Remember the damage the idiot Tories did to Britain via BREXIT? Yeah, that. A coördinated deglobalization effort will do that to the world. And, whether the world a a whole falls into that trap or...
Globalisation in the strong sense of a single rules-based world order is already dead, replaced by a complicated trade topology rather different from the old days of competing blocs. For example, Europe has almost completely broken with Russia and that will process will continue, even with a ceasefire in Ukraine. None of the European firms that have been effectively expropriated will go back, and the continuing exports of LNG and uranium will be cut off. But Russia and Europe will both deal with China and India.
Where the US fits into this remains to be seen. Easy to imagine a cycle of tariff, tax and regulatory retaliation ending in something close to autarky.
It's pretty clear, for example, that any business that wants to operate in the US will have to engage in large-scale bribery which is a criminal offence in most OECD countries. Presumably this will be overlooked as long as possible, but that may not be long enough.
Mr. DeLong has once again delivered an excellent overview of some complex issues. As I have argued in the past, the American political establishment abandoned those areas most impacted by globalization and challenges brought about by climate change. Moving away from fossil fuels is a direct response to climate change, but not providing for those who have lost their well-paying jobs was very short-sighted. The same problems occurred in the moves toward cheaper consumer products, but there were no thoughts on replacing the lost jobs. The emphasis in America is always on making money. Still, this preoccupation won't be successful when we confront dictators who only want more power and need to divert their populations' thoughts away from a lack of consumer goods to thoughts of wars with their "enemies." Mr. Biden recognized the problem of jobs, but instead of creating programs that only created jobs, he tried to be all things to all people. Consequently, his objectives suffered from what the military calls "mission creep." Engineers have a solution to this type of thinking. They call it the "KISS" principle - keep it simple, stupid. We need to create well-paying jobs in green energy and other forms of technology, but first, we need to make changes to our educational systems. We need trade schools to teach people how to install and repair the products made possible by new technologies. We must revamp our tax codes to make taxation more fair and provide the government with the resources it needs to accomplish these goals. The nature of warfare is changing, with an emphasis on unmanned small machines versus large-scale armies with tanks and battleships. The success of the Houthi in Yemen against international shipping is a good example of modern warfare. A small group of people with little technological training is defeating our ability to prevent additional naval attacks. Judging by the results of our last election, the American public has been tricked into believing our enemies are illegal immigrants and people of a different sexually. The reality is the enemy is our collective inability to see how the world has changed and our lack of an adequate response to these new conditions.
I upvoted this, but I have some disagreements. First, you don't specify a time frame, not on either end. For example, the hollowing out of American manufacturing seems plausibly to have begun under Reagan because of the high dollar. Perhaps more important, the Rs successfully blamed the Dems for the problem and shifted the attention of affected voters to racial and social issues. We see this same dynamic today with MAGA.
Second, you don't specify a future time frame in which globalization might recover from the destruction caused by the second Trump regime. The historical evidence is that countries are willing to pay a severe economic price in return for adherence to the "correct" social order: think of Brexit today or the South under Jim Crow. Gains that voters never see are invisible. The social order is not.
Third, Trump's attack on globalization is likely to act synergistically with his "America First" nonsense. Security will become a greater issue once he wrecks the post-WWII order, and "friend-shoring" will be hard to accomplish in the absence of, well, friends.
Fourth, global warming is likely to put increased stress on any global trade network because refugee crises are likely to reinforce a "pull up the ladders" mentality. The ethnonationalism goes hand in hand with isolationism. It's extremely difficult to break that mutually reinforcing downward spiral.
But who knows? My visualization of the Cosmic All is surely incomplete, and predictions are hard, especially about the future.
I wish to protest the failure to highlight that by running secular fiscal deficits the US exacerbated the effects of a) China's entry into global economy and b) reduction of costs of internatinal transportation and communications, both of which although positive in the aggregate, bore on midlevel manufacturing jobs becasue of the Stopper-Samuelson effect. I would argue that reductions in barriers to imports played very little part in these developments.
Deficits were detrimental both becasue they shifted relative prices against tradable goods but also becasue they were driven by taxing and spending patterns that in effect shifted resources from investment to consumption, slowing growth and reducing opportunities for those displaced by the a and b to find better alternatives. This was further exacerbated by the tendency of US trade negotiators to prioritize opening foreign markets to US agriculture and IP exports over manufactured exports. With this exception, I would argue that trade policy, specifically reductions in barriers to imports, played very little part in these developments.
These factors came spectacularly to a head during the 2008 financial crisis and following decade of slow growth produced by the failure of the Fed to maintain inflation and inflation expectations firmly on target.
"The vagueness of potential threats combined with the high stakes encouraged panic, with governments under pressure to Anti-globalization protest in the Philippines. 22 The Milken Institute Review support information-technological development along a very broad front."
It looks like an image was left out or a rogue caption escaped.
Globalisation in the strong sense of a single rules-based world order is already dead, replaced by a complicated trade topology rather different from the old days of competing blocs. For example, Europe has almost completely broken with Russia and that will process will continue, even with a ceasefire in Ukraine. None of the European firms that have been effectively expropriated will go back, and the continuing exports of LNG and uranium will be cut off. But Russia and Europe will both deal with China and India.
Where the US fits into this remains to be seen. Easy to imagine a cycle of tariff, tax and regulatory retaliation ending in something close to autarky.
It's pretty clear, for example, that any business that wants to operate in the US will have to engage in large-scale bribery which is a criminal offence in most OECD countries. Presumably this will be overlooked as long as possible, but that may not be long enough.
Mr. DeLong has once again delivered an excellent overview of some complex issues. As I have argued in the past, the American political establishment abandoned those areas most impacted by globalization and challenges brought about by climate change. Moving away from fossil fuels is a direct response to climate change, but not providing for those who have lost their well-paying jobs was very short-sighted. The same problems occurred in the moves toward cheaper consumer products, but there were no thoughts on replacing the lost jobs. The emphasis in America is always on making money. Still, this preoccupation won't be successful when we confront dictators who only want more power and need to divert their populations' thoughts away from a lack of consumer goods to thoughts of wars with their "enemies." Mr. Biden recognized the problem of jobs, but instead of creating programs that only created jobs, he tried to be all things to all people. Consequently, his objectives suffered from what the military calls "mission creep." Engineers have a solution to this type of thinking. They call it the "KISS" principle - keep it simple, stupid. We need to create well-paying jobs in green energy and other forms of technology, but first, we need to make changes to our educational systems. We need trade schools to teach people how to install and repair the products made possible by new technologies. We must revamp our tax codes to make taxation more fair and provide the government with the resources it needs to accomplish these goals. The nature of warfare is changing, with an emphasis on unmanned small machines versus large-scale armies with tanks and battleships. The success of the Houthi in Yemen against international shipping is a good example of modern warfare. A small group of people with little technological training is defeating our ability to prevent additional naval attacks. Judging by the results of our last election, the American public has been tricked into believing our enemies are illegal immigrants and people of a different sexually. The reality is the enemy is our collective inability to see how the world has changed and our lack of an adequate response to these new conditions.
I upvoted this, but I have some disagreements. First, you don't specify a time frame, not on either end. For example, the hollowing out of American manufacturing seems plausibly to have begun under Reagan because of the high dollar. Perhaps more important, the Rs successfully blamed the Dems for the problem and shifted the attention of affected voters to racial and social issues. We see this same dynamic today with MAGA.
Second, you don't specify a future time frame in which globalization might recover from the destruction caused by the second Trump regime. The historical evidence is that countries are willing to pay a severe economic price in return for adherence to the "correct" social order: think of Brexit today or the South under Jim Crow. Gains that voters never see are invisible. The social order is not.
Third, Trump's attack on globalization is likely to act synergistically with his "America First" nonsense. Security will become a greater issue once he wrecks the post-WWII order, and "friend-shoring" will be hard to accomplish in the absence of, well, friends.
Fourth, global warming is likely to put increased stress on any global trade network because refugee crises are likely to reinforce a "pull up the ladders" mentality. The ethnonationalism goes hand in hand with isolationism. It's extremely difficult to break that mutually reinforcing downward spiral.
But who knows? My visualization of the Cosmic All is surely incomplete, and predictions are hard, especially about the future.
Especially the part about the effects of the deficit-created "strong" dollar.
I wish to protest the failure to highlight that by running secular fiscal deficits the US exacerbated the effects of a) China's entry into global economy and b) reduction of costs of internatinal transportation and communications, both of which although positive in the aggregate, bore on midlevel manufacturing jobs becasue of the Stopper-Samuelson effect. I would argue that reductions in barriers to imports played very little part in these developments.
Deficits were detrimental both becasue they shifted relative prices against tradable goods but also becasue they were driven by taxing and spending patterns that in effect shifted resources from investment to consumption, slowing growth and reducing opportunities for those displaced by the a and b to find better alternatives. This was further exacerbated by the tendency of US trade negotiators to prioritize opening foreign markets to US agriculture and IP exports over manufactured exports. With this exception, I would argue that trade policy, specifically reductions in barriers to imports, played very little part in these developments.
These factors came spectacularly to a head during the 2008 financial crisis and following decade of slow growth produced by the failure of the Fed to maintain inflation and inflation expectations firmly on target.
Typo hunt:
"The vagueness of potential threats combined with the high stakes encouraged panic, with governments under pressure to Anti-globalization protest in the Philippines. 22 The Milken Institute Review support information-technological development along a very broad front."
It looks like an image was left out or a rogue caption escaped.