globalization ending

AlpinLuke

Forum Staff
Oct 2011
27,360
Italy, Lago Maggiore
From a perspective of market economy the problem related with outsourcing is that we outsource production to countries where there is no democracy. Why have we to outsource? Because here workers cost "too much" for simple productions. And why do they cost "too much"? Democracy ... they vote and their votes count.

In China the vote of the citizen doesn't count. So that Chinese politicians will simply govern the cost of the workers without a great interest in their wishes and desires about their own future.

The matter is different in India. I work for an Italian corporation which imports from India and from China as well: it's different. It's more expensive now to import from India than from China, because India is a developing Republic. I can imagine that in a not far future Indian corporations will import from China and Vietnam ...

In other words, an other problem for an eventual "global village" is that in a large part of the planet the market is not free. A Chinese worker, according to market rules, should gain really more money than what he/she gains in reality. But in China market rules are "politically managed" ... so that they are no more market rules ...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tammuz
Oct 2012
856
stagnation and ban of changes in whatever direction.

that's what propaganda says, but they tell lies, for there ain't no thing inevitable or impossible to prevent.
Do you have any historic examples where stagnation and bans have prevented change?
 
Aug 2016
960
moscow, russia.
I am not sure they did. And even if they did, they changed eventually.
because 'eventually' we all die, so this does not count...

incidentally, the 19th century was not much of change as compared to 20th century.

the aggressively promoted agenda of 'change' has only begun some 50 years ago...
 

VHS

Ad Honorem
Dec 2015
4,733
Florania
Reasonable enough an assessment. The real challenge about economics seems to be that comparative advantages re the cost of production are very real, so outsourcing production does increase overall wealth, and high-income economies hypothetically competing over production with wages with low income ones only means impoverishment and a race to the bottom. It's why isolationism and re-nationalization of economies aren't really ways to become economically successful. It's still however why a high-regulation economy like the EU Common Market works. Politics are necessary for redistribution, to insulate the common citizens from the worst possible ill effects, preferably also actively providing opportunities for improvement (which benefits society at large as well). Everyone has to move fast and restructure. Size helps a lot, but won't do squat without solidarity within society.

Part of what populism and nationalism has latched on to isn't just about economics. It's about a sense of general displacement, which in some ways are harder to deal with. (All that is solid, melts into air... kind of feeling.) There is a need for reboots, new social contracts, and sense of purpose – again meaningful politics. And it can't really be done on residual neo-con economism, as handed down from the US and UK of the 1980's. But it's the nature of populism that it presents simple solutions to real problems, that are no real solutions, so eventually it become necessary to find someone to blame for it not working... And nationalism is the last refuge of the scoundrel.

The rich not paying enough tax and the direct decline of national solidarity (with the rich) are major problems here.
In Basic Economics, Thomas Sowell complaint that the average populace does not understand basic economics, how much truth did he convey?
 
Oct 2012
856
because 'eventually' we all die, so this does not count...

incidentally, the 19th century was not much of change as compared to 20th century.

the aggressively promoted agenda of 'change' has only begun some 50 years ago...
So? Does this count then...
"that's what propaganda says, but they tell lies, for there ain't no thing inevitable or impossible to prevent."