9 ms·

Is Covid-19 a Geopolitical Game-Changer?

47 points by jdblair 7y ago

cultus 7y ago
I'm not sure how this will affect the current strategic balance. It's safe to say that China will recover faster, but they are so export-dependent that their economy will still be crippled by global lower demand. However, I think this also shows that large-scale government intervention in the economy is necessary in the current world. Ostensibly free-market economies aren't free anyway, as the Fed continues to show.
- ceilingcorner 7y ago
  > However, I think this also shows that large-scale government intervention in the economy is necessary in the current world. Mostly as a result of large-scale government action. Don't forget that the majority of the economic 'damage' from the coronavirus is from the shutdown, not from the virus itself. If lockdowns were determined on an individual / localized basis, the outcome might have been different.
  - DeepYogurt 7y ago
    > If lockdowns were determined on an individual / localized basis, the outcome might have been different. And medical systems would suffer from a horrific tragedy of the commons
    - dnautics 7y ago
      You don't know that. As California chose to suggest staying at home (it's basically voluntary not even enforced particularly aggressively except for a handful of corner cases) earlier than the rest of the country, proving that decentralized authority can lead to better outcomes. Imagine if California chose to defer to federal authority; a huge chunk of 40 million people would have been put at higher risk.
      - throwaway894345 7y ago
        Do we know that that is the driver of California’s improved outcomes vs (for example) climate? I believe illinois was similarly early (at least relative to its phase of progression if not absolute date) but I believe the outcomes are worse there, certainly on a population adjusted basis. EDIT: Californians, this is a genuine question, not trying to bruise your egos by suggesting suggesting you're perhaps equal to other Americans. Terribly sorry!
        rovolo 7y ago
        > similarly early ... outcomes are worse It takes time to go from infection -> sick -> diagnosis -> death. IL and CA would have had inertia following the stay-at-home proclamations. CA started with 25% daily case growth and has now dropped to 12%, IL started with 40% case growth but has now dropped to 12%. IL's daily death rate increase is still higher than CA, but it is dropping. > population adjusted Population adjustment is much more important for assessing the final outcome. At early stages, the growth rate is far more important for knowing if it's under control. > climate Washington/Seattle had earlier outbreaks than CA, started distancing earlier, and have had a much lower growth than CA. We started at 30% case growth, but brought it down 20% by ~Mar 21 and 10% by Apr 1. I'm using the graphs at 91-divoc for the historical numbers, but I've found NYT to have the best looking graphs for growth rates. 91-divoc.com/pages/covid-visualization/ https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/03/upshot/coronavirus-metro-area-tracker.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/03/upshot/corona...
      - slowmovintarget 7y ago
        We do know that, however, as we keep seeing it. The reason no one can find toilet paper is not because there isn't enough, it's because the public either went nuts mimicking Asian buying (they don't produce TP, they did have a shortage), went nuts overbuying due to the resulting apparent shortage, or went evil trying to take advantage of everyone else by reselling and price gouging. The same thing is happening with food now. Bread yeast that used to go for ~ $8 to $14 a box, can be found now only from resellers trying to charge upwards of $70 for it. In Massachusetts, early action on shelter-at-home, before the order went out, seems to have helped, as it has in California. But in Southern states the common thinking is that this is something that just happens to someone else. It's just the flu. What's horrific about that is that even if New York, for example, succeeds, it could come back anyway because of these folks. They'll know it's denial when reality kills them in the middle of their opinion-touting.
    - swamp40 7y ago
      I don't see any reason for that. Whatever authority locked them down would have to provide adequate resources. Fast local quarantines seems to me like a much better approach.
      - cultus 7y ago
        You're really contracting nearly every public healthcare expert here.
        swamp40 7y ago
        "Global Economic Shutdown with Shelter In Place" is the NEW approach, not fast local quarantines. Fast local quarantines are how we (public healthcare experts) stopped measles, smallpox, polio, etc outbreaks before vaccines were available. And we still use those methods (fast local quarantines) for eradication purposes when they spring up again. Just like our immune system. I'm sure stopping our heart would slow down the disease, but...
        tanjtanjtanj 7y ago
        Is there any way to do this with a disease that can spread for a week before symptoms show when we don't have anywhere near adequate numbers of tests? The issue here is that unlike most other diseases, this one goes from one person somewhere has it to many, many people in many places have it before it can be detected in its original location.
        cultus 7y ago
        Fast local quarantines and such as you are describing are great, if you catch it early. If strong measures are taken before it spreads, it is reasonable to quarantine all sick and people in contact with the sick. Taiwan was able to do this, and has had only minimal cases and minimal disruption. There is community spread basically everywhere now, so it is too late for local measures. It's almost as if people should have been listening to public health experts in January when it was clear where this was heading.
- clairity 7y ago
  > "However, I think this also shows that large-scale government intervention in the economy is necessary in the current world." you've drawn no line between "this" (or even clearly established what it is) and a necessity for "large-scale government intervention" (whatever those may be). state your goal, and then your rationale, rather than making a vague and dogmatic pronouncement. and critique both the current (un-)free market dogma and blind large-scale government intervention, rather than trading one for the other. either extreme will lead to more (liberty-threatening) consolidation of power, not less.
- bayesian_horse 7y ago
  They won't recover faster. I'm not convinced they are even now at the point of recovery! I expect multiple new epidemic waves in China. Or a lot more suppression efforts than we saw already. Corruption isn't helping public health.
  - mcguire 7y ago
    I may be paranoid, and I'm certainly a cynic, but I simply don't believe the epidemic numbers coming from China. Wuhan is huge, densely populated, and there is evidence of human-to-human transmission since the middle of December. The disease has a long incubation period, highish transmissibility, and a large proportion of mild or asymptomatic cases.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
MichaelMoser123 7y ago
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-52104978 https://www.bbc.com/news/business-52104978 i think this analysis on the possible long term effects of this crisis is more usefull. They say that the perceived risk of ordering parts from east asia is now much higher and that they will likely prefer local producers because of that perceived risk. (don't know if that is practical, as things nowadays are much more specialized)
- SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
  I don't really follow the perception though. It doesn't seem like the globalized supply chain has actually been hit by the pandemic - travel restrictions have universally exempted trade.
  - ping_pong 7y ago
    Globalized supply chains have been devastated by the pandemic. Large numbers of shippers are projected to go bankrupt because their loads have plummetted.
    - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
      All supply chains have been devastated. The question is whether globalized supply chains are doing worse than local ones.
      - MichaelMoser123 7y ago
        i guess it now depends on each government - is a state able and willing to prop up its industry in times of crisis or not?
      - ping_pong 7y ago
        That goes in direct contradiction to what you just said above. Either global supply chains are devastated or they are not. You very clearly said that global supply chains were not hit.
larrik 7y ago
> the election of Mr. Biden to the White House is not impossible As nice and warm and fuzzy it may be to believe that the Democrats regaining the White House would solve/help these issues, I doubt there'd be much of a difference. There weren't exactly huge top-down changes between Bush, Clinton, Bush 2, and Obama.
- mschuster91 7y ago
  > There weren't exactly huge top-down changes between Bush, Clinton, Bush 2, and Obama. But at least neither of the four essentially tanked US international relations with allies like Trump did, by essentially dismantling American influence everywhere from the UN to long-time allies such as Europe, South Korea or the Kurds. Another four years with Trump and the once "leader of the free world" will be no leader any more.
  - swamp40 7y ago
    "allies"
    - bayesian_horse 7y ago
      You know, those people who followed the US into Afghanistan when you invoked Article 5 of the NATO treaty for the first time in history...
      - swamp40 7y ago
        Besides the US and UK, NATO deaths in Afghanistan were on par with training exercises. But that's not what the parent comment was referring to. Almost every country in the world was taking advantage of the US pre-Trump. As he renegotiates to even the playing field, he is accused of "tanking US international relations". Pure political BS and an old argument that has mostly been disproven by now.
        mschuster91 7y ago
vearwhershuh 7y ago
An elite globalist thinks that more globalism is the answer to issues caused by globalism. OK.
mschuster91 7y ago
Hmm. I would not be so certain for a Chinese rise-up after covid19. If you had asked this question three months ago, no one would have doubted that China was on track to be the dominant world power, given that the Trump presidency trades American dominance for little to no gain (e.g. leaving Paris Accords, retreating out of Iraq/Afghanistan/Kurdistan, while at the same time cozying up with dictators and autocrats like North Korea or Saudi-Arabia), while at the same time China exploits the reduction of Western help in both Africa (where China now provides investment aid / work without the strings that are usually attached to Western aid, like rules of democracy) and Europe itself (where Italy, Greece, Spain and other countries, e.g. Croatia or Serbia, turn to China for financial / logistical assistance as the EU is unwilling to help out thanks to Germany/Austria/Netherlands opposing). Also, China abuses that influence regularly to tune down criticism of e.g. the Muslim Gulags or the Tibet situation, because a trade blockade or stop to supply money is an effective threat that China can make as many countries depend on cheap Chinese labor or money by now. Now with Covid19 however? Many people and many corporations are effectively forced to diversify their supply chains (Apple most famously) or to re-nationalize critical production like ventilators or even mass goods such as masks, gloves and overalls for medical staff; at the same time consumers in most if not all nations will face a massive lack of spending power on goods that are not essential to their survival. Both of this will drastically reduce the dependence of Western (and other) nations on China, and if Corona FINALLY forces Germany and the Netherlands to drop their blockade of Eurobonds then also China won't be needed as financer for poor-er EU countries. On the other side, I would also not bet on the US to rise to fill the void they themselves have left and China will leave, especially if Trump gets reelected (his approval ratings are on record highs for whatever reason). I'd rather expect a further deterioration of international institutions such as the UN and even EU as states will resort to more nationalism and a decent load of chaos in one or two years when there will be vaccinations available and global travel will begin to flow again...
- bayesian_horse 7y ago
  Even before Covid-19 I thought China would soon be hitting some form of glass ceiling. Partly because of things like a virus that gets a head start on an authoritarian, corruption-riddled government. If they had their sh*t together, they would have enforced their ban on "exotic" meat already and the whole episode might never even have started at all. And they also can't get a grip on the African Swine Fever, for similar reasons, which also hampers economic growth. Then there was the Sanlu milk powder scandal. Similar things echo around modern Chinese history. Dishonesty can win in the short run, but it hurts long-term. Lack of openness means corruption, corruption means volatility, volatility limits growth. Yes, they achieved a lot of great things for their people. But without an open and much more honest society they will reach a ceiling. And then there is the threat of some kind of "Economic World War" when the rest of the world has had enough of Human rights violations of Third Reich proportion (Falun Gong, Uighurs, etc) and their unfair trade practices.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
DecoPerson 7y ago
Comparative advantage was an often used debate point by Australian politicians. Unfortunately, only recently have studies on this topic started to mention that some countries exploit what is essentially slave labour, and that they have little regard for environmental consequences. I believe these studies strongly influence our public servants so it’s unfortunate that such important points have not being raised sooner by academics. Higher worker costs, along with other reasons, means the Australian manufacturing industry could not compete in the international market. With import tariffs being steadily reduced since the 70s (from roughly 35% in 1970 to below 5% in 2016), the local industry could not compete against international competitors in the local markets either. Without these protections, all of our car manufacturers have shut down, for example. So, we’re in a situation where the majority of our local manufacturing industry has evaporated. We are dependent on the industries of other countries. This is only made possible by our abundance of in-demand and conveniently-located raw materials. Our exports are mostly oil (33%), unprocessed ores (29%) and uncut gems (7%) (other types of industries don’t come close, with meat next at 4%). This has supported our dollar and given us fifty years of paradise. Clearly, this is not sustainable. Should our goods stop selling, our exporters will be in trouble, our dollar will drop, and our importers (everyone!) will be in trouble. It shouldn’t be necessary, but I hope a silver lining of this recent crisis is that it provokes our politicians into fixing this absurd situation. I do not want to be dependent on the slave-driven & environmentally-damaging industries of other countries.
- blaser-waffle 7y ago
  Replace ore with oil, but otherwise the same story in Canada.
bayesian_horse 7y ago
Short answer: Yes. Before the pandemic I thought Trump has a very little chance to get reelected, and he needed a bigger miracle than last time. That "miracle" might be this pandemic. His support increased slightly, the pandemic might impact voter turnout and the Republicans might find ways of using the pandemic to further increase voter suppression. Four more years under Trump will depress American influence further. I also feared that bad international actors would strike before the election, maybe more than one at a time, recognizing the US is at its weakest point in decades and can only get stronger with a president that can actually read. Examples would be Putin gobbling up territory in eastern Europe, North Korea testing a nuclear bomb or even poking South Korea militarily, Iran reaching the nuclear breakout or Israel launching a unilateral assault to stop it. Now, that might not happen, because all those countries have their hands full...
- war1025 7y ago
  Democrats have failed to field a candidate that is viable, which is Trump's biggest advantage. Biden has been missing in action for weeks at this point. My personal feeling is all the other candidates dropped out too soon.
  - freeone3000 7y ago
    Sanders is still in, and still has 42% of allocated delegates, with more than half of delegates still unallocated. There's still a viable candidate in the race.
    - bayesian_horse 7y ago
      Anyone who calls Sanders more viable than Trump is not interested in a factual discussion. You might like Sanders more than Biden, you might like his politics more. But you aren't entitled to your own facts, and the facts are that Biden has a decisive lead that is almost impossible to catch up. Biden beats Trump in polls by a much larger margin than Sanders. Sanders was not able to motivate a larger voting turnout in the primary elections. There is no basis to call Sanders more viable.
    - 7y ago
scottlocklin 7y ago
What a complete rubbish article. Apparently the three possibilities as an outcome are; 1) Nothing changes, 2) "China's rise is confirmed" (does this even mean anything?) and .... 3) Biden is elected. I'm going to go out on a limb and assert that these three choices do not span the space of possibilities, or even the space of large probabilistic mass for the possibilities, but they may span the space of the acceptable outcomes to the clown who wrote it. Let me propose an alternative 3 possibilities that presently seem more likely: 1) Autarky is recognized as not so bad after all, at least in strategic resources 2) International institutions continue to not matter much in a crisis 3) Someone is elected (I could be wrong about this)
- bayesian_horse 7y ago
  It's a good question whether the Covid-19 crisis is good or bad for Trump. You might say Biden benefits because Trump looks so incompetent. But his voters knew that already. Most of them vote for him because of a singular issue in which they have the minority view: abortion, extreme gun rights and white superiority. To these voters, nothing else matters, even if they were totally aware of Trump's incompetency and corruption. I even think many pretend to not notice that, because they don't want to admit how important their single-issue is to them. In my opinion, Covid-19 will be good for Trump because that is his only chance to get the voter depression he needs to win against an overwhelmingly more popular candidate, according to all the polls.
  - jeffreyrogers 7y ago
    Do you know Trump voters? Your depiction of them seems extremely bigoted and does not reflect the reality I've experienced living in an overwhelming Republican state. Trump's approval rating has been increasing and his disapproval rating decreasing over the course of the Covid-19 pandemic, so your read on the situation does not seem to match reality. While I agree that the handling could be better, I don't think Trump looks that incompetent, especially when compared to other countries' leaders (most of Europe is doing about as badly as the US) and organizations like the CDC (masks don't work), the WHO (closing borders is racist), and the government of New York (encouraging people to go to the movies and restaurants in March). I think your view of Trump is preventing you from getting an accurate read on reality. FYI I'm not a Republican and did not vote for Trump.
mythrwy 7y ago
The consensus is Covid-19 is a naturally occurring rather than engineered virus. Everyone outside of a very small number of radical conspiracy theorists understand this. But here's a dark thought. China has just showed the West if there ever _is_ a biowar, who will likely win.
- mythrwy 7y ago
  Maybe that needs clarification. I don't think anything about this was deliberate. But incidental demonstration is still demonstration.
  - bayesian_horse 7y ago
    Bioweapons are normally not meant to be transmitted human to human on a large scale. It is a popular view that something like Sars viruses would be a good agent, but actually it's not. First: You don't want to infect your own people, especially if your health system is inferior. Containment is impractical. Second: You need to find an agent that satisfies two requirements. It must be able to transmit readily between humans. And it must not have done so already, because that would make most of the potential victims immune. That's basically impossible to achieve.
- AnimalMuppet 7y ago
  "The only way to win is not to play." China certainly did not win. The best they could be thought to have done is "lose less badly". Even that is questionable, depending on how much you believe their statistics.
  - mythrwy 7y ago
    Did they close their whole country to control the spread? Are they mostly open now? Did they have the same rate of infections and deaths (even if they fudge numbers some)? Look, I dislike CCP as much as anyone but I think we need to look at reality so we can be prepared.
    - 7y ago
zcw100 7y ago
The only thing we know is something big happened and it's probably going to have some effect. That's it. It's not like we don't have examples from history to look at. Even with the clarity of hind site can you say what the effect of the AIDS crisis was? Polio? Spanish flu? No we can't. Would things have been different if they hadn't happened other than a lot of people wouldn't be dead? Sure, but how would they have been different? Not so sure. I don't think it's even worth speculating other than knowing that whatever you come up with is probably going to be wrong.
- wenc 7y ago
  I think it's possible to know more than just "there's going to be an effect" from history. 1st order effects (i.e. this happened because of this) are usually quite obvious and observable. For instance, are we going to see remote work becoming more mainstream because of this? I think that is almost a certainty at this point. In simple systems, 1st order effects are dominant. However you're right that in complex systems like geopolitics, the dominant effects are not 1st order, but higher order (2nd, 3rd, 4th order) and those are hard to isolate -- all the effects are mixed. Also, we can't measure the counterfactuals ("what would have happened if...") because they didn't happen! Of course, historians and writers will try to fill in the gaps with their theories and invariably they're going to be wrong to various degrees and still make the NYT Best Seller list. That notwithstanding, we can still learn something (albeit limited) from the 1st order effects that are observable -- it's not all or nothing.
  - zcw100 7y ago
    They aren't obvious and observable other than your defining 1st order effects that way. Remote work becoming more mainstream because of this isn't a certainty at this point. It took a pandemic to get employers to allow it in a large way, why would you assume that once that is gone you're going to keep it? For all you know there will be a backlash and there will be less remote work than before. Did you think you're going to come out of this with more leverage with your employer?
donclark 7y ago
Is Covid-19 a Geopolitical Game-Changer? I hope and pray that this is the case. This may be the best time for us to make a change in the way the world works. Our lives have been disrupted, and we need to strive to make lasting changes for the greater good. The internet, and our world is over-commercialized. The pandemic causing an economic re-evaluation which may be the best opportunity we have to re-evaluate our position. If not, and you think the advertiser/marketer/retail market was invasive before... you aint seen nothing yet. They will need to try every trick in the book x10 - repeatedly, at lighting speed - and invent new tactics to boot. I know, this type of talk makes it seem like the Max Headroom blipverts are the future. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekg45ub8bsk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekg45ub8bsk

47 points by jdblair 7y ago

I'm not sure how this will affect the current strategic balance. It's safe to say that China will recover faster, but they are so export-dependent that their economy will still be crippled by global lower demand. However, I think this also shows that large-scale government intervention in the economy is necessary in the current world. Ostensibly free-market economies aren't free anyway, as the Fed continues to show.

ceilingcorner 7y ago
> However, I think this also shows that large-scale government intervention in the economy is necessary in the current world. Mostly as a result of large-scale government action. Don't forget that the majority of the economic 'damage' from the coronavirus is from the shutdown, not from the virus itself. If lockdowns were determined on an individual / localized basis, the outcome might have been different.
- DeepYogurt 7y ago
  > If lockdowns were determined on an individual / localized basis, the outcome might have been different. And medical systems would suffer from a horrific tragedy of the commons
  - dnautics 7y ago
    You don't know that. As California chose to suggest staying at home (it's basically voluntary not even enforced particularly aggressively except for a handful of corner cases) earlier than the rest of the country, proving that decentralized authority can lead to better outcomes. Imagine if California chose to defer to federal authority; a huge chunk of 40 million people would have been put at higher risk.
    - throwaway894345 7y ago
      Do we know that that is the driver of California’s improved outcomes vs (for example) climate? I believe illinois was similarly early (at least relative to its phase of progression if not absolute date) but I believe the outcomes are worse there, certainly on a population adjusted basis. EDIT: Californians, this is a genuine question, not trying to bruise your egos by suggesting suggesting you're perhaps equal to other Americans. Terribly sorry!
      - rovolo 7y ago
        > similarly early ... outcomes are worse It takes time to go from infection -> sick -> diagnosis -> death. IL and CA would have had inertia following the stay-at-home proclamations. CA started with 25% daily case growth and has now dropped to 12%, IL started with 40% case growth but has now dropped to 12%. IL's daily death rate increase is still higher than CA, but it is dropping. > population adjusted Population adjustment is much more important for assessing the final outcome. At early stages, the growth rate is far more important for knowing if it's under control. > climate Washington/Seattle had earlier outbreaks than CA, started distancing earlier, and have had a much lower growth than CA. We started at 30% case growth, but brought it down 20% by ~Mar 21 and 10% by Apr 1. I'm using the graphs at 91-divoc for the historical numbers, but I've found NYT to have the best looking graphs for growth rates. 91-divoc.com/pages/covid-visualization/ https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/03/upshot/coronavirus-metro-area-tracker.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/03/upshot/corona...
    - slowmovintarget 7y ago
      We do know that, however, as we keep seeing it. The reason no one can find toilet paper is not because there isn't enough, it's because the public either went nuts mimicking Asian buying (they don't produce TP, they did have a shortage), went nuts overbuying due to the resulting apparent shortage, or went evil trying to take advantage of everyone else by reselling and price gouging. The same thing is happening with food now. Bread yeast that used to go for ~ $8 to $14 a box, can be found now only from resellers trying to charge upwards of $70 for it. In Massachusetts, early action on shelter-at-home, before the order went out, seems to have helped, as it has in California. But in Southern states the common thinking is that this is something that just happens to someone else. It's just the flu. What's horrific about that is that even if New York, for example, succeeds, it could come back anyway because of these folks. They'll know it's denial when reality kills them in the middle of their opinion-touting.
  - swamp40 7y ago
    I don't see any reason for that. Whatever authority locked them down would have to provide adequate resources. Fast local quarantines seems to me like a much better approach.
    - cultus 7y ago
      You're really contracting nearly every public healthcare expert here.
      - swamp40 7y ago
        "Global Economic Shutdown with Shelter In Place" is the NEW approach, not fast local quarantines. Fast local quarantines are how we (public healthcare experts) stopped measles, smallpox, polio, etc outbreaks before vaccines were available. And we still use those methods (fast local quarantines) for eradication purposes when they spring up again. Just like our immune system. I'm sure stopping our heart would slow down the disease, but...
        tanjtanjtanj 7y ago
        Is there any way to do this with a disease that can spread for a week before symptoms show when we don't have anywhere near adequate numbers of tests? The issue here is that unlike most other diseases, this one goes from one person somewhere has it to many, many people in many places have it before it can be detected in its original location.
        cultus 7y ago
        Fast local quarantines and such as you are describing are great, if you catch it early. If strong measures are taken before it spreads, it is reasonable to quarantine all sick and people in contact with the sick. Taiwan was able to do this, and has had only minimal cases and minimal disruption. There is community spread basically everywhere now, so it is too late for local measures. It's almost as if people should have been listening to public health experts in January when it was clear where this was heading.
clairity 7y ago
> "However, I think this also shows that large-scale government intervention in the economy is necessary in the current world." you've drawn no line between "this" (or even clearly established what it is) and a necessity for "large-scale government intervention" (whatever those may be). state your goal, and then your rationale, rather than making a vague and dogmatic pronouncement. and critique both the current (un-)free market dogma and blind large-scale government intervention, rather than trading one for the other. either extreme will lead to more (liberty-threatening) consolidation of power, not less.
bayesian_horse 7y ago
They won't recover faster. I'm not convinced they are even now at the point of recovery! I expect multiple new epidemic waves in China. Or a lot more suppression efforts than we saw already. Corruption isn't helping public health.
- mcguire 7y ago
  I may be paranoid, and I'm certainly a cynic, but I simply don't believe the epidemic numbers coming from China. Wuhan is huge, densely populated, and there is evidence of human-to-human transmission since the middle of December. The disease has a long incubation period, highish transmissibility, and a large proportion of mild or asymptomatic cases.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

MichaelMoser123 7y ago

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-52104978 https://www.bbc.com/news/business-52104978 i think this analysis on the possible long term effects of this crisis is more usefull. They say that the perceived risk of ordering parts from east asia is now much higher and that they will likely prefer local producers because of that perceived risk. (don't know if that is practical, as things nowadays are much more specialized)

SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
I don't really follow the perception though. It doesn't seem like the globalized supply chain has actually been hit by the pandemic - travel restrictions have universally exempted trade.
- ping_pong 7y ago
  Globalized supply chains have been devastated by the pandemic. Large numbers of shippers are projected to go bankrupt because their loads have plummetted.
  - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
    All supply chains have been devastated. The question is whether globalized supply chains are doing worse than local ones.
    - MichaelMoser123 7y ago
      i guess it now depends on each government - is a state able and willing to prop up its industry in times of crisis or not?
    - ping_pong 7y ago
      That goes in direct contradiction to what you just said above. Either global supply chains are devastated or they are not. You very clearly said that global supply chains were not hit.

larrik 7y ago

> the election of Mr. Biden to the White House is not impossible As nice and warm and fuzzy it may be to believe that the Democrats regaining the White House would solve/help these issues, I doubt there'd be much of a difference. There weren't exactly huge top-down changes between Bush, Clinton, Bush 2, and Obama.

mschuster91 7y ago
> There weren't exactly huge top-down changes between Bush, Clinton, Bush 2, and Obama. But at least neither of the four essentially tanked US international relations with allies like Trump did, by essentially dismantling American influence everywhere from the UN to long-time allies such as Europe, South Korea or the Kurds. Another four years with Trump and the once "leader of the free world" will be no leader any more.
- swamp40 7y ago
  "allies"
  - bayesian_horse 7y ago
    You know, those people who followed the US into Afghanistan when you invoked Article 5 of the NATO treaty for the first time in history...
    - swamp40 7y ago
      Besides the US and UK, NATO deaths in Afghanistan were on par with training exercises. But that's not what the parent comment was referring to. Almost every country in the world was taking advantage of the US pre-Trump. As he renegotiates to even the playing field, he is accused of "tanking US international relations". Pure political BS and an old argument that has mostly been disproven by now.
      - mschuster91 7y ago

vearwhershuh 7y ago

An elite globalist thinks that more globalism is the answer to issues caused by globalism. OK.

mschuster91 7y ago

Hmm. I would not be so certain for a Chinese rise-up after covid19. If you had asked this question three months ago, no one would have doubted that China was on track to be the dominant world power, given that the Trump presidency trades American dominance for little to no gain (e.g. leaving Paris Accords, retreating out of Iraq/Afghanistan/Kurdistan, while at the same time cozying up with dictators and autocrats like North Korea or Saudi-Arabia), while at the same time China exploits the reduction of Western help in both Africa (where China now provides investment aid / work without the strings that are usually attached to Western aid, like rules of democracy) and Europe itself (where Italy, Greece, Spain and other countries, e.g. Croatia or Serbia, turn to China for financial / logistical assistance as the EU is unwilling to help out thanks to Germany/Austria/Netherlands opposing). Also, China abuses that influence regularly to tune down criticism of e.g. the Muslim Gulags or the Tibet situation, because a trade blockade or stop to supply money is an effective threat that China can make as many countries depend on cheap Chinese labor or money by now. Now with Covid19 however? Many people and many corporations are effectively forced to diversify their supply chains (Apple most famously) or to re-nationalize critical production like ventilators or even mass goods such as masks, gloves and overalls for medical staff; at the same time consumers in most if not all nations will face a massive lack of spending power on goods that are not essential to their survival. Both of this will drastically reduce the dependence of Western (and other) nations on China, and if Corona FINALLY forces Germany and the Netherlands to drop their blockade of Eurobonds then also China won't be needed as financer for poor-er EU countries. On the other side, I would also not bet on the US to rise to fill the void they themselves have left and China will leave, especially if Trump gets reelected (his approval ratings are on record highs for whatever reason). I'd rather expect a further deterioration of international institutions such as the UN and even EU as states will resort to more nationalism and a decent load of chaos in one or two years when there will be vaccinations available and global travel will begin to flow again...

bayesian_horse 7y ago
Even before Covid-19 I thought China would soon be hitting some form of glass ceiling. Partly because of things like a virus that gets a head start on an authoritarian, corruption-riddled government. If they had their sh*t together, they would have enforced their ban on "exotic" meat already and the whole episode might never even have started at all. And they also can't get a grip on the African Swine Fever, for similar reasons, which also hampers economic growth. Then there was the Sanlu milk powder scandal. Similar things echo around modern Chinese history. Dishonesty can win in the short run, but it hurts long-term. Lack of openness means corruption, corruption means volatility, volatility limits growth. Yes, they achieved a lot of great things for their people. But without an open and much more honest society they will reach a ceiling. And then there is the threat of some kind of "Economic World War" when the rest of the world has had enough of Human rights violations of Third Reich proportion (Falun Gong, Uighurs, etc) and their unfair trade practices.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

DecoPerson 7y ago

Comparative advantage was an often used debate point by Australian politicians. Unfortunately, only recently have studies on this topic started to mention that some countries exploit what is essentially slave labour, and that they have little regard for environmental consequences. I believe these studies strongly influence our public servants so it’s unfortunate that such important points have not being raised sooner by academics. Higher worker costs, along with other reasons, means the Australian manufacturing industry could not compete in the international market. With import tariffs being steadily reduced since the 70s (from roughly 35% in 1970 to below 5% in 2016), the local industry could not compete against international competitors in the local markets either. Without these protections, all of our car manufacturers have shut down, for example. So, we’re in a situation where the majority of our local manufacturing industry has evaporated. We are dependent on the industries of other countries. This is only made possible by our abundance of in-demand and conveniently-located raw materials. Our exports are mostly oil (33%), unprocessed ores (29%) and uncut gems (7%) (other types of industries don’t come close, with meat next at 4%). This has supported our dollar and given us fifty years of paradise. Clearly, this is not sustainable. Should our goods stop selling, our exporters will be in trouble, our dollar will drop, and our importers (everyone!) will be in trouble. It shouldn’t be necessary, but I hope a silver lining of this recent crisis is that it provokes our politicians into fixing this absurd situation. I do not want to be dependent on the slave-driven & environmentally-damaging industries of other countries.

blaser-waffle 7y ago
Replace ore with oil, but otherwise the same story in Canada.

bayesian_horse 7y ago

Short answer: Yes. Before the pandemic I thought Trump has a very little chance to get reelected, and he needed a bigger miracle than last time. That "miracle" might be this pandemic. His support increased slightly, the pandemic might impact voter turnout and the Republicans might find ways of using the pandemic to further increase voter suppression. Four more years under Trump will depress American influence further. I also feared that bad international actors would strike before the election, maybe more than one at a time, recognizing the US is at its weakest point in decades and can only get stronger with a president that can actually read. Examples would be Putin gobbling up territory in eastern Europe, North Korea testing a nuclear bomb or even poking South Korea militarily, Iran reaching the nuclear breakout or Israel launching a unilateral assault to stop it. Now, that might not happen, because all those countries have their hands full...

war1025 7y ago
Democrats have failed to field a candidate that is viable, which is Trump's biggest advantage. Biden has been missing in action for weeks at this point. My personal feeling is all the other candidates dropped out too soon.
- freeone3000 7y ago
  Sanders is still in, and still has 42% of allocated delegates, with more than half of delegates still unallocated. There's still a viable candidate in the race.
  - bayesian_horse 7y ago
    Anyone who calls Sanders more viable than Trump is not interested in a factual discussion. You might like Sanders more than Biden, you might like his politics more. But you aren't entitled to your own facts, and the facts are that Biden has a decisive lead that is almost impossible to catch up. Biden beats Trump in polls by a much larger margin than Sanders. Sanders was not able to motivate a larger voting turnout in the primary elections. There is no basis to call Sanders more viable.
  - 7y ago

scottlocklin 7y ago

What a complete rubbish article. Apparently the three possibilities as an outcome are; 1) Nothing changes, 2) "China's rise is confirmed" (does this even mean anything?) and .... 3) Biden is elected. I'm going to go out on a limb and assert that these three choices do not span the space of possibilities, or even the space of large probabilistic mass for the possibilities, but they may span the space of the acceptable outcomes to the clown who wrote it. Let me propose an alternative 3 possibilities that presently seem more likely: 1) Autarky is recognized as not so bad after all, at least in strategic resources 2) International institutions continue to not matter much in a crisis 3) Someone is elected (I could be wrong about this)

bayesian_horse 7y ago
It's a good question whether the Covid-19 crisis is good or bad for Trump. You might say Biden benefits because Trump looks so incompetent. But his voters knew that already. Most of them vote for him because of a singular issue in which they have the minority view: abortion, extreme gun rights and white superiority. To these voters, nothing else matters, even if they were totally aware of Trump's incompetency and corruption. I even think many pretend to not notice that, because they don't want to admit how important their single-issue is to them. In my opinion, Covid-19 will be good for Trump because that is his only chance to get the voter depression he needs to win against an overwhelmingly more popular candidate, according to all the polls.
- jeffreyrogers 7y ago
  Do you know Trump voters? Your depiction of them seems extremely bigoted and does not reflect the reality I've experienced living in an overwhelming Republican state. Trump's approval rating has been increasing and his disapproval rating decreasing over the course of the Covid-19 pandemic, so your read on the situation does not seem to match reality. While I agree that the handling could be better, I don't think Trump looks that incompetent, especially when compared to other countries' leaders (most of Europe is doing about as badly as the US) and organizations like the CDC (masks don't work), the WHO (closing borders is racist), and the government of New York (encouraging people to go to the movies and restaurants in March). I think your view of Trump is preventing you from getting an accurate read on reality. FYI I'm not a Republican and did not vote for Trump.

mythrwy 7y ago

The consensus is Covid-19 is a naturally occurring rather than engineered virus. Everyone outside of a very small number of radical conspiracy theorists understand this. But here's a dark thought. China has just showed the West if there ever _is_ a biowar, who will likely win.

mythrwy 7y ago
Maybe that needs clarification. I don't think anything about this was deliberate. But incidental demonstration is still demonstration.
- bayesian_horse 7y ago
  Bioweapons are normally not meant to be transmitted human to human on a large scale. It is a popular view that something like Sars viruses would be a good agent, but actually it's not. First: You don't want to infect your own people, especially if your health system is inferior. Containment is impractical. Second: You need to find an agent that satisfies two requirements. It must be able to transmit readily between humans. And it must not have done so already, because that would make most of the potential victims immune. That's basically impossible to achieve.
AnimalMuppet 7y ago
"The only way to win is not to play." China certainly did not win. The best they could be thought to have done is "lose less badly". Even that is questionable, depending on how much you believe their statistics.
- mythrwy 7y ago
  Did they close their whole country to control the spread? Are they mostly open now? Did they have the same rate of infections and deaths (even if they fudge numbers some)? Look, I dislike CCP as much as anyone but I think we need to look at reality so we can be prepared.
  - 7y ago

zcw100 7y ago

The only thing we know is something big happened and it's probably going to have some effect. That's it. It's not like we don't have examples from history to look at. Even with the clarity of hind site can you say what the effect of the AIDS crisis was? Polio? Spanish flu? No we can't. Would things have been different if they hadn't happened other than a lot of people wouldn't be dead? Sure, but how would they have been different? Not so sure. I don't think it's even worth speculating other than knowing that whatever you come up with is probably going to be wrong.

wenc 7y ago
I think it's possible to know more than just "there's going to be an effect" from history. 1st order effects (i.e. this happened because of this) are usually quite obvious and observable. For instance, are we going to see remote work becoming more mainstream because of this? I think that is almost a certainty at this point. In simple systems, 1st order effects are dominant. However you're right that in complex systems like geopolitics, the dominant effects are not 1st order, but higher order (2nd, 3rd, 4th order) and those are hard to isolate -- all the effects are mixed. Also, we can't measure the counterfactuals ("what would have happened if...") because they didn't happen! Of course, historians and writers will try to fill in the gaps with their theories and invariably they're going to be wrong to various degrees and still make the NYT Best Seller list. That notwithstanding, we can still learn something (albeit limited) from the 1st order effects that are observable -- it's not all or nothing.
- zcw100 7y ago
  They aren't obvious and observable other than your defining 1st order effects that way. Remote work becoming more mainstream because of this isn't a certainty at this point. It took a pandemic to get employers to allow it in a large way, why would you assume that once that is gone you're going to keep it? For all you know there will be a backlash and there will be less remote work than before. Did you think you're going to come out of this with more leverage with your employer?

donclark 7y ago

Is Covid-19 a Geopolitical Game-Changer? I hope and pray that this is the case. This may be the best time for us to make a change in the way the world works. Our lives have been disrupted, and we need to strive to make lasting changes for the greater good. The internet, and our world is over-commercialized. The pandemic causing an economic re-evaluation which may be the best opportunity we have to re-evaluate our position. If not, and you think the advertiser/marketer/retail market was invasive before... you aint seen nothing yet. They will need to try every trick in the book x10 - repeatedly, at lighting speed - and invent new tactics to boot. I know, this type of talk makes it seem like the Max Headroom blipverts are the future. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekg45ub8bsk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekg45ub8bsk