World bank tells the truth about globalisation.

So this is unusual. The World bank has actually come out and admitted the truth for once. That is, that globalist policies have a negative impact on the lives of ordinary people in first world societies. Who could have possibly seen that coming?

the_abyss_of_inequality_3075151.jpg

From RT

The growth of free trade has not had a positive effect for all in the developed economies, according to a World Bank document quoted by the BBC.

Of course it hasn’t. Globalisation just allows massive corporations in the first world to ship their jobs abroad to third world shitholes, in which workers are paid pennys per day. These jobs could have instead gone to people in the first world, as they did in the past, but seeing as we have actual employment laws in place here, they’re less able to exploit us like slaves, so they go elsewhere instead to do so. Can anyone honestly explain how it’s a benefit to those of us in the first world, having all of our factories leave us? It’s not as if they can’t afford to employ people in the first world, seeing as they were able to do so just fine in decades past. It’s simply greed that is preventing them from doing so.

20150801_usd000_0

According to an internal memo from the Washington-based organization seen by the British broadcaster, the side effects “may have led to rising wage inequality.”

Yeah, no shit.

average-after-tax-income-by-income-group.png

Income-inequality1.jpg

The document, written by World Bank economists, says”trade has played a powerful role in creating jobs and contributing to rising incomes in advanced economies,” but also highlights its cons.

It may have created some jobs in advanced economies, by creating new types of jobs that wouldn’t have existed otherwise, but I’m sure if these were weighed up against all the potential jobs which were lost (such as low skill manufacturing jobs), then the net result would be far less jobs overall.

0722e8d09cc3677e5b2f5260cf1de444

“Recent evidence from the US suggests that adjustment costs for those employed in sectors exposed to import competition from China are much higher than previously thought. While trade may have contributed to rising inequality in high income economies, so has technological change and the weakening of institutions that used to represent the interests of labor,” the report said.

Yep, automation has definitely had an impact on job availability as well. If anything, that just proves the point that mass immigration isn’t needed at all. One of the biggest reasons given to justify mass third world immigration to the first world is that people in the first world “aren’t having enough children”, and this is leading to a population decline. They claim that a lower population means less potential workers in the economy, so we need to import people instead, to make up the difference. However, we already see millions of highly educated youths in Europe and America who are unemployed as it is, because in actuality, we already have more people than there re jobs available.

It is an absolute lie, that we need to import more people from the third world, to fill job vacancies, because we already have more people than available jobs as it is, and this will only get worse as automation increases. If anything, we could allow our population to decline a little, and it wouldn’t be an issue. There would still be enough people to run the economy just fine. Or, we could actually work on trying to figure out a way to increase the birth rates in the first world instead, if we’re really so concerned about a declining population.

Of course, that won’t ever happen, because as I’ve addressed on many an occasion already, this is a deliberate policy of genocide against us. They’re delighted that our populations are decreasing, and are only too happy to ethnically replace us in our own homelands. Instead of working to solve the problems, they deliberately pursue policies which make it worse, such as the very ones that this article is addressing.

“Given overall efficiency gains, the dislocation effects of trade in advanced economies must be addressed through stronger safety nets and enhanced skills and flexible labor markets,” it added.

All meaningless buzzwords, to pretend they’re taking the problem seriously. They aren’t. It will just be business as usual.

World Bank president Jim Yong Kim explained why people in the developed economies are angry with the free trade.

“I hear them and they are saying that my life is not better than my parents and my children’s life does not look like it’s going to be better than mine,” he said in a BBC interview.

“We understand you’re pissed off, but just please don’t do anything crazy like resisting globalist interests, such as voting ‘Out’ in the Brexit referendum, or voting for anti-globalist political candidates, such as Donald Trump.”

Seriously, this is what it’s all about. The idea that these people have any concerns about the average person all of a sudden, is laughable. They aren’t showing concern, because they’ve suddenly started to care. They’re showing concern, because they’re in full on panic mode, that the people have finally had enough, and are starting to vote in their own interests, instead of their’s. The propaganda campaigns have failed miserably so far, so now they’re pretending to care and to offer solutions. Don’t fall for it, they’ll stab us in the back as soon as the chance to vote against them has passed us by.

“So there is a real concern but the answer is to have more robust social security programs, so you have a safety net. And then you need to get serious about getting the skills you need for the jobs of the future,”he added.

“Yes peasants. Go to college, take on massive debt to fund it, and learn the skills necessary for the ever shrinking supply of available jobs, many of which will be obsolete by the time you’ve paid off your debt anyway.”

This June’s Boston Consulting Group Global Wealth report said that millionaires will control more than half of the world’s wealth by 2020. In particular, people who are worth more than $20 million in the United States will control 29 percent of the country’s wealth by 2020, compared to 20 percent in 2010.

What could possibly go wrong?

october-collapse.gif

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s