Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Globalization, theory and practice...

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-20-10 03:23 PM
Original message
Globalization, theory and practice...
Ok here is what our wonderful policy wanks are doing. Globalization is supposed to use advantageous competition. To use an extreme example, used by oh Ricardo back in the 19th century... producing wine in Iceland would be nuts. Why? Well growing grapes is kind of hard in that weather. At the same time Cod fishing in France is hard, since the fisheries are far away.

So both nations benefit with better product, that is cheaper when they exchange wine for cod. This is the theory behind globalization, in a nutshell. And for some things, see cocoa growing, coffee growing or even SOME manufacturing it does work.

Now the reality is that either we are facing a complete transformation of the economy where advanced economies are to become intellectual and service centers... which will lead to a lot of dislocation until that happens, or we have seen the deep and dirty underbelly of this, which taken to the extreme leads to the end of consumerism since workers cannot afford the baubles.

Now reality is a few of these baubles are cheaper when made points east... not just because of cheaper labor, but all other externalities they don't pay for... read taxes, education, roads, health care, et al. But there is a limit, and reality is peak oil could bring all this house of cards tumbling down.

But the theory is exactly that wine\cod example. With extreme products due to weather yes globalization does work. That includes things like spices, which has collapsed in price over the last five centuries. But we have a few problems with the system. That said, this is what our policy makers are looking at... the ideals, and I fear they are missing the reality on the ground...

But understanding what they are talking about is a good thing... if you are going to be critical about it. And lord knows there is plenty to be critical about...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Lasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-20-10 03:39 PM
Response to Original message
1. Comparative advantage
A sound theory in reasonable application, corrupted to enrich the already-rich at everybody else's expense. How foolish it is for a nation to dismantle a relatively self-sustaining economy, in favor of a system that produces bananas and nothing else.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-20-10 03:52 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. If in theory producing banannas and only bannanas
gave you all you need to get everything else at a good price...

But the problem is that you cannot truly be dependent to that level and remain independent.

That is one of the major, ahem... wrinkles.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-20-10 04:07 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Exactly right.
You musta read a book or two.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-20-10 04:15 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. And a few articles
yep, in the middle of it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jim__ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-20-10 03:40 PM
Response to Original message
2. Ricardo's theory of comparative advantage says more than that.
Edited on Tue Jul-20-10 03:42 PM by Jim__
It says by each country producing what it can produce with the greatest relative advantage, the total amount of available goods increase (source:wikipedia):

Comparative advantage explains how trade can create value for both parties even when one can produce all goods with fewer resources than the other. The net benefits of such an outcome are called gains from trade. It is the main concept of the pure theory of international trade.


My problem with this is that there is an implicit assumption of full employment inherent in the theory; and when we're looking at the whole world as trading partners, we looking at over 90% of the world being employed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-20-10 03:51 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Of course there is far more to this
but realize not everybody knows what it is, and I prefer to start discussing things at the most simple of levels. And Ricardo's example is exactly that, a simple level.

Thank you for adding complexity...

And you also forget something else when it comes to employment... how many millions were around in oh 1810? How many BILLIONS are today on the surface of the planet? I will safely say that is something that David Ricardo could not quite fathom. Now his friend Malthus did. And we may be approaching a Malthusian curve.

Ah there goes the curve ball...

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
izquierdista Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-20-10 04:34 PM
Response to Original message
7. Trade is really unnecessary
The French can do just fine with locally caught fish and Icelanders can ferment potatoes if they need some hooch to drink. In fact, throughout most of history people did without trade, eating what was fished and hunted and grown locally, building with local materials, and making cloth from cotton or flax or whatever fiber was convenient. In ancient times, trade was for exotic non-essentials like myrrh or spices, and only the haves and have-mores could afford them. If a tribe of people happened to live in a particularly deprived area, they might have to make a trade trip once a year to go and trade their surplus with a neighboring tribe for a necessity, usually salt.

Only when cheap transportation came on the scene did comparative advantage show up. Suddenly, all that excess cod in Iceland could be traded for the excess wine and the standard of both sides rose, for it was not a zero-sum exchange. But in the two or three centuries that have passed since cheap bulk transportation was invented, capitalists have far oversold the benefits of trade, for the purpose of lining their own pockets. They have conditioned the public to expect fresh strawberries any time of the year, season be damned.

As time goes on, and the era of cheap transportation comes to an end with Peak Oil far in the rearview mirror, people will again realize that trade was overrated, just like Italians know now. Ask any Italian from a coastal area where the best seafood in Italy is, and he will tell you his own town. Not 30 km up or down the coast, but his own town. Which also has the best olive oil, the best wine, the tastiest artichokes, etc. They had trade in the Roman era, then it fell by the wayside until Marco Polo showed up. If it goes away again, their way of life isn't going to fall apart.

Trade has really turned the world upside down. I'm reminded of that when I go to the dollar store and see little bags of rocks, carefully selected and packaged by Chinese hands and shipped 10,000 miles so that people can drop them into the bottom of their flower vases.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-20-10 04:50 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. There are SOME benefits to trade
see those spices... I like to be able to afford salt and pepper in my food.

But there are many problems with trade... apples from New Zealand in the US is a problem. Especially when we have Apples in the US RIGHT NOW.

Peak oil will lead to a re balancing of the word economic system, which now is in the POST CAPITALIST era, which again people will ONLY recognize once this age is over. What we live in is a corporatist economy, but they use "capitalism" for propaganda purposes.

But in order to understand what our wanks speak off... people need to first see what exactly they are talking about.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun May 05th 2024, 03:49 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC