4 ms·

I'm listening. I've heard this three times in the last week. But I haven't been ELI5'd what this really means for the rest of my adulthood. I only know a "Globa

I'm listening. I've heard this three times in the last week. But I haven't been ELI5'd what this really means for the rest of my adulthood. I only know a "Globalized World". I was in elementary school when Bill Clinton was elected and globalization (economically) started, right? So is this a reversion? Is it socially bad but economically good? Does the $1 slice become the $2 slice in a couple years? Or are we trying to say something worse?

chrisco255 4y ago
I don't think anyone knows to what extent this will play out over the next decade. Yes, we are more reluctant to trust outsourcing production to China, and tensions over Ukraine & Taiwan highlight this rift between NATO nations and the East. But by no means has this stopped the inflow of goods arriving from China. I think that within industries that are deemed critical to national defense, especially semiconductors, these are going to be forcibly on-shored. Whether that spills over into "less critical" imports remains to be seen. When it comes to on-shore vs off-shore production, not sure it can neatly be described as "good or bad". There are trade-offs. When we outsourced more production and manufacturing to China, our economy became more service oriented. We lost some valuable manufacturing skills in the labor force in the process and it takes time to ramp that back up. We are also saddled with far more regulatory and legal issues in the U.S. and that adds a significant burden to costs. I think as article points out, on-shoring will contribute to CPI increases. Off-shoring offset some of the inflationary fiscal (spending from govt) and monetary policies (QE) of the past few decades. Ultimately goods will cost more. At the same time, it's likely that automation technologies get boosted investment. On-shoring may induce a robotics boom to counter act some of those higher costs (since the ROI will have increased). So maybe goods will be more expensive in short to medium term, but longer term, we may end up in a better place. The more open questions are how the world grapples with a "multi-polar" world and whether that leads to kinetic war or active trade wars between U.S. & China.
rsj_hn 4y ago
Here goes: First, let's define what is meant by "Globalization", as this word is used to mean many things. First, it does not mean trade. You will still be eating Chilean oranges. You will still have Vietnamese coworkers in your company. The history of the world is filled with trade - that's not what makes our current era of "Globalization" unique. What it means is trade imbalances. The world as it exists now has one group of nations running persistent trade deficits and another group running persistent trade surpluses. To run a trade surplus means you take the money you get by selling goods to the world, and invest it overseas. China invests $2 Trillion overseas. Saudi Arabia $1 Trillion. Russia $750 Billion. Qatar $250 Billion dollars. This creates a web of dependencies, it increases trade massively, and it also reduces the sovereignty that each nation has, as those who invest large amounts overseas are dependent on others that their assets are not seized, and those who are the recipients of such foreign investment become dependent on it to maintain their consumption levels and high asset prices (low interest rates). So in many ways, the world becomes smaller and each nation has less freedom to act independently. This is why we call it "Globalization". It refers to the globalization of investment. If the exporting nations did not invest this money overseas, what would happen is that their currencies would appreciate up to the point where their trade is balanced -- as many exports as imports. Now, what would the world look like if each nation's trade was roughly balanced. So that Saudi Arabia, Russia, China, Qatar, and the US all exported about as much as they imported? It would be a very different world than the one we have now. Now how did we get to this world of persistent trade imbalances - it didn't happen by accident, it was a long term project requiring: 1) A vast international web of investor rights, so that when Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Russia, or China park their money overseas, they can be assured it is not confiscated and that the value of their investments is maintained. 2) Global trust What we are seeing now is this system is unravelling. That is, foreign investment is being confiscated, global trust is eroding, and the international frameworks are not able to maintain sufficient global trust to justify parking huge sums overseas. The canary in the coal mine was the US seizure of Afghanistan's sovereign reserves, but really the increasing way that the US has been using the dollar system as a proxy for foreign policy, which undermines the usefulness of the dollar as a reserve currency for those nations that matter -- e.g. the exporting nations. The seizure of Russia's sovereign reserves was the fatal blow to this system. Now, it is clear that all these investor rights agreements are no longer being honored. And so all the exporting nations are scrambling for alternate places to park their money, many are preparing to begin a round of asset seizures and counter seizures, and are building trade systems based on specie flows, various hostage mechanisms, and limited bilateral treaties in which trade is roughly balanced. These are massive changes, and they don't get a lot of US media attention, but they are taking place in international conferences and high level diplomatic agreements all over the world right now: Saudi Arabia just signed a $40 Billion trade deal with China, it's largest deal ever, in which it will sell oil to China in exchange for Huawei coming in and building out a new telecom infrastructure in Saudi Arabia as well as constructing factories there. Note that this trade is roughly balanced, and it is occurring between net exporting nations. This is the future of trade -- something tangible for something tangible, so that nothing is exposed to being seized by a foreign government. Russia and Iran signed a $40 Billion trade deal along similar lines. At the same time, China has been structuring its capital controls so that it's impossible for Western companies to pull money out. For example, Apple has huge earnings in China, but it's stuck in China. China is preparing for the US to seize their assets and they will counterseize the Tesla factories, Apple earnings, etc. In terms of prices, what it will mean is higher prices and higher interest rates in those nations that have traditionally run trade deficits, and lower prices and lower interest rates (stocks will be worth less and cost of living will go up) in those nations that have traditionally run trade surpluses. But you will still be able to buy your Chilean orange -- there will still be trade, but it will be much more balanced, so that orange will cost more -- and your mortgage payment will be higher. A second casualty will be the anti-carbon movement, as it was depending on international investor agreements to be both the carrot and stick for mandating change. At the same time, the deficit nations will find it much harder to import the minerals and finished goods such as batteries and solar panels necessary to transition even their own energy grid.

chrisco255 4y ago

I don't think anyone knows to what extent this will play out over the next decade. Yes, we are more reluctant to trust outsourcing production to China, and tensions over Ukraine & Taiwan highlight this rift between NATO nations and the East. But by no means has this stopped the inflow of goods arriving from China. I think that within industries that are deemed critical to national defense, especially semiconductors, these are going to be forcibly on-shored. Whether that spills over into "less critical" imports remains to be seen. When it comes to on-shore vs off-shore production, not sure it can neatly be described as "good or bad". There are trade-offs. When we outsourced more production and manufacturing to China, our economy became more service oriented. We lost some valuable manufacturing skills in the labor force in the process and it takes time to ramp that back up. We are also saddled with far more regulatory and legal issues in the U.S. and that adds a significant burden to costs. I think as article points out, on-shoring will contribute to CPI increases. Off-shoring offset some of the inflationary fiscal (spending from govt) and monetary policies (QE) of the past few decades. Ultimately goods will cost more. At the same time, it's likely that automation technologies get boosted investment. On-shoring may induce a robotics boom to counter act some of those higher costs (since the ROI will have increased). So maybe goods will be more expensive in short to medium term, but longer term, we may end up in a better place. The more open questions are how the world grapples with a "multi-polar" world and whether that leads to kinetic war or active trade wars between U.S. & China.

rsj_hn 4y ago

Here goes: First, let's define what is meant by "Globalization", as this word is used to mean many things. First, it does not mean trade. You will still be eating Chilean oranges. You will still have Vietnamese coworkers in your company. The history of the world is filled with trade - that's not what makes our current era of "Globalization" unique. What it means is trade imbalances. The world as it exists now has one group of nations running persistent trade deficits and another group running persistent trade surpluses. To run a trade surplus means you take the money you get by selling goods to the world, and invest it overseas. China invests $2 Trillion overseas. Saudi Arabia $1 Trillion. Russia $750 Billion. Qatar $250 Billion dollars. This creates a web of dependencies, it increases trade massively, and it also reduces the sovereignty that each nation has, as those who invest large amounts overseas are dependent on others that their assets are not seized, and those who are the recipients of such foreign investment become dependent on it to maintain their consumption levels and high asset prices (low interest rates). So in many ways, the world becomes smaller and each nation has less freedom to act independently. This is why we call it "Globalization". It refers to the globalization of investment. If the exporting nations did not invest this money overseas, what would happen is that their currencies would appreciate up to the point where their trade is balanced -- as many exports as imports. Now, what would the world look like if each nation's trade was roughly balanced. So that Saudi Arabia, Russia, China, Qatar, and the US all exported about as much as they imported? It would be a very different world than the one we have now. Now how did we get to this world of persistent trade imbalances - it didn't happen by accident, it was a long term project requiring: 1) A vast international web of investor rights, so that when Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Russia, or China park their money overseas, they can be assured it is not confiscated and that the value of their investments is maintained. 2) Global trust What we are seeing now is this system is unravelling. That is, foreign investment is being confiscated, global trust is eroding, and the international frameworks are not able to maintain sufficient global trust to justify parking huge sums overseas. The canary in the coal mine was the US seizure of Afghanistan's sovereign reserves, but really the increasing way that the US has been using the dollar system as a proxy for foreign policy, which undermines the usefulness of the dollar as a reserve currency for those nations that matter -- e.g. the exporting nations. The seizure of Russia's sovereign reserves was the fatal blow to this system. Now, it is clear that all these investor rights agreements are no longer being honored. And so all the exporting nations are scrambling for alternate places to park their money, many are preparing to begin a round of asset seizures and counter seizures, and are building trade systems based on specie flows, various hostage mechanisms, and limited bilateral treaties in which trade is roughly balanced. These are massive changes, and they don't get a lot of US media attention, but they are taking place in international conferences and high level diplomatic agreements all over the world right now: Saudi Arabia just signed a $40 Billion trade deal with China, it's largest deal ever, in which it will sell oil to China in exchange for Huawei coming in and building out a new telecom infrastructure in Saudi Arabia as well as constructing factories there. Note that this trade is roughly balanced, and it is occurring between net exporting nations. This is the future of trade -- something tangible for something tangible, so that nothing is exposed to being seized by a foreign government. Russia and Iran signed a $40 Billion trade deal along similar lines. At the same time, China has been structuring its capital controls so that it's impossible for Western companies to pull money out. For example, Apple has huge earnings in China, but it's stuck in China. China is preparing for the US to seize their assets and they will counterseize the Tesla factories, Apple earnings, etc. In terms of prices, what it will mean is higher prices and higher interest rates in those nations that have traditionally run trade deficits, and lower prices and lower interest rates (stocks will be worth less and cost of living will go up) in those nations that have traditionally run trade surpluses. But you will still be able to buy your Chilean orange -- there will still be trade, but it will be much more balanced, so that orange will cost more -- and your mortgage payment will be higher. A second casualty will be the anti-carbon movement, as it was depending on international investor agreements to be both the carrot and stick for mandating change. At the same time, the deficit nations will find it much harder to import the minerals and finished goods such as batteries and solar panels necessary to transition even their own energy grid.