When the dominance turns against the dominator

Kimmo Huosionmaa

The economics is a key element in all processes between people and other organisms. When we are talking about other organisms and economics, we must understand that all resources in every environment have limits. The food is the key resource in the natural environment, and when we are seeing the thing, where some species become too dominating, would the situation turn very catastrophic, because if this species will eat everything will the result be the loss of the food.


This situation would become the hunger in all population, and then the individuals would die of hunger. When we are seeking this situation in the perspective of the human race, we must see that if some nation will become too dominating in the area of international politics, would it become like the dominating species in nature.

The international environment works like nature, and there are limited resources on the Earth. And if there will become the line where the high-technological productions are made in the west, and the natural resources of the production will bring from some other problems between the western world and other nations.

The production of the high-technology productions, make possible to build the dominating weapon systems, and those weapon systems allow western part the domination all around the world. And this is the situation, what will seem like the situation, where some species would become dominating thing in some area. If the state or the country will become too dominating, there would be the risk, that undemocratic forces will take the power in that area.


The western nations have the problem with their absolute dominance, and in this text also Russia is one of the western nations. That problem is that if there would be no competitors or criticizers against their politics, there could be catastrophic situation ahead. In one scenario, the some of the western governments would change as the dictatorship. And then that government hires the mercenaries from Africa or some other country for supporting their policy, what is outside of the western world.


Those mercenaries would act with the political police with members of that organization, or they can make assassinations for those governments. This is one threat to the western democracies. If the government doesn't have the opponents, that would make possible to make the laws, what would become the threat to the nation. Even if the laws are made for supporting the democracy, those laws what allows the president to deny the laws might change to equipment for dictators.


Even if the first president would use the power wisely, the next one would have different opinions on the way of using the power. In the situation, where one person has the power over any instances of the state,  the results would be horrible, when that person starts to use the power by the dictatorial way. And this was the route what raised the most brutal dictators in the power of their nations.

Why radicalism is not the real answer to problems of the state?

Picture: Internet

Kimmo Huosionmaa

https://sites.google.com/view/whyradicalismisnotanswer/etusivu

The reason why traditional parties are back in popularity is that those "new age" parties can't reclaim the promises, what they have given to voters.  The power of populistic movements is that they promise something concrete to the people, but as it happened many times before those promises have been over limited when they are compared with resources of the state.


When some group begins to control the state, the limits will come from national funds. Those funds are the thing, what the government uses for paying its own payments to own citizens and of course to the other states. This fund is capital, what government uses if it must reclaim its money back from markets, and if there is too much money in the markets, it will collapse the value of money, if that money comes to markets.


That brings very strong disappointing for voters, who wanted to get those things, what those parties have been promised. And when those promises leave in the level of promises, will voters leave that party. When we are talking about radicalism in political control, we must say that radical movements are often driven their state to destruction. Example of that advantage is Bolshevik-revolution in Russia 1917 and rise of Nazi-government in Germany in 1930's.


Those movements were very radical, and that radical policy drove those states to war and then authoritarian government-controlling policy destroyed the economics of The Soviet Union, but the economics were a reason, why, Adolf Hitler attacked to Polland in 1939. The reason for the attack was that nazi-party took their popularity by promising work for the people, and they, of course, made many workplaces, but those workplaces were in the police force and military industry.


And of course, those workplaces were grown in public sectors, like building new houses for a new government. That made very bad losses for cash of the state, and then Hitler decided to attack against Poland because they wanted to rob that states money and national treasures. When economic situation is bad, will the people want new workplaces, but if those workplaces are only in the public sector, the economic situation will not able to fix. Only real marketing is an answer to the bad economic situation because public workplaces are only money holes for the government.

What actually means "neutron bomb phenomenon" in business life

Kimmo Huosionmaa

Are you ever called a term "neutron bomb effect" when people are speaking about the industrialism or economics? The name of this phenomenon causes a weapon what is called the neutron bomb. That weapon kills people and leaves the material untouchable. And this is a route of modern car manufacturing technology. Companies want's to maximize their profits, and that's why they want to operate with the minimum workforce. There is a man in the USA who is called as a "Neutron Bomb Jack".


He is a leader who began to transform car factories production lines for full automatized robots, and after his work, there was a situation where workers still were unemployed, and robots worked in factories. Guess how much profits those companies could get, because they can make robots to work 24 hours per day without any brakes of production. The robot worker doesn't need medical attention, payroll or social security. If robot has malfunctions the company just carries it to recycling bin


That's why human workers are replaced by robots. This means that power of labor union will not any more work as a pressure method in discussions of rules in a  financial environment. When robots replace human workers in the car business, the company has no need for humans as a workforce. Robots don't make strikes and they don't take coffee brakes during the working day. And they don't need a salary of their work.


The only price what the company must pay is electric bill and of course a price of the robot. This advancement of industrialization makes possible to produce just so many products, what will be sold. But this kind of thinking makes human workers unnecessary for the company. Only in some design jobs are placed, where mankind is a necessary part of the process, and those places are manly in jobs where creativity is a key element for success in work and production's success. Robots are awesome says company's leader, because he or she must not recruit one single worker to that company.


This is a way what makes traditional work concept old fashion way to handle a business. That is the thing what our political leaders must understand. Companies can kick people off when they don't need them, but those kicked of persons will drop to society's price. State or government can't kick those persons somewhere. That's the difference between the company and public government. The only reason why the company exists is making the profit for it stakeholders and that's why robots are very popular in car factories.


Even if there will come sudden orders for that product's the company does not hire extra-workers. They just give orders to manufacturing robots to increase the production and that means that there will not open new workplaces. This is a key in "neutron bomb phenomenon". Even if the economic situation turns to fast rise it doesn't mean new workplaces. This is what has been happening in the USA and many other countries. Production increases but none workers will hire. The worker in the industrial hall is an army of robots, what made human workers unnecessary for company.