Poverty and Globalization: A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing

Independent Millennial, Poverty and Globalization: A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing Post Feature Image by Sensitive Betch
  1. »
  2. Blog Chronicles
  3. »
  4. Politics and Governance
  5. »
  6. Poverty and Globalization: A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing

Poverty is an issue experienced around the globe, whether it is in developed, developing or under-developed countries. That is what determines the type of poverty endured, making it either relative or absolute. Growing disparities continue within communities across the globe, while people are also bombarded by this reality in a socially constructed way to remind them that someone else has it worse. As such, this suffering reality – especially in the poorest of countries – is used as the main motivating factor for supporters of the use of globalization to “rectify” this growing concern.

Oh Canada, A Great Pretender!

The Great Con

Poverty can be absolute or relative depending on the advancements of the country it’s being experienced within. Absolute poverty is often experienced in poorer countries and is usually based on the inability to afford the basic needs to survive. Relative poverty usually exists in wealthier, developed countries; it is understood based upon the [lower] income level one has to another within the same society to be able to afford the same costs of living.

As globalization has created the modern world and slowly given rise to the concept of a globally understood standard for living, it has still not mitigated the issue or existence of poverty. Instead, the disparities between classes of people are larger than ever before, and the costs have sky rocketed to put profits into a select few pockets. Yet, globalization and what it creates is supported and purported as the best means to raise people out of poverty and give them freedom, especially by democratic governments.

While globalization has propelled and mobilized an expectation to increasing the standard of living around the world, it has paved the way for a severe increase in income inequality for many people as well. This makes it difficult to maintain any healthy standard of living anywhere when the outcomes are rigged. So, if it’s said that globalization can raise the standard of living globally – and has been propelled as a function aiding those in developed, under-developed or developing countries – then why is income inequality increasing and growing disparities rather than shrinking them?

Globalization is put forth as a trend that can help put power back into people’s hands by way of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, as Justin Trudeau and those like him like to promote it. Highlighting the true force behind this trend; controlling and accelerating connections between manufacturing, production and global diversity according to their chosen values. It proposes ideals and bombards with flowery language that convinces people of what could be, while confusing them to ignore what actually is. It also tends to greatly benefit those who already have a nest egg or financial stability and ownership, while the rest who don’t, fall behind.

While many continue to go hungry and starve, even here in Canada, losing opportunities to make any income, billionaires solidify their monopolies, and the government spends billions of dollars in investments as they see fit. Globalization tends to struggle with individual freedom because it undermines choice and accountability of self. It instead normalizes the concept that freedom is not free to the individual but has a cost attached as part of the group. Ultimately making ownership public and putting everything into the hands of governments and a select few corporations, both made up of people who believe they know better than people know to do for themselves.

This pushes us towards their ultimate goal of The Great Reset in all of us owning nothing and being happy. Prioritizing consumerism above everything else, designing all systems socially, politically and economically to support the same means to produce these products to their profit, paying our way to our demise. Selling products to better one’s health to start and keep citizens’ on a specific cycle and path. Undermining the importance of individual healthcare and access, trying to force a one problem/one solution mindset for everyone. Why should we have the freedom to find what we need, when they can tell us and provide to us what they want us to need and want?

These companies, charities and groups supported by the state present themselves as citizen’s only option or solution to success and survival. They present these programs as the basis of free countries who wish to raise their citizens up, providing social programs to meet this goal. The need for programs and the delivery of such programs is seen as a positive success to defeating the poverty issue, rather than the actual reduction of the issue itself. Depicting that various and compounding issues that citizen’s face are insurmountable without such programs like shelters, food stamps or benefits. However, these programs tend to be specifically geared towards and available to groups depending on chosen identifiers.

Independent Millennial, Poverty and Globalization: A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing Post Feature Image by Sensitive Betch

More often than not, these programs maintain the cycles of poverty and provide a lot of red tape to access or receive them. We can see this across the globe as totalitarians dictate their desires to have control over people’s choice and financial security through mandates, highlighting their growing discomfort with people choosing and being responsible for themselves. The existence of such a system provides evidence to the hypocrisy that rich people can have enough money to be able to donate it and choose, rather than all people having enough money to take care of themselves. On top of that, the positive sides of such benefits and welfare are more often than not a means for virtue signaling while keeping the person using them from ever feeling empowered or proud for what they have to choose.

This all creates further social, political and financial instability and hardship for those trying to join in or catch up. While supporters of it propose it’s ability to help everyone, it continues to mostly benefit those attached to corporations who monopolize sales. We watched for years while our lives and hopes waste away for rich people like Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Bernard Arnault, and Bill Gates to be triumphed over getting richer and being bureaucrats infiltrating governments because their money says they can. We can see the disparities most clearly in developed countries like Canada where the middle class – who sit in between, have spending money and whose characteristics are used as government talking points – slowly get ripped in two between the rich and poor.

The economic forces that come with globalization push people to be richer or poorer with or without their input or action. It feeds the current systems, businesses and financial powers that already exist while it creates specific rules and standards that people who want to join must fulfill before they can join in. This automatically creates an unequal playing field, giving certain ideas, concepts, beliefs, groups or people a leg up over others. It also allows some people or concepts to begin their journey with a starting success point while others must start with nothing. We can see this in every aspect of our modern society today as we have accepted these disparities, and have created a subculture of fitting people into certain boxes that give them special rights or not.

Using Globalization to Manipulate the Masses Behind the False Guise of Democracy and Rights in Canada.

Technology has drastically changed the power of globalization and the existence of poverty. It has also helped raise the standard of living in many ways throughout the world, moving many countries out of absolute poverty. However, the acceleration of technology and the perpetuating of sales in replacing items and spending money, creates a competition for people to keep up. Once again, highlighting the growing disparities between people and pushing towards less ownership or abilities for them to keep up. While this goes on it provides more and more governing bodies the power to own instead and to appear to know better to do so, creating further distance from the means to succeed for others.

So while technology has been moving everything so quickly, it has thus propelled globalization to pave way for relative poverty to replace absolute poverty in such cases. Growing the disparities that crony capitalism and globalization create in developed countries that are already experiencing relative poverty. This trend of technology propelling globalization moves everything on the global scale and allows businesses and organizations to act like government bodies. They gain influence and power internationally and across all borders, just like the over reach made by the World Economic Forum through their global list of partners.

When businesses and organizations are allowed to influence on a global scale, it gives the people within those corporations’ powers beyond borders and access to governmental powers without being voted in. This allows them to dictate certain societal norms and rights according to their own ideals, company mandates and profits, rather than human rights, national rights or costs of living indexes based on actual citizenship. This puts all individuals throughout the globe in a precarious position as their rights are no longer bound by the country they have citizenship in because the global corporate concept of what a human right is supersedes that.

The developed world is perceived as a place to thrive, where a healthy standard of life is available to everyone and there exists a notion that any person can get ahead if they try hard enough. That is literally what all ‘free, democratic’ countries are portrayed to be; a beacon of hope and prosperity by way of trying within a country whose government assistance is available in order to help you get ahead. It would make sense then that supporters of globalization would equate freedom with the state being involved and providing assistance for those who want to ensure such ties remain. This tends to happen while also proposing that countries whose governments interfere in citizen’s lives or try different methods, leaving them to struggle are corrupt. The countries that are described as not being free do not tend to have public social welfare or public education systems attached to their states.

With the concepts of democracy and the development of social welfare systems within such countries, it is promoted that everyone has the right to an equal chance in life and deserve help if they are struggling in their trying. Democratic countries make sure that this is only realized by following their tax system where all citizens pay towards the coffers to cover these public endeavors. This allows the globalists to then take their positions as leaders with access to information and the means of production, while citizens continue needing their assistance and programs. Thus, democratic countries are built upon providing large, strong, state managed social welfare systems as a safety net that all people must adjust with, believe in and contribute to, fitting themselves into one notion for success.

Interesting to note that this phenomenon shares so many similarities with communism as it is broken down in these ways.

While these systems are set in place, they are not designed in a way to pick a person back up so that they can get ahead. Instead, they are designed to continue the cycles of poverty and make it very difficult for an individual to beat it. There is always a source of control over resources, impacting the opportunities and life chances that anybody has; giving prevalence to some over others depending on their circumstances, or as it stands today, according to current social standards set by globalization and its necessary trends. 

Living in poverty is relative in an advanced society that puts forward a national standard of living because one does not have the means to afford the average costs of living and falls behind. Poverty is usually portrayed as an issue only faced by poor countries, especially since it is widely advertised as an issue that developed countries and all its citizens need to combat together. However, while the focus on poverty has been singular, it has allowed the issue of its consistent existence to fester throughout the world in various ways and on different scales. 

Question, Question, Question, Always Question!

Whatever way globalization is proposed, the reality is that it influences governments’ priorities from social welfare and citizen rights to privatization; taking the power and supports that are meant to be in place for citizens and shifting them to corporations. Globalization exists under false pretenses; promoting the concept and continued presence of government as a public body protecting the social safety net for citizens while it is actually privatizing the government system, and funding companies and individuals privately.

This reality makes it that much harder for people to afford or thrive in the world that globalization creates. It takes the rights and power from the hands of the citizens and puts more rights and power into the corporations instead. This is where the concept of owning nothing and being happy comes into play. The state will grow its power to own everything and give you access to its use based on their determining factors.

Again, this maintains how globalization minimizes social welfare and equality reforms while promoting crony capitalist ideals and specific individual and corporate prosperity instead. Privatizing social welfare programs within government systems, thus, perpetuating the false perception that all people will prosper through this method. This can be seen in how often governments are bailing out private organizations in countries like Canada and the United States, using publicly funded money to help bail out or prop up private, for-profit businesses, like banks, grocery stores and superstores.

This can also be seen in the private and non-profit partnerships associated with government, where the government continues to fund or support their organizations and programs without the social issues ever going away and, in most cases, actually growing larger. On top of that, the non-profit sector must compete with and pay the costs set by the private sector, and into the private sector, ultimately being the middleman between government funds going into the pockets of private, for-profit organizations.

While the conversation of unequal opportunity is known, it is sorely misconstrued. Similarly, the conversation of having an advantage based on where one is born giving them better opportunities over others has been too. While this reality is unfair and happening, the examples are often misused or used when it is convenient for the social narrative.

This can be seen in such ideologies as the “woke” movement that has boomed through this; identifying and labelling people in such a way to feel powerful in censoring themselves and others based on differences big and small. Pushing the mentality that it is ideal to force fit everyone into the larger “acceptable” box that everyone is expected to conform to, but never will.

While there is certainly a difference in the types of poverty experienced and what they can mean for someone’s life, one is not to be deemed less severe than the other. Both are detrimental to the mentality and livelihood of the individuals living it. Both types highlight the issue of human beings not receiving the necessary means to live a quality life or expected standard within the society they live and in how they want or need personally.

So, the question remains, how is it possible or acceptable that such poverty still exists when all social, political and economic trends nationally and internationally, are advertised as being geared towards creating equality, and ending poverty and all its cycles? If there are non-profits that are able to provide services that are affordable while remaining viable, that must be possible for all businesses and thus be a model that could be molded to others, right?

This concept should maybe spread across the board for all necessities so that it is guaranteed that people can at least have their basic needs met, no? All other things can be individually desired and met otherwise, as those wants or needs vary among people, if we are allowed to be individuals. Yet, more often than not we fit ourselves into groups and believe one size fits all. We constantly hear that there isn’t enough money – some how there is just never enough money and never enough people in any of these sectors or organizations to fix the actual root problems or help defeat the problem forever.

Those in social services are supposed to be working towards the ideal goal of no longer needing their job as people find their way back to taking care of themselves and their families and communities. So why are we hearing so much about these issues and need for more programs and services? How has everything been getting worse when it has been the focus for so long? Why is there more need for programs and public assistance if we are truly striving towards empowering the individual? Why is fear and uncertainty leading our minds, rather than confidence and curiosity leading us to try and to learn?

Are the social organizations and programs designed to tackle social issues – perpetuated by these same systems – actually a smoke screen for transferring wealth from the public sector into the hands of private corporations and individuals? Getting rich off the backs of the poor knowing that pool is guaranteed to grow larger because specific types of social issues and programs are being normalized within society as the only means for taking care of or identifying yourself, family or community. Ultimately, ensuring perpetual and staggering wealth for the few and a continued imbalance of power throughout it all for the rest.

Independent Millennial, Author Thank You For Reading Text by Sensitive Betch: Thank you for reading. Sensitive Betch. Please don't forget to like, share and subscribe to Independent Millennial!