[HN Gopher] Globalization is evolving, but does not seem to be r...
___________________________________________________________________
Globalization is evolving, but does not seem to be reversing
Author : ksec
Score : 49 points
Date : 2023-05-28 16:37 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (conversableeconomist.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (conversableeconomist.com)
| bluetomcat wrote:
| The amount of international trade isn't a good indicator for
| measuring globalization trends. Two bordering countries could be
| trading raw materials to produce domestic products for domestic
| consumption. Globalization is when you are highly likely to be
| able to consume the same product at 2 distant points on Earth.
| photochemsyn wrote:
| "The vast complexity of modern production" is not the driving
| factor behind globalization, as demonstrated by American
| manufacturing systems in the 1960s and 1970s. If you have the
| necessary raw materials, energy supply and labor force then
| manufacturing can go on anywhere - all you need is the know-how.
|
| The driving force behind globalization was the desire for cheap
| labor, the one component of the triangle that is most easily
| price-gamed. Of course, this doesn't affect trade between France
| and Germany, as moving a factory from one country to the other
| has no effect on production costs. In contrast, moving a factory
| from Detroit to Mexico, or to Indonesia, or to China? A 75%
| reduction in overall labor costs is all profit, minus shipping
| costs of course. Of course, it also drives down wages for those
| in the manufacturing sector while also shrinking that sector.
|
| The other side of globalization with respect to labor is the
| import of cheap labor when it comes to non-outsourceable jobs
| like construction and agriculture, which again drives down the
| average wage in these industries (as migrants tend to work for
| less) - and this even extends to the tech sector, with the H1B
| Visa program being a point of contention. This also drives a
| political backlash with consequences (see migrant field workers
| fleeing Florida en masse at present, for example, as the state
| passes laws banning their employment).
|
| Trying to write about globalization while ignoring the primary
| motivations and goals of the architects of globalization is kind
| of silly, and the main thesis - that modern manufacturing is just
| too complex to be done within the USA from start to finish - is
| just wrong.
| zokier wrote:
| Also more recently environmental regulations; afaik its not
| unusual to shift production to countries where environmental
| regulations, or their enforcement, is laxer to further cut
| costs. It helps that cheap labor tends to correlate with lax
| regulations.
| nologic01 wrote:
| _If globalization was a person it would be the ultimate Jekyll
| and Hyde personality_
|
| There is what one might term the good, if not sublime,
| globalization. For as long as there are vast disparities in,
| e.g., life expectancy and educational level across the planet,
| our tribe lives a life out-of-balance (in the Koyaanisqatsi
| sense), unfair, unstable, miserly, antediluvian. Good
| globalization means flow of information, capital, people, goods
| that is (or should be) the great equilibrator, restoring balance.
|
| The other face of globalization is decidedly darker. It consists
| of what one might term conscious _ESG arbitrage_. Effectively
| pursuing short-term extractive profits by identifying global
| opportunities to hide environmental externalities such as
| pollution, exploit inferior labor conditions and benefit from
| poor governance systems (oligarchs and the like). Bad
| globalization means sharply raising inequalities within a region
| while modestly lowering inequalities between regions.
|
| _If localization was a person it would be the ultimate Jekyll
| and Hyde personality_
|
| There is what one might term the good, if not sublime,
| localization. For as long as one region lives at the expense of
| others, slurping (ultimately by force) resources and human talent
| from across the planet our tribe lives a life out-of-balance (in
| the Koyaanisqatsi sense). The good side of localization means
| that, by-and-large, communities in all regions become adapted to
| and live in equilibrium within their _own_ ecosystems.
|
| The other face of localization is decidedly darker. It consists
| of what one might term _Ideology arbitrage_. Effectively pursue
| narrow-minded, isolationist policies and otherization, based on
| politics, religion or other discriminating factors in order to
| prop and persist a sub-optimal power structure arrangement.
|
| The bottom line on globalization/localization is that they are
| sufficiently ill-defined that every political agenda can find
| something useful. Yet as the above juxtaposition hopefully
| illustrates, it does not take that much to start being more
| honest, less obfuscating, about what we are really talking about.
| motohagiography wrote:
| Most of the predictions of the negative aspects of globalization
| from the 90s came true, specifically, about the hollowing out of
| working class jobs, the polarization that would result, and the
| erosion of western values to accomodate the despots we trade
| with. I was against globalization then because it was just a way
| for governments to collude with one another to dilute their
| accountability to their national constituents. Today, these
| governments literally import voters and distribute them
| throughout their country to prop up their political parties in
| contested areas because natural citizens don't vote for the
| looting and demolitions of their own societies.
|
| Globalization just became "globalism," and remains a cynically
| anti-democratic and anti-nation state movement that is the
| expression of a totalitarian urge. It is not reversing, but its
| growth has taken a brief break. Its architects know it is going
| to cause conflict, and judging by what we saw of them in the
| first few rounds, I suspect they are only resting and organizing
| for the next phase.
| whitemary wrote:
| Stupid article, but funny that the title gives a nod to Karl
| Marx's "history moves in a straight line" analysis. Liberals have
| been furiously criticizing this idea for 150 years.
| dang wrote:
| Can you please not post shallow dismissals, please not call
| names, and please make your substantive points thoughtfully? A
| different version of your comment here could have explained
| your point neutrally and in detail--which I think could have
| been quite interesting and we could have learned something
| from. But this type of flamewar putdown just pours toxins into
| the environment.
|
| https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...
|
| If you wouldn't mind reviewing
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the
| intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
| Note this one: " _Please don 't post shallow dismissals,
| especially of other people's work. A good critical comment
| teaches us something._"
| adhesive_wombat wrote:
| If it's more efficient, as long as market forces outweigh
| "localist" forces, globalisation will continue down the gradient1
| to some minimum "energy state".
|
| The amount of money involved means that to tip that balance, you
| need a very strong, coherent and stable localist sentiment. The
| complexity of the system and the willingness of individuals to
| attempt to wiggle though to the minimum means you need a very
| strong, durable and controlling government to keep the unstable
| system together in a way that persists for a very long time: at
| least many decades and beyond. This is tricky to do when
| countries that don't enforce localism probably will appear to
| advance more and faster, and especially tricky when you think
| that the very people who want localism the most also probably
| chafe the most at the idea of a more centrally-controlled
| economy.
|
| It's certainly more than possible that in the long, long run, the
| localist countries are the tortoises and the globalist ones the
| hares, but it's a hard sell to the public during that period when
| neighbours have ample food and electricity and infrastructure and
| you don't because you're still working on DIYing the supply
| chains.
|
| 1: this is a changing gradient: you might find that where the
| minimum is changes over time. For example what was once Germany2
| became Japan, then Taiwan and now China. This will continue,
| probably via South and SE Asia to Africa.
|
| 2: "Made in Germany" was originally an involuntary mark of an
| inferior imported product into the UK. Relevant in this context,
| because circa the 1880s, Germany had strong protectionist
| policies and thus had governmentally-forced local, low-quality
| and cheap (to other countries) industrial capacity. A century
| later and it's a mark of pride, so the tortoise is, if not in the
| lead, not doing too badly! That Germany was wrecked in the
| interim by two World Wars on the trot makes it hard to
| extrapolate that success onto other countries going forwards from
| the present.
| bannedbybros wrote:
| [dead]
| gishbunker wrote:
| [dead]
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-05-29 23:01 UTC)