How Can We Have Prominent Economists in a World With a Global Food Crisis?

Prof. Dani Rodrik of Harvard University is one of the most prominent economists in the world in recent decades. He made his name at the end of the 1990s, when he began to warn us of the consequences of globalization. Rodrik warned that opening the world to free trade would lead to a rift between the elites -- who would thrive in the global economy -- and everyone else. He was right - there are very many hungry people in our world, who are not sure where their next meal is coming from.

While our world capital is under the control of the 2 percent, at the very most, I don't understand who can be called a prominent economist. While the remaining 98 percent live off the crumbs of the monopolists we created ourselves. A good economy is a stable and balanced economy for all citizens of the world. Until then, and as long as there are still hungry people in the world, then for me there is no such thing as a prominent economist. And of course this isn't personal about this particular economist, but rather a general statement.

Also, if the ideology of economics that is taught in universities is still based on the principles of the industrial revolution, then I don't see how it's even possible to talk about a valuable and meaningful economy, whose theoretical foundation isn't adapted at all to the human spirit in our time.

The same goes for the globalization that is accepted among us, especially in the economic sector, which speaks of trade and international trade. In other words, the entire transfer of information that exists in a global world between people on a social and cultural basis, does not exist at all in the minds of economists. This does not exist between any of us yet, so you can't really take people who talk about it seriously.

At the moment the meaning of globalization is about world trade that revealed the dependence between the countries and the people. Something that is based on numbers. That's why here as well, we can't take all the various experts seriously since we don't even really understand what globalization is.

We need a global transition from the individual-based method to a collective method.

In conclusion, I can only keep saying what I've said all along: we need a global transition from the individual-based method to a collective method, in all areas of our lives, but it must start in the economy. This is not something I determined. It's based on the natural law of development. Just because we're not familiar with it yet, doesn't mean we can ignore this law.

So since we already have some important people calling themselves experts, then what we really need to learn is how to upgrade the economic system, both in itself, and for the developmental transition that the world is entering, toward becoming a truly global world.

-------------------------------------------------

This is in reply to the following article in Globes -

Will the economy keep Israel democratic? The senior economist from Harvard who explains why you shouldn't trust it >> "Don't expect an immediate negative reaction from the markets to creeping authoritarianism," says @Prof. Dani Roderic from Harvard University • In an interview with Globes , he explains how the populists in the world exploit feelings of exclusion and disdain for control through the narrative, and why when the elites lead the resistance the populist message only gets stronger.

דמוקרטיה | ראיון

-------------------------------------------------

"More than 900,000 people worldwide are fighting to survive in catastrophic hunger/one step away from famine. This is ten times more than five years ago, an alarmingly rapid increase." World Food Programme