5 ms·

I think we're about to find out just what globalization did for us. Globalization is what held down consumer prices as unprecedented amounts of money were inje

I think we're about to find out just what globalization did for us. Globalization is what held down consumer prices as unprecedented amounts of money were injected into the global financial system over the last 13 years. Globalization solved our garbage problem - many municipalities are no longer offering recycling now that we can't ship it to China to dump in their fields. Globalization made the Internet much more useful - how many of you are fans of Factorio, Telegram, or World of Warships (all developed in former eastern bloc countries), or Alibaba or TikTok (both Chinese)? Globalization has led to unprecedented global peace over the last 30 years. I suspect that once de-globalization really starts rolling along, we're going to see economic dislocations that are civilization-destroying. We won't get nation-states, we'll get civil unrest, regional secession efforts, anarchy, and war. Then some new form of political organization will arise, but I doubt it'll be either nation-states or globalization.

burritas 4y ago
integricho 4y ago
This is an overly pessimistic extrapolation of current events and trends, your argument is pure speculation basically.
safety1st 4y ago
Everyone printed money like crazy, not just the Western governments, nations at all levels of development are paying the inflation price. I don't think that alone will change the balance of power meaningfully. It's fair to say that less trade with a totalitarian rival power means less deterrent to war. Yes that's bad but the alternative of financing their military buildup and their oppression of their own people is not really a good one.
- rrrrrrrrrrrr2 4y ago
  I'm not sure "financing" their military buildup is the right way to analyze what's happening in China. Do they really have a dependence on U.S./western goods? It seems like almost all their production is domestic besides imports of chips and software (Microsoft, Apple, etc.). I doubt they'll have much trouble replacing those U.S. imports either. And, at least from western reporting, it seems that China has significant coercive control over their people even in their daily lives. If all this is true, then it makes no sense to quantify China's efforts in dollars and to think that somehow the West is financing it. It makes more sense to look at China as a self sufficient economy with a potential labor force of 1.4B and compare it to the U.S., EU, India, etc. which have a similar position and are for now buddies in competition against it.
rrrrrrrrrrrr2 4y ago
> I suspect that once de-globalization really starts rolling along, we're going to see economic dislocations that are civilization-destroying. We won't get nation-states, we'll get civil unrest, regional secession efforts, anarchy, and war. Then some new form of political organization will arise, but I doubt it'll be either nation-states or globalization. Why the leap from the end of unipolarity to the end of nation-states in general? (I assume you mean "countries" here, ex: the U.S. is not a nation-state) To me a Cold War II scenario and a bipolar world order seems more likely. I don't think there will be widespread civil uprising; I think you're underestimating how much control that governments (including democracies) have over their people. It will take some radical technological change to overturn this power dynamic and displace national governments with anarchy and unrest as you mentioned. One example of tech in this vein is DAOs, which seem like an attempt in this direction but the problem is they lack enforcement via force and coercive violence. Until you can disrupt that (killer AGI drones?), central governments will remain the efficient and viable solution to consolidating power and enforcing order, and therefore they will be the dominant form of organization in the world. The disruption of U.S. influence and the end of globalization will not be the end of countries, at least until a radical technological change happens.
- nostrademons 4y ago
  Because the military conditions that led to the rise of countries don't exist anymore. The modern nation-state grew out of a confluence of technology trends that accelerated throughout the 1800s. Mass-production made for cheap, accurate, long-ranged rifles. These made large armies of relatively untrained soldiers effective, right in time for conscription to fill the manpower void. Steelmaking made mechanized armor impervious to bullets, which also required internal combustion engines to power them, which required oil to fuel them. All of this required supply chains, which meant that political organizations large enough to build complex industrial supply chains and man them could steamroll earlier feudal empires that were still relying on cavalry charges, swords, and muskets. This happened in WW1. Since roughly 2000 consumer electronics and inexpensive shaped-charge explosives have dramatically driven down the cost of fielding an effective fighting force. A ~6" diameter HEAT round can penetrate any reasonable level of armor, particularly if you can deliver it accurately enough to hit the same spot (defeating composite & reactive armor). Guide it with a microchip and you will hit that spot, and without a whole lot of training. MANPADS can take out far more expensive helicopters & close-support aircraft. Add drones and your $100M fighter jet is no longer assured air superiority, plus you can strike infantry formations from the air. We've seen this already in those countries that have erupted into war. Afghanistan (repulsed first the Soviet Union then the U.S. using U.S-made weapons), Iraq (insurgency using IEDs), Syria (collapsed into anarchy, multi-sided urban war), Azerbaijan (very effective use of drones against Armenia), and now Ukraine (kicking Russia's ass with Javelins and Bayraktar). IMHO the reason we haven't seen it in developed nations is that it is far more profitable to take people's money than take people's lives. The folks with the capability to field smart weapons & drones are busy getting people to click on ads and fleecing them out of their retirement savings rather than waging war.
ClumsyPilot 4y ago
> Globalization has led to unprecedented global peace over the last 30 years Millions of people worked towards peace, peacekeepers, activists, anti-war protesters, diplomats, lawyers, soldiers, etc. Many have laid down their lives. It's offensive. and disrespectfull for purely commercial interests to claim all the credit. There is not even a rational argument provided beyong a correlation. Maybe it's the other way round global peace has allowed globalisation. And it hasn't stopped Russia. > unprecedented amounts of money were injected into the global financial system over the last 13 years Every time I see a person that complains about government printing money, they can never answer how is money supply supposed to grow along with economy to enable economic expansion? The only mechanism is government printing money or banks creating loans Also do you know that many governments owe like 30% of their debt to themselves? 'HM Treasury owes £2.1trn to holders of British government securities, of which approximately £745bn is owed to the Bank of England'
- josephcsible 4y ago
  > Every time I see a person that complains about government printing money, they can never answer how is money supply suppose to grow along with economy to enable economic expansion? The only mechanism is gpvernment printint money or banks creating loans Only really fringe people complain that the government prints money at all. The more normal complaint is that the government is printing way more money than it should, for the amount of economic expansion that's actually happening.
- Sevii 4y ago
  Why can't we increase individual people's holdings of USD proportionally like a stock split? Instead for legacy reasons the government creates money in a way the dilutes the currency holder's position. People perceive this as unfair because they don't like their shares (of purchasing power) being diluted. People don't object to the money supply increasing. They object to their holdings being diluted in unaccountable ways.
  - pdonis 4y ago
    > Why can't we increase individual people's holdings of USD proportionally like a stock split? Because that would not serve the real purpose of printing money, which is hidden (and therefore politically much easier) taxation, to enrich the government and its cronies at the expense of everybody else.
gruez 4y ago
> Globalization solved our garbage problem - many municipalities are no longer offering recycling now that we can't ship it to China to dump in their fields. Garbage was never a problem to begin with. US is a huge place. We'd be fine landfilling garbage for the next few centuries at the very least.

burritas 4y ago

integricho 4y ago

This is an overly pessimistic extrapolation of current events and trends, your argument is pure speculation basically.

safety1st 4y ago

Everyone printed money like crazy, not just the Western governments, nations at all levels of development are paying the inflation price. I don't think that alone will change the balance of power meaningfully. It's fair to say that less trade with a totalitarian rival power means less deterrent to war. Yes that's bad but the alternative of financing their military buildup and their oppression of their own people is not really a good one.

rrrrrrrrrrrr2 4y ago
I'm not sure "financing" their military buildup is the right way to analyze what's happening in China. Do they really have a dependence on U.S./western goods? It seems like almost all their production is domestic besides imports of chips and software (Microsoft, Apple, etc.). I doubt they'll have much trouble replacing those U.S. imports either. And, at least from western reporting, it seems that China has significant coercive control over their people even in their daily lives. If all this is true, then it makes no sense to quantify China's efforts in dollars and to think that somehow the West is financing it. It makes more sense to look at China as a self sufficient economy with a potential labor force of 1.4B and compare it to the U.S., EU, India, etc. which have a similar position and are for now buddies in competition against it.

rrrrrrrrrrrr2 4y ago

> I suspect that once de-globalization really starts rolling along, we're going to see economic dislocations that are civilization-destroying. We won't get nation-states, we'll get civil unrest, regional secession efforts, anarchy, and war. Then some new form of political organization will arise, but I doubt it'll be either nation-states or globalization. Why the leap from the end of unipolarity to the end of nation-states in general? (I assume you mean "countries" here, ex: the U.S. is not a nation-state) To me a Cold War II scenario and a bipolar world order seems more likely. I don't think there will be widespread civil uprising; I think you're underestimating how much control that governments (including democracies) have over their people. It will take some radical technological change to overturn this power dynamic and displace national governments with anarchy and unrest as you mentioned. One example of tech in this vein is DAOs, which seem like an attempt in this direction but the problem is they lack enforcement via force and coercive violence. Until you can disrupt that (killer AGI drones?), central governments will remain the efficient and viable solution to consolidating power and enforcing order, and therefore they will be the dominant form of organization in the world. The disruption of U.S. influence and the end of globalization will not be the end of countries, at least until a radical technological change happens.

nostrademons 4y ago
Because the military conditions that led to the rise of countries don't exist anymore. The modern nation-state grew out of a confluence of technology trends that accelerated throughout the 1800s. Mass-production made for cheap, accurate, long-ranged rifles. These made large armies of relatively untrained soldiers effective, right in time for conscription to fill the manpower void. Steelmaking made mechanized armor impervious to bullets, which also required internal combustion engines to power them, which required oil to fuel them. All of this required supply chains, which meant that political organizations large enough to build complex industrial supply chains and man them could steamroll earlier feudal empires that were still relying on cavalry charges, swords, and muskets. This happened in WW1. Since roughly 2000 consumer electronics and inexpensive shaped-charge explosives have dramatically driven down the cost of fielding an effective fighting force. A ~6" diameter HEAT round can penetrate any reasonable level of armor, particularly if you can deliver it accurately enough to hit the same spot (defeating composite & reactive armor). Guide it with a microchip and you will hit that spot, and without a whole lot of training. MANPADS can take out far more expensive helicopters & close-support aircraft. Add drones and your $100M fighter jet is no longer assured air superiority, plus you can strike infantry formations from the air. We've seen this already in those countries that have erupted into war. Afghanistan (repulsed first the Soviet Union then the U.S. using U.S-made weapons), Iraq (insurgency using IEDs), Syria (collapsed into anarchy, multi-sided urban war), Azerbaijan (very effective use of drones against Armenia), and now Ukraine (kicking Russia's ass with Javelins and Bayraktar). IMHO the reason we haven't seen it in developed nations is that it is far more profitable to take people's money than take people's lives. The folks with the capability to field smart weapons & drones are busy getting people to click on ads and fleecing them out of their retirement savings rather than waging war.

ClumsyPilot 4y ago

> Globalization has led to unprecedented global peace over the last 30 years Millions of people worked towards peace, peacekeepers, activists, anti-war protesters, diplomats, lawyers, soldiers, etc. Many have laid down their lives. It's offensive. and disrespectfull for purely commercial interests to claim all the credit. There is not even a rational argument provided beyong a correlation. Maybe it's the other way round global peace has allowed globalisation. And it hasn't stopped Russia. > unprecedented amounts of money were injected into the global financial system over the last 13 years Every time I see a person that complains about government printing money, they can never answer how is money supply supposed to grow along with economy to enable economic expansion? The only mechanism is government printing money or banks creating loans Also do you know that many governments owe like 30% of their debt to themselves? 'HM Treasury owes £2.1trn to holders of British government securities, of which approximately £745bn is owed to the Bank of England'

josephcsible 4y ago
> Every time I see a person that complains about government printing money, they can never answer how is money supply suppose to grow along with economy to enable economic expansion? The only mechanism is gpvernment printint money or banks creating loans Only really fringe people complain that the government prints money at all. The more normal complaint is that the government is printing way more money than it should, for the amount of economic expansion that's actually happening.
Sevii 4y ago
Why can't we increase individual people's holdings of USD proportionally like a stock split? Instead for legacy reasons the government creates money in a way the dilutes the currency holder's position. People perceive this as unfair because they don't like their shares (of purchasing power) being diluted. People don't object to the money supply increasing. They object to their holdings being diluted in unaccountable ways.
- pdonis 4y ago
  > Why can't we increase individual people's holdings of USD proportionally like a stock split? Because that would not serve the real purpose of printing money, which is hidden (and therefore politically much easier) taxation, to enrich the government and its cronies at the expense of everybody else.

gruez 4y ago

> Globalization solved our garbage problem - many municipalities are no longer offering recycling now that we can't ship it to China to dump in their fields. Garbage was never a problem to begin with. US is a huge place. We'd be fine landfilling garbage for the next few centuries at the very least.