Comments on: Globalization is No Longer a Force for Good

By: tom

tom — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 10:16:19 +0000

The analogy of globalization as compared with the rise and dominance of Internet culture really highlights the essential of its structure - i.e peer-to-peer integration. Each participating entity has a vastly greater span of interactivity and interoperability with other participants. However the drawback of interconnectivity is contagion or the 'ripple' effect. The credit crisis would not have been implementable without the enabling momentum of international finance. One facet to note in particular is the fact that globalization, just as in any other social relationship, can be exploited and become subject to abuse where there is information asymmetry. I'm inclined to believe that adverse selection on the part of certain institutional investors (the informed) is the primary culprit behind price inflation in commodities. Current prices are an engineered rendition of the future expectation of scarcity which has been grossly exaggerated by those in the know. People on the upside of asymmetric noesis are convoluting the true state of affairs.

By: bradb

bradb — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 02:06:07 +0000

Folks,
This is all very simple. Those that love globilization are obviously rewarded by it.. those that despise it are punished by it.
So, I put the question to the entire blog audience. Who really profits the most? Surely you know that without a twitch of an eye.
Likewise you know who is at the wrong end of the deal.
I wish Americans would actually think from time to time instead of being social and envirometal exestentialist. Think about it, globilization is the brainchild of the neo_capitalist . It is certain that all the trade agreements the last 15 years are set on dismantelling the American working class. Why pay an American wage when you can get an Asian wage for 10 cents on the dollar , no unions, no benefits etc: Or better yet a hispanic wage and they will work in your country. Civil liberties and human rights are rather a dreadful enemy in the neo-con /neo-capitalist philosophy.
In short.. no one wins but the *&^% that pushed globilization down our throat to begin with. Mark my words, the globilist have an agenda, and American working class are the target. It is SOOOO obvious, but how can one convince The cattle herds and flocks of sheep that have their minds made up about the obvious good Of globilization? Its kinda like Global warming, the U.N. will do its utmost to frame the event in the most dire expectations so that they can mandate laws to prevent such a catastrophic event. Get it, they want the power to impose international laws an inch at a time, until they have your guns to!Who needs a national government when we have an international one. How exestential Now go have heart surgery with confidence in your new sociallistic, communistic. neo_capitallistic world you get to ride on. Note, riding is all you can do, driving is only for the elite, which also have a diffrent choice of doctors than we have. Unfortunately, we are wittnessing the stuff that wars are made of as history has never let us down on repeatting itself.Dont think for a minute that we are too far advanced for such an event.

By: Coffee Addict

Coffee Addict — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 04:25:58 +0000

Brad. Your conclusions about global economic realignment finish what I was trying to say.

Actually I am starting to think less and less about oil. The popular press is quoting reports which say that Australian's are very quick to find ways to reduce consumption.

Most of the existing car fleet's guzzlers can be converted to LPG if need be ---- and fitters are already overwhelmed by demand. CNG is abundant and can be used if oil becomes less available though the performance loss is significant if the engine is not designed to use it. As city fleets (from Sydney to Kathmandu) quickly turn to electric propulsion expect the price of crude to drop in response. We are at the beginning of a 10 year cycle (pun not originally intended).

By: Brad

Brad — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 13:39:14 +0000

So with all this globalisation going on, perhaps if we can hold out a little longer (say 7-10yrs?!?), we should see China/India etc align more with current western countries in terms of labour costs/product prices etc. Would this not then result in less imports into Australia, increased reliance on our own resources (labour/goods & services), due to the increased (more balanced) costs in those countries as compared to Australia. This would result in improved local employment (question further impact on inflation?), and balancing of exports/imports. In such a world, we would obviously need to ensure the existing 'free trade' barriers are equitable between nations.

Clearly, a global economic evolution is occurring, and the change is occurring exponentially each year...

So what happens when oil supply dives, and demand goes through the roof, what then for all of us?

By: Coffee Addict

Coffee Addict — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 00:29:11 +0000

I agree (largely) with Rici.

Australia does have some comparative advantages for the delivery of manufactured products cheap labour is is not one of them. However, the advantage of cheap labour in some countries (such as China) may soon be cancelled out by the high cost of transporting raw materials to their factories (fuel costs) and paying high spot prices, taxes and duties along the way. Its much more cost effective to ship the finished (or semi finished product). In addition the costs of production (wages, taxes, environmental considerations etc.) are starting to accellerate in China and India (as happened in developed countries over the past 50 to 100 years).

By: Rici

Rici — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 14:23:59 +0000

Yeah, so long as its genuinely free trade, then maybe it helps all countries concerned. But consider? can i own a 100% business interest in Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia? yet as a foreigner can i own 100% of an australian business?
What are the import duties of asian countries, compared to australian countries?
Real free trade can only work where all countries concerned have just that real free trade (like singapore or HK), otherwise one country ends up directly or indirectly subsidising another country. And in the long term this never works out.

By: mike

mike — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 16:43:42 +0000

...a general motors truck factory is closing in my locacality...they gave the workers "the boot"...but hold on a minute...they want to unbolt the machinery from the floor and liquidate the place...no..no...please don't go.....they're raping the land....the industrial landscape...better to pay general motors 10 cents on the dollar for the useless crap...and then open a truck factory museum...

By: James Bond

James Bond — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 12:21:48 +0000

The current arrangement of nations and global financial/economic structures is in the process of being put forward as the reason for the problems which almost certainly will escalate in the coming years (stagflation, resource constraints, conflict, etc).

The solution you ask? A new international order (global governmnent or similar) will be proposed. TADA. Guess who will control it? The despots that control todays world. All these crisis are either fake or by design.

By: William Stewart

William Stewart — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 13:16:02 +0000

It's really nice to hear talking about Lord Rees-Mogg. The Great Reckoning, and The Sovereign Individual, or two of my favourite non-fiction books. I imagine as you get older you calm down a lot, and move from intelligence and smarts, to wisdom. It's something I'm looking forward to in old age.

By: Chris in Bronte

Chris in Bronte — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 00:58:21 +0000

Globalisation (aka greater free trade) has accelerated in parallel with the rise of the Internet. Together they shift value between classes and countries on a frightening scale. Never before in history have so few controlled so much power over so many.

I hear romantic talk of globalisation as "creating wealth for the world's poor" ... I beg to differ. Much more frequently, it shifts wealth to people who can arbitrage between pricing in different markets. That is, buy cheap in one market, and sell it for more in another. Such as cheaper unregulated labour in China, displaces Aussie workers. This is not genuinely "creating" anything, other than to enrich one at the massive cost of others.

It looks to me like we are exporting our middle class to Asia, while importing their poverty classes; meanwhile our rich Masters of capital manipulate markets to corral an ever increasing portion of the wealth. Who is looking after the "community of common purpose" that such cancerous behavior hollows out?

I'd vote for seriously rolling back the boundaries on global trade - it is more important to me that I live in a community that cares about one another, and provides the jobs and an endowment for the next generation, just we received. I can live with a lower rate of growth in my stock portfolio or lower salary increases for the sake of stronger harmony (and happiness) at home!

The fact remains: once above $50,000 in annual income, people are no happier. But if we struggle, everything falls apart and we turn on one another. Look no further than South Africa and Brazil, for the horrible effects of grossly inequitable wealth spread and poor employment prospects.

Could this be us in 10 years?