Any economy that’s
separable might become dreadful for the rest eventually, hence intertwined with
the rest to become inseparable, to bring collective growth or fall, so that everyone
could be brought to table for talks, at the time of adversities.
If this hypothesis was the plinth of globalization and weren’t disgruntled minds; then its founding fathers, if alive, must realize that the present form of globalization has been irreversibly debased.
The Table was
supposed to be U.N. Alas, its partisan acts, acts that of the likes of amnesty
& many others, broke it. So, a new Table was indispensable.
To induce wealth, industrial revolution was a necessity. Alas, not half a century, & the same people who nurtured it, now disavow it under climate change.
And mere wealth to all won’t bring peace. Example -> WWs were fought by wealthy nations, not poor. Nor absolute theism. Example -> thousand years of expansionism for proselytism under one divine law, brought hundreds of millions to fall. And nor so nihilism/absolute atheism. Example -> Communism, where life is a mere statistical number, sacrificed to contain ideologue.
But what or who fractured
globalization? Nationalists, Theists who’re Nationalists, or, Globalists?
Who’s a poison
pill in this who would rather bring down own empire, than calling vote of shareholders
against any bidding? Who’s the highest bidder amongst them? And who in actuality
looking for any hostile takeover? And why?
The above hypothesis
could indeed be a well intent thought. The rest, aren’t, & what
became the reason for globalization to fall. ☹
© Pranav Chaturvedi 2022