3 ms·

So water transport just "appears" to be more efficient due to some kind of market manipulation or slieght of hand? What manipulation is the culprit? It can't b

So water transport just "appears" to be more efficient due to some kind of market manipulation or slieght of hand? What manipulation is the culprit? It can't be fossil fuels externalities, because water transport has been used over long distances well before oil and coal were used as fuels. And it can't be due to a government policy because water transport has been used by pretty much anyone that has a coast or riverbank. Some realities are just to big and obvious to wave away with generalities.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
toss1 5y ago
NO. It is not just water transport. Of course water transport has always been more efficient. If we were talking about economies where all the manufacturing and all the consumption was from communities that lived on connected bodies of water, that would be fine. But the reality is that everyone does not produce and put their work directly on a boat, and does not purchase goods right off the boat. And even if they did, the current boats are massive carbon polluters, externalizing those costs to the rest of the world. The reality is that global shipment involves far more than just boats - it is an entire exosystem of multi-modal transport, none of which works without the others — as we are seeing right now with the failures. Moreover, there are also massive societal costs to offshoring manufacturing that are fobbed off onto future generations. These have zero to do with the efficiency of water transport. So, I'm speaking of the entire system of offshoring manufacturing and transport of finished goods appears to be more efficient than local manufacture, but is in fact full of highly externalized costs that make the "efficiency" in fact a fallacy.
- chmod600 5y ago
  "[globalization] is in fact full of highly externalized costs that make the 'efficiency' in fact a fallacy." Globalization is efficient. Any claim to the contrary is an extraordinary one, and requires extraordinary evidence. It can't be explained away with fossil fuel externalities, because it's been going on since before fossil fuels.
  - toss1 5y ago
    >>"[globalization] is in fact full of highly externalized costs that make the 'efficiency' in fact a fallacy." Fair enough I think where we disagree is on the definition of "efficiency" and globalization. I agree that there is definite value and efficiency in globalization. It is certainly more efficient to obtain materials only on the other side of the planet rather than go without. And this kind of global trade has certainly been happening for millenia, at some level. But global trade is not globalization. Globalization is more exporting work to arbitrage labor rates for things that could perfectly well be built at locally, and that kind of globalization has only been happening for a few decades. For efficiency, if you externalize enough problems and tail risk, anything can be "efficient". Arbitrage of labor rates is superficially efficient, but it is mostly externalizing costs. These costs begin with hollowing out local economies and increasing local poverty and costs to society as a whole, but arguably more important in the long term is losing key skills, know-how, intellectual property, and industrial capabilities. Perhaps most critical is the loss of knowledge and control of manufacturing key military/defense goods, and creating a potential strategic failure. Transfer of economic power and capability to benefit the current quarterly statements is efficient today, but can cost superpowers their position. While the US thinks it is exploiting China's cheap labor, China is exploiting the West's current profits myopia to gain strategic economic and military advantage, and they are succeeding. Burn massive amounts of artificially cheap and subsidized fossil fuels on ships, rail, trucks, airplanes, etc. to transport everything half way around the globe, and the costs do not accrue for decades, but are coming due now. That's not efficient, it's externalization. Build global just-in-time supply chains with 100 links, and the whole economy becomes subject to weakest link failure. Of course, while it doesn't fail, you have become "more efficient" by not incurring costs of building locally and storing inventory. All of these things are appear more efficient when longer term considerations and tail risk are ignored. It is like the economy pre-2008, it seemed very efficient to package all the mortgage loans into AAA-rated mortgage-backed-securities... it worked for years ... until the risk came to the surface and we came within literal hours of a global monetary system crash and did endure a global recession. So, it is all very efficient at a narrow enough point of view. But, it is not antifragile, it is brittle - when any of it fails, the geopolitical situation, the supply chain, the climate, etc., you're thoroughly forked. Add in the costs of entire continents or even the globe of becoming totally forked, and repairing that, then I'm not sure the conclusion is that massive globalization is most efficient.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

toss1 5y ago

NO. It is not just water transport. Of course water transport has always been more efficient. If we were talking about economies where all the manufacturing and all the consumption was from communities that lived on connected bodies of water, that would be fine. But the reality is that everyone does not produce and put their work directly on a boat, and does not purchase goods right off the boat. And even if they did, the current boats are massive carbon polluters, externalizing those costs to the rest of the world. The reality is that global shipment involves far more than just boats - it is an entire exosystem of multi-modal transport, none of which works without the others — as we are seeing right now with the failures. Moreover, there are also massive societal costs to offshoring manufacturing that are fobbed off onto future generations. These have zero to do with the efficiency of water transport. So, I'm speaking of the entire system of offshoring manufacturing and transport of finished goods appears to be more efficient than local manufacture, but is in fact full of highly externalized costs that make the "efficiency" in fact a fallacy.

chmod600 5y ago
"[globalization] is in fact full of highly externalized costs that make the 'efficiency' in fact a fallacy." Globalization is efficient. Any claim to the contrary is an extraordinary one, and requires extraordinary evidence. It can't be explained away with fossil fuel externalities, because it's been going on since before fossil fuels.
- toss1 5y ago
  >>"[globalization] is in fact full of highly externalized costs that make the 'efficiency' in fact a fallacy." Fair enough I think where we disagree is on the definition of "efficiency" and globalization. I agree that there is definite value and efficiency in globalization. It is certainly more efficient to obtain materials only on the other side of the planet rather than go without. And this kind of global trade has certainly been happening for millenia, at some level. But global trade is not globalization. Globalization is more exporting work to arbitrage labor rates for things that could perfectly well be built at locally, and that kind of globalization has only been happening for a few decades. For efficiency, if you externalize enough problems and tail risk, anything can be "efficient". Arbitrage of labor rates is superficially efficient, but it is mostly externalizing costs. These costs begin with hollowing out local economies and increasing local poverty and costs to society as a whole, but arguably more important in the long term is losing key skills, know-how, intellectual property, and industrial capabilities. Perhaps most critical is the loss of knowledge and control of manufacturing key military/defense goods, and creating a potential strategic failure. Transfer of economic power and capability to benefit the current quarterly statements is efficient today, but can cost superpowers their position. While the US thinks it is exploiting China's cheap labor, China is exploiting the West's current profits myopia to gain strategic economic and military advantage, and they are succeeding. Burn massive amounts of artificially cheap and subsidized fossil fuels on ships, rail, trucks, airplanes, etc. to transport everything half way around the globe, and the costs do not accrue for decades, but are coming due now. That's not efficient, it's externalization. Build global just-in-time supply chains with 100 links, and the whole economy becomes subject to weakest link failure. Of course, while it doesn't fail, you have become "more efficient" by not incurring costs of building locally and storing inventory. All of these things are appear more efficient when longer term considerations and tail risk are ignored. It is like the economy pre-2008, it seemed very efficient to package all the mortgage loans into AAA-rated mortgage-backed-securities... it worked for years ... until the risk came to the surface and we came within literal hours of a global monetary system crash and did endure a global recession. So, it is all very efficient at a narrow enough point of view. But, it is not antifragile, it is brittle - when any of it fails, the geopolitical situation, the supply chain, the climate, etc., you're thoroughly forked. Add in the costs of entire continents or even the globe of becoming totally forked, and repairing that, then I'm not sure the conclusion is that massive globalization is most efficient.