4 ms·
Collapse, no. But I do think we're going to see, in our lifetimes, a mostly-global economy that is very different from anything that humans have had in the past
by thaumaturgy 12y ago
Collapse, no. But I do think we're going to see, in our lifetimes, a mostly-global economy that is very different from anything that humans have had in the past, and that the transition to that is going to sometimes look disastrous.
I can't say much about the intricacies of how economies are managed, because I don't know much about that. But there are a few trends happening today that are unique in human history.
For one, we've entered an age where the economies of most of the countries in the world have become interconnected to some extent. Just 100 years ago, this wasn't the case. The mismanagement of an economy in one country can have serious repercussions in other countries now; I think it's inevitable that we'll see a world economic governing body develop. This sort of already de facto exists, but if it doesn't meet the needs of the lower and middle classes, it's going to become more political.
For another, we have begun to impose some serious limits on our resource demands. In the past, one way to combat a sluggish economy was to get bigger; if you had the money, you might try to establish a colony somewhere, grow your territory, or put more natural resources to work in the form of industry. But now, we've seen the effects of that on our natural environment and mostly collectively decided to limit our use of resources. Now, the name of the game is greater and greater efficiency, doing more with less, consuming less.
Meanwhile, a common trend around the world, and especially in the "west" (incl. Europe and Australia and the usual suspects), is that people want more leisure time. Workers are tired. The economy has been particularly hard on the lower socioeconomic classes, and they can get burnt out just like anybody else. They largely have crap jobs -- "bullshit jobs" as one economist puts it -- they can't expect loyalty from their company so they aren't loyal to it either, and they don't make enough money to get to enjoy the perks of life that, thanks to a massive global communications system, they get to see everyone else enjoying. You can't go to the store anymore without seeing a travel magazine with a beautiful front cover staring you in the face.
So, I don't think most people are looking to work more. In fact, I think that if it were possible for a lot of people, down to the poorest classes, to give up just a little bit more to be able to gain more real leisure time, they'd do it.
Simultaneously, production technology keeps getting better and better, so we can have more and more stuff for less and less money.
And, there's a massively adversarial relationship now between the worker classes and the wealthier classes. I think a lot of people intuitively recognize a lot of this, and they feel like the only thing keeping them from having the life they want is unfairly low wages mostly set by people who have a lot more money.
There's always political unrest somewhere in the world; I think a lot of it in the west is going to focus on economic issues. People are going to keep agitating to get their basic needs met, so that they're less reliant on jobs that they feel are both demeaning and fundamentally unfair. As hard as it may be to believe, especially if you rarely leave the Silicon Valley scene, I think we're going to see more of a movement towards spending less on material goods. I think the developing world is where almost all of the economic growth will be for a while, and I think the economies in the developed world are going to continue to be sluggish until there's a big breakthrough in either energy (e.g. fusion) or exploration (Mars).
I also think there's a possibility this could all lead to an amazing modern Renaissance. Never before in history have so many people been so close to having as much free time as they desire to create, build, or learn about anything they want; we truly have no idea what kind of art, engineering, or science might come from that.
Unfortunately, until a new social contract is developed between the economic classes, the poor are going to have a very hard time of it.
- gone35 12y agoFor one, we've entered an age where the economies of most of the countries in the world have become interconnected to some extent. Just 100 years ago, this wasn't the case. I don't blame you because this is the kind of conventional trope that everybody parrots and just feels right, but economic historians agree on that the extent of globalization 100 years ago was in fact just as high as it is today in many respects --and in some respects such as labor mobility, it was even higher then [1,2]. In fact, it was only after the collapse of the transoceanic European colonies after the wars that nationalism and the Great Depression gave rise to isolationism and trade protectionism as the natural state of affairs; only to be gradually re-dismantled towards the end of the twentieth century. But if you think about it, the technical and institutional elements of globalization --efficient mechanized shipping, industrialized commodities production/extraction, global electronic communications, settling/clearing institutions-- were all there then. [1] http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/misc/globalization/ http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/misc/globalizati... [2] http://eml.berkeley.edu/~eichengr/research/brooking.pdf http://eml.berkeley.edu/~eichengr/research/brooking.pdf
- thaumaturgy 12y agoI was specifically thinking of the European Union (which didn't exist 100 years ago) and its relationship with the Greek economy, and the extent to which a Greek default in 2011 or 2012 might have affected economies across Europe and overseas, as well as the effects of the U.S. economic recession in 2008 on the rest of the world. You're right to point out that all (edit: many) of the pieces of globalization were well in place by 1915, but the number of countries involved now, and the extent to which they're involved, is quite a bit different. Political conflicts between countries are now as likely to be handled economically as by any other means. I thought my comment was already way too long, so I didn't explain what I meant.
- gone35 12y agoAgain, I don't blame you because it is counterintuitive, but I invite you to read Section 6 ("Financial Crises") of the Bordo, Eichengreen and Irwin 1999 paper (linked above), to appreciate the extent to which globalization then was indeed similar to today's --even in terms of the number of countries involved, the role of supranational institutions, and the "contagion" effects of local crises via economic linkages. It's quite fascinating.