Globalism: power, politics and the world economy

[Smurf1976]

If the cost of lifting 100’s of millions of people out of poverty was some structural changes that caused some sectors in the western worlds economy to die of, then I think on par it’s a fair price.

To a point sure but we've gone way beyond that in practice.

Buying T-shirts, shoes and kids toys from an assortment of countries overseas sure, no problem, that seems like a perfectly reasonable way to help them develop.

Being in a position where others have effective control over our food production, transport, key industries and military is however an incredibly vulnerable position to be in.

Dependency in any situation is the enabler of abuse. Once you're dependent, you're in danger should the relationship turn sour and there's always the chance of that occurring. Examine any case of abuse and that is the common link. Someone who is not dependent might become a one-off victim of a bad situation but ultimately they can walk away. Versus someone who is dependent and thus trapped, enduring ongoing abuse simply due to the lack of any real options.

It's one thing to help develop whatever country. As a concept that's a good idea yes. It's another thing entirely to lose control of our own which is what we've now done.

In practical terms going forward, we have a situation of resource scarcity relative to demand and with China in particular having secured supplies off market, thus ensuring that all scarcity manifests in the West only. Hence Russia has absolutely no concerns about losing the EU as a customer for oil, gas or anything else and nor is Afghanistan, Iran, Venezuela or anyone else too worried right now either. As the West is about to find out, those USD can't actually be exchanged for what isn't for sale.

Financially well that points to commodities and it points to war. Invest accordingly.

 

[Value Collector]

To a point sure but we've gone way beyond that in practice.

Buying T-shirts, shoes and kids toys from an assortment of countries overseas sure, no problem, that seems like a perfectly reasonable way to help them develop.

Being in a position where others have effective control over our food production, transport, key industries and military is however an incredibly vulnerable position to be in.

Dependency in any situation is the enabler of abuse. Once you're dependent, you're in danger should the relationship turn sour and there's always the chance of that occurring. Examine any case of abuse and that is the common link. Someone who is not dependent might become a one-off victim of a bad situation but ultimately they can walk away. Versus someone who is dependent and thus trapped, enduring ongoing abuse simply due to the lack of any real options.

It's one thing to help develop whatever country. As a concept that's a good idea yes. It's another thing entirely to lose control of our own which is what we've now done.

In practical terms going forward, we have a situation of resource scarcity relative to demand and with China in particular having secured supplies off market, thus ensuring that all scarcity manifests in the West only. Hence Russia has absolutely no concerns about losing the EU as a customer for oil, gas or anything else and nor is Afghanistan, Iran, Venezuela or anyone else too worried right now either. As the West is about to find out, those USD can't actually be exchanged for what isn't for sale.

Financially well that points to commodities and it points to war. Invest accordingly.

I want the world to be so interdependent on each other that conflict seems totally irrational

 

[divs4ever]

Financially well that points to commodities and it points to war. Invest accordingly.

sadly , i agree , and even more sadly history backs your theory

 

[Value Collector]

unless you are one of those poor peasants that used to work on a car assembly line , or an an oil refinery in Australia , and there is some chance those 'lifted out of poverty ' Asians , aren't that far from the ugly shadow of entrenched poverty even now

and Japan ( with Abenomics ) proved cash balance abnormalities as long as they are contained in the national economies are only notional issues

and i am not so sure those 'structural changes in the West ' have been a good outcome ( either in the West or globally , not that Colonial Europe was any sort of high-water mark )

Those poor western peasants will do fine even if they just went on the dole, where as it wasn’t that long ago that people in China were literally in famine.

 

[divs4ever]

I want the world to be so interdependent on each other that conflict seems totally irrational

that doesn't work , there will always be some conflict OR no initiative to improve and we just waste away in idealistic dreams

 

[divs4ever]

Those poor western peasants will do fine even if they just went on the dole, where as it wasn’t that long ago that people in China were literally in famine.

but back then nations ( like Australia and Canada ) were partially self-reliant , and we have more 'entitled snowflakes ' now as well

BTW the dole isn't the paradise it seems ask Adam Bandt ( and he rode a bicycle )

 

[Smurf1976]

I want the world to be so interdependent on each other that conflict seems totally irrational

Trouble is, that only works if both sides do it, it fails completely if only one side is dependent.

Going forward, what are Russia, China or their allies actually going to need from the West?

And what does the West need from them?

By securing commodity supplies from "friendly" countries and at the same time securing a market for its manufactured goods, China's simply removing any real need for it or allies to trade with the West. On the other side of that, the West needs to import rather a lot of things from those countries, notably hydrocarbons and a vast range of manufactured goods. That's a lopsided relationship that's not even remotely close to balanced.

 

[divs4ever]

Trouble is, that only works if both sides do it, it fails completely if only one side is dependent.

Going forward, what are Russia, China or their allies actually going to need from the West?

And what does the West need from them?

if the Russian-Asian residents don't demand the 'finest ' products ( read most expensive ) , not a lot , Russia/China/South East Asia/India make almost everything between them , now sure some lack refinements , bells'n'whistles , but a lot of the stuff will get the task done , often the trade-off is a cheap price in exchange for a less durable product ( but not always so )

the West NEEDS stuff cheap because they have piled up the debt ( and can't seem to make it locally )

and sanctioning quality imports into Russia ( and China ) is like shooting yourself in the knee with a shotgun ( the stuff you can sell the easiest you are refusing to sell )

 

[Value Collector]

but back then nations ( like Australia and Canada ) were partially self-reliant , and we have more 'entitled snowflakes ' now as well

BTW the dole isn't the paradise it seems ask Adam Bandt ( and he rode a bicycle )

The dole isn’t paradise, but it sure beats famine in a third world nation.

If it was a choice between being poor in Australia or poor in a country that has real poverty, give me the Centrelink check any day, at least I can mow lawns or some thing else.

 

[Dona Ferentes]

Remember the concept of the Third World? Because in between it and the First was the Second World, comprising the centrally organised, centrally controlled nations, (command economies) usually described as communist. Some may have nostalgia for those days but the inefficiencies of such rigidity, let alone the greed and hypocrisy of the nomenklatura doomed them.

Then along came win-win which is a self-evident bit of nonsense. Other trends have been urbanisation, the development of megacities, a distancing from production to consumption (food and goods) and the atomising of society. A breakdown of clans, of extended families, and then of the nuclear family itself. These are often inter-related.

Of course Adam Bandt isn't going to cope, thinking he can do it alone ("No man is an island" ) . Somehow, believing in the tooth fairy doesn't cut it. Expecting the gummint to provide* diminishes service quality and efficiency to a base level.

*See Second World stupidity

 

[Value Collector]

Remember the concept of the Third World? Because in between it and the First was the Second World, comprising the centrally organised, centrally controlled nations, (command economies) usually described as communist. Some may have nostalgia for those days but the inefficiencies of such rigidity, let alone the greed and hypocrisy of the nomenklatura doomed them.

Then along came win-win which is a self-evident bit of nonsense. Other trends have been urbanisation, the development of megacities, a distancing from production to consumption (food and goods) and the atomising of society. A breakdown of clans, of extended families, and then of the nuclear family itself. These are often inter-related.

Of course Adam Bandt isn't going to cope, thinking he can do it alone ("No man is an island" ) . Somehow, believing in the tooth fairy doesn't cut it. Expecting the gummint to provide* diminishes service quality and efficiency to a base level.

*See Second World stupidity

The book “Factfullness” is a really great book if you are interested in the topic of human society development, it breaks through a lot of the myths and misnomers.

I highly recommend it.