address every individual as a bureaucrat in a position. Of course, we will also have to state what a bureaucrat is, whether the term has been used accurately or not.

So a bureaucrat is somebody who is in control or power of a large number of people in either a government, company or other large estabilishment. The change in meaning has occurred that leads people to see bureaucrats as people who care less for others and only look at their own interests. So if we are to call people in charge of the EU as bureaucrats then, we must do the same with other leaders, like those of political parties, companies, movements. They are all bureaucrats. We must then look at what and who they are supporting.

So if we take a political stance, those on the left would be supporting equality and more power to people. Which lessens the effects of bureaucracy. So, since we are looking at other groups we can say without explaining too much that is a bureaucracy looks only at the interests of the rich, of people whose benefit is self gratification and personal growth over national growth then those are true bureaucrats.

So it becomes very difficult to view the EU as a bureaucracy as it is elected and brought into power by left and right leaning governments and has human rights laws, that are progressive in social change and the eradication of poverty. There is an ongoing need to change the European union for the betterment of not only members of the EU but all those who directly trading in a free trade with the EU as well.

Now I understand people will argue this because they disagree with the distance of power. The distance of power will be an issue later but, you can change that. If you are part of the EU you can go to them and plead your case and argue and debate it. That can change matters.

In finishing, look at an individual who is leading a movement of any kind or an organisation. Who benefits from their goals. How many people benefit from their goals. If they only benefit the rich, then they lean more towards bureaucracy but if they benefit a great number of people and want to create workers and human rights then it tends towards left thinking, and socialism.


The language of crisis, or not A5 TDS

So, I have started writing this and in time I will re-edit all things I have written. This is because, nothing is set in stone, things change and we can change thing for the better – but also, everything just blurted out quickly and I just wrote down or thought I would write down my opinions on certain factors of trade. The problem with this is or the problem I feel this has is it doesn’t seem to connect to anything in particular.

Was this my problem or is this generally a problem with the media?

In my previous post, I talked about the problems with language or the problems with language in a particular context. That context could be science, religion, industry, football clubs – anything. They are constructed to self preserve a particular movement. At this point I can jump the gun on what I am saying.

The language of crisis, preserves the crisis. So you have to replace the language of crisis, the language people use during a crisis to stop it from being a crisis. There is no point having a crisis because a crisis is a problem.

Now I don’t stop there. What do you change it with? Do we have something to replace it with? Remarkably, we do. We replace it with something that doesn’t cause harm to anybody.

One thing I find interesting about the world is, we have the technology to keep people warm and sheltered and fed. We have it so well formed that we can keep over 7 billion people functioning perfectly. The things that get in the way are policy and rules and regulations. I said in a previous blog post, that policy doesn’t reach the vulnerable – but it does, and so I do wonder why I wrote that, until I realised. I was wanting to say, policy does not benefit the vulnerable.

It doesn’t, does it, usually. What if we lived in a world where policy does help the vulnerable. Let’s remove the vulnerable and say, policy helps vulnerabilities to stop being vulnerabilities. If trade has vulnerabilities, the trade remains vulnerable for the most vulnerable – for everybody.

Now I can go completely full circle on this and illustrate how, the language of crisis, can remain about crisis but it is about alleviating crisis by aiding the removal of vulnerabilities.

One thiing I didn’t comment on was why is language of a context self preserving. Well I will cover this in a later post about protecting the boundaries of groups. It gives people something to belong in and with that, is the question of what we are trying to protect.

Language of Trade and mainstream dialogue A4 tds

I never really thought about how writing a blog would be difficult. I have no problem with content because there is so much of the content out there. The one aspect I have a difficulty is taking current left wing and right wing narratives and making them as neutral as possible under a context of objectivity. That objectivity would be related to workable universal values that are progressive for everybody.

This is difficult. In order to detach yourself from right and left wing narratives, you have to balance yourself and use terminology that is not emotive, that detracts from actors who are overtly left and right and relate to individuals who are grossly affected by trade. Those grossly affected are usually at the bottom of the marketing pyramid in any situation. If you are at the bottom, you will usually, be untouched from policy and you will be less involved in culture and common notions.

Without me relating to terms like A1 and C2DE which will make me apply current narratives of a mainstream media narrative, I will have to state that there will always be bias. But this bias is based upon me collating the evidence and applying it, which I will do, continuously and it’s also why I write at the top – all articles are in edit mode. I will continue to change articles and change language as the world changes.

So who knows what will happen.

So if I get to the crux, in the end, in reflection of history, the most affected in policy and trade are, as I stated, those at the bottom of the pyramid in terms of marketing. It’s not the middle class, it’s not a lot of the working class and obviously not the upper classes. It’s those who exist to do the work that makes the other work happen :).

We live in a world where the skilled worker, the skilled professional is seen as important but only important to other skilled professionals and skilled workers but, they cannot accomplish the lofty abilities of a developed economy if somebody isn’t keeping the goods and services moving through logistics and supply chains and making sure everything looks good.

Has trade helped these people? Will isolationist policies help them? Who do isolationist boundaries on nations help?

How do we reach those at the bottom. Well I think it’s through solid universal, long lasting infrastructure.

I also wanted to keep this simple but – that hasn’t happened. Anyway, it’s always in edit mode, so…

Immigration is normal A3 TDS

One of the distinctive factors of a trade issue is immigration. There are countries that have open visas for all travellers. With a passport from Singapore, you can travel almost anywhere in the world without question.

So what is the benefit of this and why would somebody want to stop immigration or curb it?

The most recent dominant example of stopping immigration has been the wedge issue applied in Australian politics. Vocally illustrated to create a wedge in society, it was implemented as an anti-immigrant, anti-outsider movement by particular political parties. The reasons given is usually rights moving more in favour of the person who has lived in the country longer or, who has parents and parents of parents in the country.

In some cases, we can say this is understandable because anybody would want security but here is the crux and the main facet of this post. Isn’t it the government’s job to create a fiscal policy that looks after every individual?

What we find when this issue arises, is political parties begin to blame the previous government for problems. Then immigration becomes an issue so everybody starts blaming something, even immigrants for the problem.

Now I could start talking about this at length which has been done everywhere but the main factor that comes about is, finding something to blame or finding a reason for problems in society. My personal view is, parts of a country look crowded and we get trapped in queues a lot. That might sound crazy and I guess a different opinion would feel that way but it is about the illusions derived from many factors that add to our reasons.

Illusions create reasons.

So I stated two things above, it is up to the government to create policies to look after citizens and politics or even the media creates bias against somebody to blame.

Do we need immigrants? I’ll put it another way. Do we stop communicating with the rest of the world? Can we make use of another human being?

The country right now can cope with immigration and immigration is a common aid to the country. Some of the major services, the most important factors of the country that make the country work and are integral to defining what a country is, through care and help have a high immigrant employment rate. There are many statistics available showing how immigrants add to the fabric of society.

Now, we could say, what causes the problem but then we will ask, if there is a problem, why isn’t a government investing in those areas. Is it difficult to allow investment in terms of the production of goods and services in a well developed country? There are modern, skilled businesses in every corner of the UK and in every town so why isn’t more investment applied in these areas. Those are areas I will address at a later stage.

What can be defined by placing all the factors above together, of a well developed skilled economy with skilled migrants working in every area of modern technology and services is, we can grow and prosper and diversity, importantly diversity and innovate by using any individual, no matter who they are.


Looking after our own A2 TDS

I’ll keep all these at 500 words, about, because longer just isn’t something that is practical with Brexit and trade.

As I said in the previous blog, looking after our own was one of the most important aspects of trade. It’s the very reason people trade. To have good communication with how we engage with the world and what the world creates is very important.

This is how we look after our own.

Yet the philosophy, or the way we think about “looking after our own” has transformed and changed, depending on who we think about. I can take the tact here, to say the isolationist view of “looking after our own” is counter productive but that would stop me from looking at both sides of the argument.

For instance, while writing this, there was an advertisement about some skin replenishing product. The sounds, the voice of the actress, interfered with my thought process and I forgot what angle I was taking. This is where anybody can be affected by how we make decisions related to what is important to us individually and by individually, I mean groups. I mean groups because we rely upon all groups to operate as connected units – amicably, because not amicably is problems.

So let’s take the macro economic (or the factor that affects the economies of the things that connects the micro aspects of economy, like nations and countries or country groups) view of this where we will see that every individual, or group or system operates. We will start to see, when people work together on shared interests, it works in harmony as they share the same ideals from a micro level, which will affect the mutual and harmonic interaction at a macro level, from national to beyond national levels.

Now, many will start to say at this point, what about the important roles that myself and my background or my heritage plays here. What about me, wanting to look after people that I call my own? Well, there isn’t a problem with that, because of what I stated above. The interesting side of “looking after our own” is, most humans share the same interests, regardless of nationality, race, culture and any other factor. Even races and cultures share many similarities – they are just explained, expressed and observed differently.

It is from this angle where looking after our own, becomes a shared interest to look after the nuances we feel are our own as well. For instance, if we take examples around the world. There are countries with multiple states and those states have multiple roles but collectively they share rules and regulations that are to the benefit of all members regardless of their background.

Now the ultimate benefit of this, is, if we focus on what we have in common and what are the important factors towards a progressive society, more people benefit. This also means benefit for different cultures and races as they become economic benefits that aid the production and creation of goods and services.

I think that’s enough for this one. It’s well below 500 words as well. I will add links and such at a later date. At present – I keep it simple.

No deal is a myth A1 TDS

My first consideration with trade is it affects every part of a country’s behaviour and that starts from the people with the least in society. No country is an island, even if it is an island, physically – it’s not really an island. The sea is not a barrier and neither are other barriers. We’ll go through any notion of a barrier.

So that’s why, No deal is a myth. It doesn’t exist. Regardless of what happens, we’ll still need a deal. The question is why? The usual answer given, which is not an answer is, we can trade with the rest of the world. We can trade with the commonwealth. This being related to some idea that we had a commonality with the common wealth. We don’t. Not because we were in some self claimed control, but the majority of common wealth countries are not in the same income bracket – why is that important?

So as things go, this is becoming more and more complicated as more questions need to answered as we lead to different stages. So before I answer the notion of income brackets, I have to answer why we will still need a deal. Countries have politicians. They have political parties. They are always debating, arguing, to get people in their country onside so they can gain votes to win elections. This is the same in every single country. Now, if a country is trading in something, lets say potatoes – they don’t want to give all those potatoes away. So they add tariffs when trading overseas – to get a return from the goods they lose and also to take advantage of what another country needs.

A country wants to show another country that it looks after it’s own. It also wants to show this to their own people.

Now the problem with this is you treat other countries and their problems as a hostility. That in order to communicate we need to ask for some money so that we can give things to each other. In future blogs I will give examples of this and why it takes many many years to get a trade deal completed if by the above simple example this isn’t outlined through political issues between two countries, economic issues and social issues between two countries. Multiply that by 3, or 10 countries or more and you see how difficult it becomes as countries and politicians balance these factors.

This is why a trade deal helps issues. A trade deal creates mutual recognition on shared interests. Countries with lower income brackets do what a more prosperous countries goods and services, but not at the expense of their own goods and services. So this is where tariffs appear and why countries with lower income brackets will need those tariffs to gain a return for goods that have left the country. In the same way, they won’t buy from the UK because the UK requires more in tariffs because of the strength of the pound. This is why, the UK trades more with the EU and we buy bulk from lower income countries, goods that they can produce regularly. Which is why, it is easier for these nations to trade with countries of their own income bracket with less of a loss to themselves.

This is why trade deals are then created. To avoid tariffs you share different goods and services towards mutual benefit. How long does this take? Well, you will need to know you will continue to make those goods and services and also, what do you do if you can’t make those goods and services because either country will lose a lot of money for the people.

This is a first blog post which obviously opens up many issues on trade.

What I want to blog about is how trade helps but how it can hinder as well which is why good trade can help the people most vulnerable in society and that is what a trade story should be about.

Create your website at WordPress.com
Get started