Comparison of proposals

Comparison of proposals

We assume that what we state is understood but some people require that things are explained to them thoroughly. That we can do. What we can’t do is to present all the possibilities regarding alternative globalization because they are really endless and we would need hundreds of pages to cover all of them. So, we give some general directions and some examples but these are not the only possibilities.

After all, we are not the ones to decide what will happen but the nations of the world and we are not in any contact with their governments. Off course, anybody can read what we post. That is why we post the articles, so that people will read them. We certainly hope that some of them are members of governments or their staff. 

In A new economic bloc we examined two cases and in A Pentarchy one more. Which one do we propose? All of them! In the first two cases we create a new economic bloc and we give it the temporary name CINEA (Coalition of Independent Nations for Economic Advancement).

In the first scenario, CINEA has 10 countries and with USA they have a little more than 1/3 of World’s GDP (35%). We assume that in addition to UK, Ireland, Italy, Greece, Cyprus exit EU to join the new bloc. EU with 23 members has a GDP of 13 trillion. China and EU23 have 31% of the World output and the Tetrarchy 66%. So, 10 + 23 + 2 = 35 countries control 2/3 of the World’s GDP. We give the option to add Japan to CINEA and the Tetrarchy reaches 3/4 (73%).

In the second case, we add 8 countries in CINEA and has approximately the same GDP as USA and together half of World output. If we include EU23 and China, GDP goes up to 80% with 18 + 23 + 2 = 43 countries. In both these cases the countries that formed CINEA were scattered all around the world. The World has 186 countries and 140-150 were left out.  

In the first two cases shown in New economic bloc we added (in Table 3), all Balkan - East Med Region. There was a purpose for that. We wanted to show that whole regions may be part of the economic bloc. In the third case, (A Pentarchy) the World is divided into homogeneous regions. All the countries in the World were included and GDP reaches 100%.

In theory it may look neat but in practice it may be extremely difficult to accomplish and manage. EU is confined in Western Europe with 14 members. It still has a GDP of 13 trillion because Italy is in. The Eastern European countries that were left out add up to Italy’s GDP. We traded with the Crusaders Italy for Eastern Europe.   

We have three alternatives. The first is the easiest and the third the most difficult. All three are acceptable to us. Ultraglobalists’ plan is totally unacceptable. We are not like ultraglobalists that have rigid, inflexible and inefficient, theoritical thinking. We do not try to impose our views to countries and people.

In theory the third is the nicest. In practice we would most likely have to go for something else. Now let’s take the third neat example. Some regions may participate as a whole, some as a large fraction, some as a small fraction and some not at all. What is important is to make something that works and not get stuck in a neat theoretical example.

We may also have a dynamic look. If we aim directly to Case 3 (a Pentarchy) it may be an even bigger mess than EU. Cases 1 and 2 can be implemented ASAP and are manageable. We have mentioned transfer of technical and scientific expertise in two stages, from tier 1 to tier 2 and from tier 2 to tier 3. Some examples of tier 2 countries are Greece, Israel, South Africa, Saudi Arabia, Turkey. Turkey was not included in Case 2 but could be in. Even Russia could be in if a new Yalta agreement is made.

In CINEA, there will be tier 1 and tier 2 countries and this transfer can be accomplished really easy inside the bloc. So we can see the three cases as three phases. Phase 1 is Case 1 that starts very soon. Then we move to Phase 2 which is Case 2. Case 3 can be seen as a long term final destination that will be achieved in a few or several decades. We could skip Phase 1 and go directly to Phase 2 and Case 2.

There is no way to go directly to Phase 3 without creating a bigger mess than EU. We could though have Phase 3 in mind from the beginning. The problem is that ultra-globalists are "on heat". They lust for ultra-globalization and they want it now. For some of them Case 3 may be an intermetiate phase for their final destination. For us, that plan is unacceptable as long as we live. We can not predetermine what our children and grandchildren will want to do after we are no longer alive.