About globalization

[Lafayette]

From the Economist:

Excerpt:

Since 1945 the world economy has run according to a system of rules and norms underwritten by America. This brought about unprecedented economic integration that boosted growth, lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty and helped the West prevail over Soviet Russia in the cold war. Today the system is in peril. Countries are racing to subsidise green industry, lure manufacturing away from friend and foe alike and restrict the flow of goods and capital. Mutual benefit is out and national gain is in. An era of zero-sum thinking has begun.

History always begins somewhere - but it usually ends also somewhere else. And this time around it's happening in terms of World Economics.

The fact of the matter is historical. WW2 changed the fundamentals of trade, and the EU has been (finally) consolidated into its Aggregate Delivery of electrical means to the EU-nations. It all began, in Europe, with this: EU energy system transformation - European Parliament

Excerpt:

The European Union's energy system is on a path of transformation that should allow it to achieve a net-zero emissions target by 2050.

 

[Lafayette]

From the above - meaning that all the EU countries must congregate together and work simultaneous if the "New Order of Electricity" is to prevail in Europe.

And obtaining such an immense goal in a "country" (the EU) of around 450 million individuals is no easy matter.

So, like most things that the EU has done "together", this too will take its time as the lesser EU-economies drag their feet as regards implementing uniformly national electric goals throughout the EU.

Far too many of the lesser populated countries don't have the means to accomplish this partial uniformity each of implementing an EU-goal. Unless, of course, the EU is financing it.

Which, I figure, just-aint-gonna-happin ... !

 

[AliHajiSheik]

Using the same electrical plugs will be harder than standardising which side of the road is driven, which still hasn't been accomplished in Europe.

 

[NWRatCon]

All great changes take time, but that process may be accelerated by strife. The war in Ukraine is compelling the EU to greater cooperation, and having a truly integrated grid seems more important than ever as sources of energy are impacted. Although each country has a different emphasis on energy sources, they need to work together to distribute the product - electricity.

 

[Lafayette]

... having a truly integrated grid seems more important than ever as sources of energy are impacted. Although each country has a different emphasis on energy sources, they need to work together to distribute the product - electricity.

That above is pertinently obvious to most EU-countries with the sole exception of the "latter-day" lot with their Communist past are still a BigProblem for some time to come. The younger generation - with the likes-and-dislikes of those countries that were communist at one point - still have to contend with the older-people voting. And these latter do not look upon even more change with favor.

It aint gonna be easy because of the "oldies" of communism-times ...

 

[NWRatCon]

That above is pertinently obvious to most EU-countries with the sole exception of the "latter-day" lot with their Communist past are still a BigProblem for some time to come.

The Soviet era's victims will take some time to integrate fully with the west, and I agree that the change of generations will accelerate the process. Ukraine, like Germany and France after WWII, may actually get there sooner because they have to substantially reconstitute their infrastructure. Getting rid of the "old" is always difficult. You should see my office.

 

[Antiwar]

From the [neoliberal] Economist:

Excerpt: Since 1945 the world economy has run according to [1] a system of rules and norms underwritten by America. [2] This brought about unprecedented economic integration that boosted growth, lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty and helped the West prevail over Soviet Russia in the cold war.

A neoliberal rag tried to link the [1] US's global domination [/1] to [2] "lifting millions out of poverty" [/2]. And they're trying to tie that to being "green"! The US Pentagon is one of the biggest polluters; burner of fossil fuels; literal force for the continuation of the burning of fossil fuels, (destructive) industrialism, and militarism; is constantly fighting wars; is always looking for the next enemy; and is currently fomenting nuclear war. In other words, the US Pentagon is the biggest existential threats (yes, plural) on Earth, by far.

 

[aociswundumho]

A neoliberal rag tried to link the [1] US's global domination [/1] to [2] "lifting millions out of poverty" [/2]. And they're trying to tie that to being "green"! The US Pentagon is one of the biggest polluters; burner of fossil fuels; literal force for the continuation of the burning of fossil fuels, (destructive) industrialism, and militarism; is constantly fighting wars; is always looking for the next enemy; and is currently fomenting nuclear war. In other words, the US Pentagon is the biggest existential threats (yes, plural) on Earth, by far.

They are not neoliberal. They supported Obama, ffs:

It's time

America should take a chance and make Barack Obama the next leader of the free world

www.economist.com

 

[Fearandloathing]

All great changes take time, but that process may be accelerated by strife. The war in Ukraine is compelling the EU to greater cooperation, and having a truly integrated grid seems more important than ever as sources of energy are impacted. Although each country has a different emphasis on energy sources, they need to work together to distribute the product - electricity.

I would say the hostility of the Soviet Union in post war Europe was more responsible for the eventual creation of the EU more than any other factor. What had been hundreds of disintegrating nobles, lords, barons, and such were forced to give up their titles and holdings out of the need for defense. The reason Hitler rolled through them was they had been divided against each other for four hundred years. Greeks married Brits, Brits married Germans, Germans married Poles all to keep a moth eaten monarchy afloat and from killing each other.

I recall, and this should be required reading in every democracy, reading The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, a tome which went back into the histories of the various 'houses' of royalty and how that corruption perfectly fed a post WW1 Germany and the beginnings of Hitler's rise to power.

American history conveniently forgets the 'eugenics movement' which fed the Nazi's treatment of Jews. Few want to remember that most right wing politicians of the day along with notables like Alexander Graham Bell, Henry ford, Carnegie et al were big believers in eugenics.

Eugenics in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Lafayette]

PUTIN'S BLATANT MEDIOCRITY

All great changes take time, but that process may be accelerated by strife. The war in Ukraine is compelling the EU to greater cooperation, and having a truly integrated grid seems more important than ever as sources of energy are impacted. Although each country has a different emphasis on energy sources, they need to work together to distribute the product - electricity.

The war in the Ukraine is uniquely the product of one man. DonaldDuckPutin.

Without it, he could be literally voted out of office, which he richly deserves. But, Russian mentality is not Euro-mentality. Quite a difference between them. Many if not most Russians actually think they are better off as they are rather than adopt a "European" political structure. Such attitudes take generations to change. The young must "'grow up" and with voting rights they might have an increasing effect on political outlook.

Many think Goofy-Putin is a "nice guy". They don't know his real history in Russian politics and it is an ugly one. Russia's key problem may be that most Russians perhaps do not want to understand that the oppression of Communism deeply deranged their mentality. They still think Moscow determines everything and their voting is irrelevant. (Just a guess on my part, but one that may be historically correct - given the manner in which the country is run by Pathetic-Putin.

Thus the same singular oppression is now in the hands of the one who helped manipulate Russia's exit from Communism into the domineering political-centralism of one and only one person.

The highly deranged Putin ... who still maintains a high acceptance most recently close to 80% from the Russian population as a whole ...

 

[Surrealistik]

From the Economist:

Excerpt:



History always begins somewhere - but it usually ends also somewhere else. And this time around it's happening in terms of World Economics.

The fact of the matter is historical. WW2 changed the fundamentals of trade, and the EU has been (finally) consolidated into its Aggregate Delivery of electrical means to the EU-nations. It all began, in Europe, with this: EU energy system transformation - European Parliament

Excerpt:

I would say that the Economist obliviously or more likely willfully (being a blatant neoliberal rag* that is a tireless champion of generally unqualified and unnuanced globalization) ignores the fact that there are legitimate security concerns that underwrite much of the ongoing decline of globalization; it is clear for example, that it is not in our long term interest to do business with treacherous dictatorships like China whom we cannot rely upon to remain stable or friendly, and moreover, that a certain degree of critical/strategic manufacturing vital to national security must remain at home as seen during the shortages of vital goods and equipment during the pandemic. This is above and beyond ongoing and longstanding observations that we probably shouldn't allow other countries to freely leverage unfair and, in the long term, deleterious advantages that stem from their abuse of labour and the environment. I will say that, at the least, it's to the Economist's credit that it seems to have finally abandoned its absurd, longstanding delusion that democracy through economic liberalization is just around the corner in China; decades too late, but nonetheless. Ultimately I am in favour of global integration and cooperation, but within the bounds of reason and in a way consistent with our long term national interest that takes the reins of power away from our rivals and enemies.

*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist#Opinions

 

[Lafayette]

I would say that the Economist obliviously or more likely willfully (being a blatant neoliberal rag* that is a tireless champion of generally unqualified and unnuanced globalization) ignores the fact that there are legitimate security concerns that underwrite much of the ongoing decline of globalization; it is clear for example, that it is not in our long term interest to do business with treacherous dictatorships like China whom we cannot rely upon to remain stable or friendly, and moreover, that a certain degree of critical/strategic manufacturing vital to national security must remain at home as seen during the shortages of vital goods and equipment during the pandemic. This is above and beyond ongoing and longstanding observations that we probably shouldn't allow other countries to freely leverage unfair and, in the long term,

China is indespensible as regard cheap-products - whether at the low or high end. Their prices are ALWAYS less-expensive. (Except for some items cheap-to-manufacture elsewhere in southwest-Asia.

There is simply no getting around that factoid due simply to the inexpensiveness of the products being manufactured and sold.

It is when we get into higher-end (meaning far more sophisticated) products that other countries have a chance of competing. Whyzat?

Even the US sees the ultimate necessity of maintaining the ability to manufacture some very high-technologies (and thus very expensive) solely from the principle that it must have superior control on supply-lines for both pragmatic and defensive purposes. There is simply no way of getting around that "problem" or "challenge" - take your pick.

deleterious advantages that stem from their abuse of labour and the environment. I will say that, at the least, it's to the Economist's credit that it seems to have finally abandoned its absurd, longstanding delusion that democracy through economic liberalization is just around the corner in China; decades too late, but nonetheless. Ultimately I am in favour of global integration and cooperation, but within the bounds of reason and in a way consistent with our long term national interest that takes the reins of power away from our rivals and enemies.

*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist#Opinions

On the low end, even China is being attacked with lower-cost production from surrounding countries. Chinese companies have learned to go "up-market" because "down-market" could not any longer offer a decent return if manufactured in China.

That was bound to happen, and I suspect China even knew it was coming so therefore purchased companies in other countries surrounding theirs. And, of course, those countries were pleased to have their business.

So, isn't it amusing that both South Korea and Vietnam as well as Thailand (and even the Philippines somewhat) are benefiting from the fact that they can build "rather simple products" which still have Worldwide Demand ...

 

[Surrealistik]

China is indespensible as regard cheap-products - whether at the low or high end. Their prices are ALWAYS less-expensive. (Except for some items cheap-to-manufacture elsewhere in southwest-Asia.

There is simply no getting around that factoid due simply to the inexpensiveness of the products being manufactured and sold.

It is when we get into higher-end (meaning far more sophisticated) products that other countries have a chance of competing. Whyzat?

Even the US sees the ultimate necessity of maintaining the ability to manufacture some very high-technologies (and thus very expensive) solely from the principle that it must have superior control on supply-lines for both pragmatic and defensive purposes. There is simply no way of getting around that "problem" or "challenge" - take your pick.



On the low end, even China is being attacked with lower-cost production from surrounding countries. Chinese companies have learned to go "up-market" because "down-market" could not any longer offer a decent return if manufactured in China.

That was bound to happen, and I suspect China even knew it was coming so therefore purchased companies in other countries surrounding theirs. And, of course, those countries were pleased to have their business.

So, isn't it amusing that both South Korea and Vietnam as well as Thailand (and even the Philippines somewhat) are benefiting from the fact that they can build "rather simple products" which still have Worldwide Demand ...

Increasingly, and despite their best attempts to prevent, mitigate or offset it, China's competitive advantage on price (that is heavily subsidized by the state in various ways, as well as de facto subsidy through externalities, such as permitting its industry to pollute at will) is rapidly declining while manufacturing is moving out of the country in a big way. Again, this is not even getting into obvious issues with doing business that subsidizes our primary geopolitical opponent which openly seeks to topple the US as the preeminent global power, steals trillions of dollars worth of IP (including through our commercial association), engages in ongoing genocide and pervasive Orwellian level oppression while menacing the free world and engaging in aggressive expansionism in the South China Sea. Indeed, there is a substantial and overdue decoupling with China that's in progress right now, one that causes the editors at the Economist to wring their hands and clutch their pearls as they recognize, fear and lament this decoupling in progress, which includes for example, large infrastructure investments in competing economies like India which seek to expedite and accelerate it, and other similar national projects. Oddly, this devil's advocacy of the Economist remains ongoing despite their greatly delayed recognition of the fact that trade has only reinforced and calcified the CCP, rather than democratizing the country.

At this point it's abundantly clear that we can and should do without China as an economic partner, and continue the overdue and necessary work of gradually decoupling and reducing our dependence on it so it can be properly isolated and economically sequestered by the West, recognizing that economic integration and the growth and wealth that affords is the lifeblood of the CCP's power and prominence, both domestically and abroad, and that this power will, in the long run, only ever be wielded to the detriment of Pax Americana and the free world.

 

[Lafayette]

Increasingly, and despite their best attempts to prevent, mitigate or offset it, China's competitive advantage on price (that is heavily subsidized by the state in various ways, as well as de facto subsidy through externalities, such as permitting its industry to pollute at will) is rapidly declining while manufacturing is moving out of the country in a big way.

From here: China is losing its place as the center of the world's supply chains. Here are 5 places supply chains are going instead.

Excerpt:

Here are five countries where China's supply chains are moving to:
*India
*Vietnam
*Thailand
*Bangladesh
*Malaysia

These mentioned above are all in the about same geographical area. I find that curious and wonder why.

That is, none are in South America nor Africa ...

 

[NWRatCon]

That is, none are in South America nor Africa ...

First, I don't think that's really accurate: second, time will tell. Those were the first places the supply chains moved to, because they are geographically close, and have similar levels of development.

The truth about the global economy is that it will always look for the next population/resource to exploit. In ancient times, Egypt, Rome and Persia conquered their neighbors to take their resources and enslave their people; in the Middle Ages, European nations colonized vast swaths of the Earth to steal resources and enslave their people; the modern method is to do the same through corruption and trade deals by taking advantage of less economically secure regions.

 

[Lafayette]

First, I don't think that's really accurate: second, time will tell. Those were the first places the supply chains moved to, because they are geographically close, and have similar levels of development.

The truth about the global economy is that it will always look for the next population/resource to exploit. In ancient times, Egypt, Rome and Persia conquered their neighbors to take their resources and enslave their people; in the Middle Ages, European nations colonized vast swaths of the Earth to steal resources and enslave their people; the modern method is to do the same through corruption and trade deals by taking advantage of less economically secure regions.

China ultimately realized that when they moved their people out to foreign countries to expand their supply-chains at lower costs of production that the people they sent asked for "country-naturalization"" for their entire family.

Surprise, surprise .... !!!