Thread: Globalization - Good or Bad?

Globalization - Good or Bad?

Well, it’s been helpful in making a wider range of products available to the masses, but undermined specialist products, by exposing cheap copies in places where labour costs are lower.

The UK moved away from a manufacturing base, when steel and the automotive business was undercut by cheap foreign imports. The UK workforce lost its reputation for reliability at the same time, which only allowed the government to close it down or sell it off.

The increased travel and wider business opportunities was booming before Covid-19 intervened. Maybe that was no bad thing?

Manufacturing giants like China will eventually run out of cheap labour, and the intellectual property rights and product quality will always be questioned.

Will the service sector, knowledge and trust just become the new global. Perhaps cyber crime and hacking will continue to rise?

Airlines have already made adaptations from passengers to freight, due to the pandemic. Will they find freight packages less troublesome than people?

Is currency regulation the answer, or will that just drive illegal finance further underground.

It can be a struggle to make sense of it all. What do you think?

Good if conducted under a level playing field.
A big if, not possible under the current political environment IMO

The business world just keeps setting the bar lower. They've gone from malaysia to korea and taiwan to china and india to pakistan and bangladesh. Africa is the only place left. Yes I realise the yanks are doing the rounds in South America. Once they've finished there that only leaves Canada. Australian business is the same although they normally go to Asia via New Zealand.

This form of globalism under Bretton Woods 2 where trade never balances and currencies are perpetually controlled by governments is terrible.

Life expectancy in the US fell for 3 years before the pandemic. The birth rate fell for years before the pandemic too. But ain't hyper globalism working.

It was better when the world was divided into 2 main economic blocs. East and west.

Originally Posted by OhOh

It is better to rid the world of the "us and them" mentality. More integration and multinational businesses investing sensibly, where the opportunity for all to create value sustainably, has to be the goal.

The current supply chain problems are self-induced, laws, inability to manage ports efficiently, speculators, are being experienced mostly in one city, state, country. Blame the world or the lack of one administration's capability to deliver the known issues.

.

Except thats not what we have. There used to be some mutual respect between the USSR and the US when the world was "divided". There is zero respect between the US, Russia and China now. So what was the point in all of this hyper globalist trade anyway ? We are trying to get in wars with Russia and China still anyway. The idea that trade was going to prevent wars failed.

A world focused with 2 regional trade zones with global trade on the outer margins would be a more efficient than this hyper globalist nonsense

Originally Posted by OhOh

Nobody forced any purchaser to buy from anywhere

That is not true. Economic considerations and availability forces people to buy what they can afford, an or is available to them.

Originally Posted by Hugh Cow

Australian business is the same although they normally go to Asia via New Zealand.

Similar to migrants coming to NZ, getting PR and then moving to Australia.


Like anything, unfettered globalism isn't desirable but is inevitable. Want customers for your products? Employ them to give them purchasing power. It starts off locally, then regionally and then spreads globally.

Food and Product miles i think will become a bigger thing in the future and i can see a time when tax is applied to the Carbon footprint of the product / distance its travelled from source to market, as a means to drive product sourcing closer to home and reduce carbon.

Warning: Be cautious if you are a fragile pink

Originally Posted by OhOh

Some sellers are, shall we say, "economical with the truth" purposely, when stating where manufactured.

Yes, the chinkies fake everything.

But that is the buyers countries regulatory responsibility and duty to enforce.

Is it fuck, the chinkies should be clamping down on fake goods.

Originally Posted by Backspin

the point in all of this hyper globalist trade anywa

Free market capitalism. Some manage it well, others ....

Demand = opportunity = jobs = wealth = happy citizens

¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥

Originally Posted by Buckaroo Banzai

forces people

Nobody forced people to upgrade their car, coffee maker, flat, squeeze ....

Originally Posted by Buckaroo Banzai

buy what they can afford

If one can't afford something, cash or credit, solution: don't buy.

Originally Posted by Buckaroo Banzai

is available to them.

Certain countries do place sanctions on what their citizens can purchase and from who, solution: don't sanction.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

the chinkies should be clamping down on fake goods

Sold as ordered/to the spec requested, to a willing buyer.

How the willing buyer sells it on, lie, "misspeak" in their advertising, delivery time, is their responsibility.

Originally Posted by malmomike77

/ distance its travelled from source to market, as a means to drive product sourcing closer to home and reduce carbon.

Only food from your back garden.

Internal "distribution". Suitable to produce in your microclimate, out of season ....

Greta will be speechless.

^ also water consumption. The UK and many EU countries import food from Africa et al, no account is taken of the toll on local environmental impacts so long as they can get their green beans out of season and flown to the supermarket shelves. Much like EU fleets plundering local fish stock around the African coast - no account of sustainability of local stocks.

Originally Posted by malmomike77

/ distance its travelled from source to market, as a means to drive product sourcing closer to home and reduce carbon.

Only food from your back garden.

Internal "distribution". Suitable to produce in your microclimate, out of season ....

Greta will be speechless.

Will the tax be adjusted to the market or forced on all countries at the same rate?

To some a ฿10 difference is a go/no go point.

To others, a ฿1,000,000,000 is a rounding error.

^^ you are assuming a globally aligned tax?, i think individual countries will tread their own paths, at least initially. An unintended consequence of globalisation is shifting the environmental impact of consumerism to the many 3rd world countries. The West is largely responsible and needs to be held to account and if that means paying more for local goods to be produced, not having shelves rammed with every conceivable thing you do or don't need or paying a surcharge for ensuring the products sourced from abroad are produced environmentally and safely then so be it.

Originally Posted by malmomike77

^ also water consumption. The UK and many EU countries import food from Africa et al, no account is taken of the toll on local environmental impacts so long as they can get their green beans out of season and flown to the supermarket shelves. Much like EU fleets plundering local fish stock around the African coast - no account of sustainability of local stocks.

They're fighting with the chinkies for what fish are left. The chinkies have the advantage because, thanks to "Belt & Owed" they can get right into territorial waters and siphon off everything.

The EU is finally realising the EU zone fisheries and their quotas are unsustainable, the Germans are pushing for a full revision and lets hope it happens before the North Sea and surrounding stock levels crash like the herring did around the UK in the early c20th. I am hoping the UK bans dredgers and factory ships, allocates more nursery areas and reduces methods with bi-catches which under the disastrous EU Fisheries policy are still allowed.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

should be made to pay for extra testing and validation required to remove their fake shit

The buyers take delivery of all their purchases untested eh.

Insert a clause in the contract for testing, most companies sell their products with some form of guaranty/fit for purpose/to specification. A % of returns/replacements is allowed for in their prices, very few achieve 100%. "Friday afternoon cars" etc.

It's called wastage.

Sight unseen, no warranty is a risk some may want to take, to the detriment of their own customers. But they do get a "great deal".

Buy from a dealer that has a reputation to lose is my advice. Works here at the village markets.

Originally Posted by malmomike77

environmentally and safely

Who sets the standards, the crop grower, the seed supplier, the fertiliser supplier?

Generally many producers want to keep their reputation and demand certain assurances. Car manufacturers buy many of their parts from suppliers, their tyres from tyre manufacturers, who buy their rubber from plantation owners. All are certified in some way.

If you are content with utilising uncertified components, because they are cheaper, so be it.

^ good Lord, i merely am suggesting a way things could pan out, happy for you to rinse through all the economics and write a thesis OhOh, a walk back on globalisation won't impact the Chinks immediately

Originally Posted by Switch

Globalization - Good or Bad?

Well, it’s been helpful in making a wider range of pros available to the asses

Well for globetrotting knob jockeys yes

For xenophobes Little Fingerlanders No

Originally Posted by OhOh

Who sets the standards, the crop grower, the seed supplier, the fertiliser supplier?

certainly not the Chinks

Originally Posted by OhOh

If one can't afford something, cash or credit, solution: don't buy.

That's true,
but I was replying to a post about where to buy or not to, not how.

Originally Posted by OhOh

Free market capitalism. Some manage it well, others ....

Demand = opportunity = jobs = wealth = happy citizens

¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥


Nobody forced people to upgrade their car, coffee maker, flat, squeeze ....


If one can't afford something, cash or credit, solution: don't buy.


Certain countries do place sanctions on what their citizens can purchase and from who, solution: don't sanction.

So government controlled currencies and government controlled interest rates are free market capitalism ? No.

I think China would have done just as good and have a more sustainable economy if it built an Eastern trade bloc instead of jumping in bed with the US under hyper globalism