Investors must prepare their portfolios for the end of globalisation.

martinsurrey

Conrad wrote: »

The days of China flooding markets with cheap tat, but buying very little from others, are coming to an end.

so are we going to make our own cheap tat?

UK people working in UK tat factories molding the latest tat, which will then be more expensive for the purchasers of said tat (the reason its made abroad in the first place)?

or will there just be less tat available to buy, meaning tat lovers everywhere will go tatless?

Linton

AFF8879 wrote: »

I've always thought of it as more of a cultural concept; the erosion of national cultures into one hybrid culture comprised of the best elements of each. Almost a natural selection of cultures.
....

Globalisation starts off with free trade. This when coupled with technology provides economies of scale which make it highly efficient to have a relatively small number of highly automated manufacturing plants creating goods for a world market. Manufacturing itself becomes globalised as components and people are sourced from around the world. As far as global manufacturing is concerned the nation state becomes an increasing irrelevance that gets in the way of further efficiencies.

People follow trade, and with people come culture.

In my view Mexican walls and trade barriers will result in a lower standard of living for everyone, particularly for smaller countries, as there ceases to be a home market of the size required to benefit from the economies of scale that global manufacturing provides.

One to one trade deals wont provide a solution. If country A has deals with countries B and C how can B and C have complete freedom to arrange a deal amongst themselves? B can take advantage of C's advantageous relationship with A to avoid contraints imposed by its relationship. It makes much more sense or even a necessity for A, B and C to arrange a common trade environment. And so eventually we return to where we were.

So the sensible conclusion it seems to me is that we need to sort out how to live with globalisation, not stop it. Trying to stop the forces of economics and technology didnt get very far in the first industrial revolution when the mills and steam engines impoverished the skilled hand weavers and spinners.

padington

The only answer for our native youth is to build an army of coders, engineers and entertainment profesionals and relevent support workers for these workers. If schools cant teach these subjects everywhere, we are toast whatever we do. Student loans for these subjects also need to be very generous.

Everything else is moving deckchairs.

We can either own the network of doctors or teachers, work for the network or let the network export these jobs to overseas workers.

I know what i would chose.

Making rukes such as massive hologram or immigration contols tax to protect teachers being outsourced is missing the point. We need to make the hologram networks.

Conrad

50% of Americans earn less than in 1999.


Vast swathes of America were run down, jobs off shored, creating a mass of people without hope or dignity.


A similar discord is found in Britain, France and elsewhere. The current model of capitalism is broken and must and will be rapidly evolved.


I'm more than happy to be on the contrarian edge once more and watch the rear view mirror gazers get up-ticks, slapping one another's backs in the consensual echo-chamber where change is shunned and ridiculed.


Change never comes from those satisfied with a current scene. 'Liberal' consensus echo-chamber dwellers seem last to know the reasons for mass of the population are dis-satisfied.




Cannot wait to see what they make of the big changes coming to Europe this year.

davomcdave

padington wrote: »

The only answer for our native youth is to build an army of coders, engineers and entertainers and relevent support workers for these proffesions. If schools dont have teachers in these subjects everywhere, we are toast whatever we do. Student loans for these subjects also need to be very generous.

Everything else is moving deckchairs.

Will we trade these IT services fairly or unfairly? Apparently that's very important and we're going to have someone that decides that sort of thing. Or maybe we won't be able to trade IT services at all so we would be better off training our brightest and best to be potato farmers.

I admit I am very confused about what happens to trade now that globalisation has officially ended, although trade continues unabated apart from where it is abated. I'm sure someone will be along to explain it soon.

Conrad

Linton wrote: »

One to one trade deals wont provide a solution. If country A has deals with countries B and C how can B and C have complete freedom to arrange a deal amongst themselves? B can take advantage of C's advantageous relationship with A to avoid contraints imposed by its relationship. It makes much more sense or even a necessity for A, B and C to arrange a common trade environment. And so eventually we return to where we were.

Your favoured model is that taught 30 years ago, we're moving on from it. Cannot believe people are wedded to this tired broken model.


There's a reason bi-lateral deals are made FAR more swiftly and generally turn out far more satisfactory than deals made with great lumbering blocs with diverse demands.


Are you familiar with the reasons EU trade deal take so long and often fail?

davomcdave

Conrad wrote: »

50% of Americans earn less than in 1999.

Are they the ones that died or retired in the 18 years between then and now? As a working life is at most 50 years then well over a third of people working in 1999 would have died or retired.

Linton

Conrad wrote: »

50% of Americans earn less than in 1999.


Vast swathes of America were run down, jobs off shored, creating a mass of people without hope or dignity.


A similar discord is found in Britain, France and elsewhere. The current model of capitalism is broken and must and will be rapidly evolved.


I'm more than happy to be on the contrarian edge once more and watch the rear view mirror gazers get up-ticks.


Change never comes from those satisfied with a current scene.

Yup - its not too different to what happened in the first industrial revolution. A change in technology precipitated enormous changes in economics creating capitalism in a form that lasted 200 years. Large numbers of people moved from their previous occupation and homes as peasant farm labourers in the countryside where their ancestors had lived for centuries to a hard life in atrocious conditions in the new cities. The old ruling landed gentry was swept aside.

I believe we are approaching a similar step change now. My suspicion is that the current form of autonomous nation state has outlived its economic usefulness. In many cases it's too small to be economically viable yet too large to provide a full sense of belonging and ownership to its inhabitants. I await the new order with interest, but what it will be I have no idea. Whatever happens I cant see it being Trump and Farage.

steampowered

I'm a bit curious as to why you deride "old fashioned socialism" and yet in the same sentence call for "Economic nationalism". Its pretty much the same thing.

Either you believe in free market capitalism or you don't.

You evidently don't.

I also find it strange that you call for "Economic nationalism" and then use a foreign company (Lockheed Martin) as your example.

Linton

Conrad wrote: »

Your favoured model is that taught 30 years ago, we're moving on from it. Cannot believe people are wedded to this tired broken model.


There's a reason bi-lateral deals are made FAR more swiftly and generally turn out far more satisfactory than deals made with great lumbering blocs with diverse demands.


Are you familiar with the reasons EU trade deal take so long and often fail?

Can you give me an example of a bi-lateral deal?

These days trade deals between advanced countries become meaningless unless they tackle non-tariff barriers. This is where the sticking points lie. For example will the UK population accept the inevitable demand from the US that we accept their agricultural exports - GM and industrialised farming on a grand scale? What about commonality of standards? To have real free trade in particular goods both sides need to agree compatible manufacturing and safety standards. Then you have problems of onward shipment. What is to stop a country with whom the UK may have a trade deal (China? Iran?) using the UK as a way of avoiding Trump's trade barriers? I think I read recently that Australia would want to discuss easy movement of people as part of their trade deal discussions with the UK.

If it is to mean very much a bilateral trade deal wont just be a matter of agreeing not to charge duty on each others exports.