|
Post by jdredd on Jan 20, 2016 1:51:08 GMT -5
www.forbes.com/sites/paullaudicina/2016/01/19/davos-2016-questions-about-globalizations-end-and-what-comes-next/#2715e4857a0b78fa40163261"The data are clear: globalization as we knew it for the better part of two decades has stalled out. Key indicators, including global trade in goods and international investment flows, remain well below their pre-financial crisis peaks. Today, the world system is in hiatus—a period between global economic orders (or disorders). And we believe that transition to a new reality is coming. Economist Herbert Stein famously observed, “If something cannot go on forever, it will stop.” So too, this current interregnum between global “orders” must transition to something new. We posit four prospects: Globalization 3.0—Return to the high economic growth and trade of the early 2000s, characterized by increased prosperity, improvements in information and communication technologies (ICT), and low commodity prices Polarization—Regression to the historical mean of moderate economic growth and inequality, characterized by rising geopolitical tensions and economic rivalries which divide the world into competing blocs of countries Islandization—The rise of nationalism in key economies (due to today’s low growth environment) means continued low growth and reduced economic flows as countries retreat inward and raise barriers to trade Commonization—A new “global commons” brought about by new technologies (like additive manufacturing) and the sharing economy leads to a fall in consumer capitalism—which means lower growth, a focus on local, and the proliferation of continuously connected people and things. Perhaps the most far-fetched, a future where capitalism no longer reigns supreme may not be so far-off. Due to the incredibly complex nature of the transformations and shifts underway in today’s global economy—of which there is much debate in Davos this week—it is impossible to forecast with any certainty which of these alternative futures will come to pass. However, I think everyone in Davos would agree that Globalization 3.0 is the most favorable of these scenarios. It will take effective leadership to get there, though. As the conversation in Davos seems to imply, this question of the leadership skills necessary for a better future is top-of-mind for many." I kind of like "Commonization", unlike "everyone" at Davos, who seem to want more of business as usual forever. Not possible.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Aug 31, 2016 1:44:04 GMT -5
www.nytimes.com/2016/08/30/opinion/the-trump-farage-road-show.html?ref=opinion"The uncomfortable truth about the Trump campaign is that, like the Brexit campaign, it is perfectly timed to ride a mood of popular revolt — against neoliberal economics, against the bankers who emerged with impunity from the 2008 financial meltdown, against what Farage called “global corporatism,” against seemingly uncontrolled immigration, and against the politicians behind growing workplace precariousness and a pervasive sense of personal control lost to impersonal forces." "As Martin Jacques observed recently in The Guardian: “We are witnessing the end of the neoliberal era. It is not dead, but it is in its early death throes, just as the social democratic era was during the 1970s.” He went on: “One of the reasons why the left has failed to emerge as the leader of the new mood of working-class disillusionment is that most social democratic parties became, in varying degrees, disciples of neoliberalism and uber-globalization.” The most extreme expressions of this, he noted, were New Labour in Britain and the Democratic Party, led respectively by Tony Blair and Bill Clinton. Of course, those political movements also produced great prosperity and optimism in their moment. But the moment has passed. The pendulum has swung. Inequality has risen to intolerable levels." All economic changes bring winners and losers. As I said before, the powers-that-be expected the American workers who lost their jobs to just eat it and be happy. They are now revolting, but from where I sit they are closing the barn door after the horse has escaped. What will Trump do to bring back those jobs? I suspect nothing, because I think he is all hot air. As I also said before, I think the only thing Trump is interested in is making the world Safe for Billionaires. In other words, business as usual.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Sept 1, 2016 14:43:49 GMT -5
www.joc.com/maritime-news/container-lines/hanjin-shipping/hanjin-shows-signs-unraveling-us-import-rates-set-soar_20160831.html"Trans-Pacific eastbound rates were already trending higher in recent weeks owing to higher utilization amid the peak holiday shipping season, and now they will go higher still. According to one large forwarder, carriers as of Sept. 1 will implement a $600 increase per 40-foot-equivalent unit for freight all kinds (FAK) cargo to a level of $1,700, representing a 54 percent rate increase from Asia to the U.S. West Coast. The rate to the East Coast will go up by $800 per FEU to $2,400, a 50 percent hike. Similar increases were announced to Vancouver, Prince Rupert, Houston, Mobile, and inland ports such as Chicago, Detroit, Memphis, Fort Worth, and Kansas City. This comes on top of recent increases that have largely held; spot rates to the U.S. West Coast have climbed from $753 per FEU in late June to $1,153 in the latest reading from the Shanghai Shipping Exchange's Shanghai Containerized Freight Index, a 53 percent increase." Cheap shipping is, of course, the backbone of globalization. But apparently it had gotten so cheap that Hanjin could not survive.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Oct 22, 2016 22:02:27 GMT -5
www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2016/10/china-visible-victim-deglobalisation-161016052547323.html"When you buy anything, anywhere in the world, there is a good chance that it comes from China. We all know China as the great export powerhouse of the 21st century. But China's exports hit an all-time high in December, 2015 and (ignoring season fluctuations) have been declining ever since. China is increasingly turning inward for growth - and having trouble finding it. China accounts for about one-eighth of the world's merchandise exports, far more than any other country. Even this figure understates the true importance of China's export economy. Most other countries export intermediate goods that are just parts and components of the finished goods that consumers actually buy. China more often exports the finished goods. When China's exporting juggernaut slows down, the world slows down. Or maybe it's the other way around: when the world slows down, China slows with it. Either way you look at it, both Chinese and global exports are falling." Why are world exports falling? Deflation? Consumerism, the basis for the economy of America and the world has finally peaked? I don't know.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on May 29, 2018 9:56:40 GMT -5
www.nytimes.com/2018/05/29/business/white-house-moves-ahead-with-tough-trade-measures-on-china.html?&hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news"WASHINGTON — The Trump administration said on Monday that it would proceed with plans to impose a series of punitive trade-related measures on China in the next month, intensifying pressure on Beijing as trade talks between the countries continue. The White House said in a statement that the United States would move ahead with its plan to levy 25 percent tariffs on $50 billion of imported Chinese goods, despite recent remarks by Steven Mnuchin, the Treasury secretary, and other administration officials that the tariffs would be suspended while the countries continued their negotiations. The administration had previously announced a list of goods that would be subject to tariffs, including flat-screen TVs and medical devices. It then held a series of hearings on the tariffs, giving the public a chance to influence the final list. The White House said it would detail the final list of goods that will subject to the tariffs by June 15, and the duties would be imposed shortly after that, the statement said." Oh boy, let the trade war begin. If anything can torpedo the Trump Boom, it would be that.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Sept 25, 2018 14:46:49 GMT -5
www.nytimes.com/2018/09/25/world/americas/un-general-assembly-trump.html?action=click&module=Well&pgtype=Homepage§ion=World"UNITED NATIONS — President Trump on Tuesday defiantly reaffirmed his commitment to an “America First” foreign policy, lashing out at foes like Iran and failing states like Venezuela. But he singled out an enemy-turned-partner, Kim Jong-un of North Korea, expressing optimism for a diplomatic opening that would have seemed far-fetched even a year ago. Speaking for a second time to the United Nations General Assembly, Mr. Trump said: “We will never surrender America’s sovereignty to an unelected, unaccountable global bureaucracy. We reject the ideology of globalism, and we embrace the doctrine of patriotism.” Mr. Trump lavished praise on his own efforts to shake up the global order in his first 20 months in office, pointing to his withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal, trade agreements and numerous international organizations, as well as his recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel." Trumpty the Clown at the UN. He gives patriotism a bad name. But ending globalization is fine with me. Hopefully it will put a dent in consumerism.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Oct 15, 2018 13:15:49 GMT -5
www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/opinion/nationalism-trump-globalization-immigration.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage"Here is the simple truth: As long as corporations are free to roam the globe in search of lower wages and taxes, and as long as the United States opens its borders to millions of unskilled immigrants, liberals will not able to create bountiful, equitable societies, where people are free from basic anxieties about obtaining health care, education and housing. In Europe, social democrats face very similar challenges with immigration, refugees and euro-imposed austerity. To achieve their historic objectives, liberals and social democrats will have to respond constructively to, rather than dismiss, the nationalist reaction to globalization." Here is some goon trying to get libs to embrace the New Nationalism, by turning against immigrants. Whatever. The bottom line for me is the historical fact that Nationalism has almost always led to war. Not that I am for out-of-control Corporate Globalism.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Dec 3, 2018 1:41:58 GMT -5
I'm having a hard time keeping up with trade agreements. Frankly, it's all pretty boring. Well, I am interested in one thing: Will Chinese model aircraft still be available in the future? Spoken like an old retired guy, right?
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Jun 19, 2019 11:57:14 GMT -5
www.nytimes.com/2019/06/19/business/globalization-us-world-order.html?action=click&module=Well&pgtype=Homepage§ion=BusinessLONDON — If globalization were ever going to unravel, the beginning would probably feel something like this. President Trump, the leader of the country that built the world trading system, continues to disrupt international commerce as a weapon wielded in pursuit of national aims. He has unleashed trade hostilities with China, placed tariffs on steel made by allies like Europe and Japan, and restricted India’s access to the American market. He vowed to hit Mexico with tariffs mere months after he agreed to a new version of a deal liberalizing trade across North America. But globalization has become such an elemental feature of life that it is probably irreversible. The process of making modern goods, from airplanes to medical devices, has become so mind-bendingly complex, involving components drawn from multiple continents, that a few unexpected tariffs will not prompt companies to swiftly close factories in China and Mexico and replace them with plants in Ohio and Indiana. What does appear to be ending is the post-World War II era in which the United States championed global trade as immunization against future conflict, selling the idea that the free exchange of goods was a pathway toward a more stable world order. As I've said before, Nationalism has very often led to war.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Mar 31, 2021 15:08:25 GMT -5
While thousands of young people from Central American hellholes are coming into the US for a better life, I have family members who party in Cozumel or Cabo a couple of times a year. What's the difference? They are both part of globalization.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Oct 14, 2021 15:18:14 GMT -5
Lots going on in the globalized world. The global supply chain is big news for once. Transportation, is, of course, the weak point of globalization.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Mar 10, 2022 2:58:47 GMT -5
Refocusing this thread to the choice between Globalism and Nationalism. I’m sure Jessie Kelly thinks Globalism is Communism. Maybe he’s right. Far right, as the old joke goes.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Jul 9, 2022 13:52:45 GMT -5
In the war between Globalization and Nationalism, Nationalism has won. So says Laura Ingraham, and who am I to disagree? Maybe this time we can avoid the wars that Nationalism has brought us so often. Maybe Ukraine vs Russia is a fluke. And maybe Trump will become a monk.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Jul 17, 2022 11:33:44 GMT -5
Headline from the UT: “Biden vows continued US role in Mideast”. So we are going to keep our fingers in the Ukraine war, AND in the Mideast, AND confronT China. Millennials will bear the cost of Boomer hubris.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Sept 20, 2022 16:23:41 GMT -5
So the General Assembly of the UN, the original globalist institution (Ignoring the League of Nations), has started. Once again, there seems to be a lot a hot air about global warming. But when push comes to shove, the world will abandon working on solutions in favor of fighting a war over national borders. How many UN countries are supplying Ukraine with weapons and sanctioning Russia? I’m sure climate change will wait until we’re done. Meanwhile, fire up those coal plants! Climate change is a Woke conspiracy anyway.
|
|