4 ms·

I'd like to see globalization for everything non-essential. I'd like food, medicine, weapons, and everything needed to keep those industry running at a basic l

by blagie 4y ago

I'd like to see globalization for everything non-essential. I'd like food, medicine, weapons, and everything needed to keep those industry running at a basic level as close as possible.

WatchDog 4y ago
Serious question, what's left after that? The technology involved in food production, medicine, and weapons are very diverse and complex, if you need to keep all the supporting industries, whats left to globalize?
- blagie 4y ago
  You don't need to keep all the supporting industries. If global supply chains collapse tomorrow, farms will continue to operate even if they can't buy new robotic combines, so long as the old ones haven't broken down. We need enough parts to maintain those for long enough to adapt (probably by going back to simpler technologies). If, tomorrow, the US depended on manually picking crops, the US wouldn't collapse if Silicon Valley suddenly switched from building software to harvesting crops by hand. Same thing for most services -- lawyers, therapists, professors, teachers, etc. Some of those would be *painful*, and the economy might be set back by a half-century, but we'd be alive, and we'd eventually recover. To globalize: * Pre-SaaS software. If the US had disappeared in a nuclear war with Russia, Windows 95 wouldn't get any upgrades, but it would keep working for the installed base worldwide. * Entertainment and education. * Luxury goods. * Cars, building materials, and similar, so long as we maintain the basic capacity to keep supply chains going and provide basic shelter. * Digital cameras, trash cans, furniture, kitchen appliances, and 90% of the other stuff we buy
midoridensha 4y ago
Most countries don't have the technical capability needed to manufacture advanced medicines and weapons; that's why they buy them from elsewhere. US allies buy US-made weapons because they're the most advanced (e.g., F-35), not because they're the cheapest, and also it helps integrate their capabilities with the US's in case there's a conflict. Food is already made locally, but many things just don't grow in many places. You're not going to get coconuts or bananas to grow in Norway.
- DocTomoe 4y ago
  > US allies buy US-made weapons because they're the most advanced (e.g., F-35), not because they're the cheapest Nah, US allies are perfectly capable to built their own fighter jets. If you want to take part in the nuclear umbrella, though, you need fighters not only need the technical capability (which is trivial), but also the US-authorised certification for US nuclear bombs, which ... surprise ... is not available to non-US fighter jets. EF2000 still runs circles around the F35.
- Bayart 4y ago
  US allies buy the US nuclear umbrella. Otherwise the F-35 doesn't make much sense militarily for a lot of those who bought it.
- blagie 4y ago
  "Locally" doesn't always mean in-country. For example, in Russia, China, or the US, "locally" probably means a lot of things would need to be in a specific part of the country. For someone in Africa, Central America, or smaller countries in Asia, "locally" might include a dozen countries in the region. The point is that if global supply chains collapse, you don't starve or die of disease. It's unlikely local supply chains will collapse worldwide. If Norway has enough production capacity to feed itself (or simply the Northern half of Europe as a whole -- Norway can easily import from Poland), it's okay if it imports coconuts and bananas to have tastier food. My concern is if Norway were reliant on imports from America or Africa to get enough calories to live.

by blagie 4y ago

I'd like to see globalization for everything non-essential. I'd like food, medicine, weapons, and everything needed to keep those industry running at a basic level as close as possible.

WatchDog 4y ago

Serious question, what's left after that? The technology involved in food production, medicine, and weapons are very diverse and complex, if you need to keep all the supporting industries, whats left to globalize?

blagie 4y ago
You don't need to keep all the supporting industries. If global supply chains collapse tomorrow, farms will continue to operate even if they can't buy new robotic combines, so long as the old ones haven't broken down. We need enough parts to maintain those for long enough to adapt (probably by going back to simpler technologies). If, tomorrow, the US depended on manually picking crops, the US wouldn't collapse if Silicon Valley suddenly switched from building software to harvesting crops by hand. Same thing for most services -- lawyers, therapists, professors, teachers, etc. Some of those would be *painful*, and the economy might be set back by a half-century, but we'd be alive, and we'd eventually recover. To globalize: * Pre-SaaS software. If the US had disappeared in a nuclear war with Russia, Windows 95 wouldn't get any upgrades, but it would keep working for the installed base worldwide. * Entertainment and education. * Luxury goods. * Cars, building materials, and similar, so long as we maintain the basic capacity to keep supply chains going and provide basic shelter. * Digital cameras, trash cans, furniture, kitchen appliances, and 90% of the other stuff we buy

midoridensha 4y ago

Most countries don't have the technical capability needed to manufacture advanced medicines and weapons; that's why they buy them from elsewhere. US allies buy US-made weapons because they're the most advanced (e.g., F-35), not because they're the cheapest, and also it helps integrate their capabilities with the US's in case there's a conflict. Food is already made locally, but many things just don't grow in many places. You're not going to get coconuts or bananas to grow in Norway.

DocTomoe 4y ago
> US allies buy US-made weapons because they're the most advanced (e.g., F-35), not because they're the cheapest Nah, US allies are perfectly capable to built their own fighter jets. If you want to take part in the nuclear umbrella, though, you need fighters not only need the technical capability (which is trivial), but also the US-authorised certification for US nuclear bombs, which ... surprise ... is not available to non-US fighter jets. EF2000 still runs circles around the F35.
Bayart 4y ago
US allies buy the US nuclear umbrella. Otherwise the F-35 doesn't make much sense militarily for a lot of those who bought it.
blagie 4y ago
"Locally" doesn't always mean in-country. For example, in Russia, China, or the US, "locally" probably means a lot of things would need to be in a specific part of the country. For someone in Africa, Central America, or smaller countries in Asia, "locally" might include a dozen countries in the region. The point is that if global supply chains collapse, you don't starve or die of disease. It's unlikely local supply chains will collapse worldwide. If Norway has enough production capacity to feed itself (or simply the Northern half of Europe as a whole -- Norway can easily import from Poland), it's okay if it imports coconuts and bananas to have tastier food. My concern is if Norway were reliant on imports from America or Africa to get enough calories to live.