Inflation is raging because globalisation is fading
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 03, 2022, 06:42:21 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Economics (Moderator: Torie)
  Inflation is raging because globalisation is fading
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Inflation is raging because globalisation is fading  (Read 879 times)
Torie
Moderator
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 43,193
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: August 05, 2022, 12:30:06 PM »

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/small-biz/trade/exports/insights/inflation-is-raging-because-globalisation-is-fading/articleshow/92794559.cms

I was rooting around for a good article of the consequences of the US and the PRC trade relationship falling apart as the US, and maybe the PRC too, don't want to be dependent upon and subject to coercion by the other via trade dependency, and found the above instead which has a more global focus.

It does seem to me that at the rate we are going the Industrial democracies will have one trading relationship, and China and Russia and some other autocracies in another, and India somewhere in the twilight zone, perhaps under pressure over time to choose one or the other. Standards of living will drop, and the planet a more dangerous and risky place.

Informed and thoughtful comments on this are welcome.
Logged
Overturn Dobbs
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,889


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: August 05, 2022, 02:05:51 PM »

Well it's no coincidence that the era of low inflation was the era of globalization, and the same was true for the first era of low inflation (or deflation) during what we now know of as the Victorian and Edwardian periods. One thing that has become apparent in recent years is that economic logic and political logic do not go together. Economics in the aggregate is a rational discipline, and the best economics integrates the world because that is the most efficient way to produce more at a lower cost. Politics on the other hand is full of human emotions, particularly the bad ones, and include pride, fear, anger, disgust, tribalism, and all the rest, and is the opposite of rational. Therefore in some ways, politics and economics are opposites.
Logged
Benjamin Frank
Frank
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,307


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: August 06, 2022, 03:30:59 AM »

Well it's no coincidence that the era of low inflation was the era of globalization, and the same was true for the first era of low inflation (or deflation) during what we now know of as the Victorian and Edwardian periods. One thing that has become apparent in recent years is that economic logic and political logic do not go together. Economics in the aggregate is a rational discipline, and the best economics integrates the world because that is the most efficient way to produce more at a lower cost. Politics on the other hand is full of human emotions, particularly the bad ones, and include pride, fear, anger, disgust, tribalism, and all the rest, and is the opposite of rational. Therefore in some ways, politics and economics are opposites.

Then, when the stars align and good economics is supported by the politicians and the public, greed often gets in the way and messes everything up.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 52,600
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: August 06, 2022, 04:20:41 PM »

There is a question that you have to ask that is often overlooked in these discussions, "how sustainable is it really to maintain the kind of global environment where this can occur"?

Countries are going to make decisions that are in line with the interests of them and their people. To think otherwise is rather idealistic view of the world and one in which you are apt to be disappointed or forced to make a set of terrible choices.

There are some assumptions at the heart of free trade that I have became rather dubious about in recent times. One of them is that the presumption that the default state of the world is peace and security and history shows that the opposite is true. Therefore the maintenance of such peace, security and "open sea lanes" can only be sustained through military intervention.

There is also the presumption that the world is a "fair" place and thus free trade allows for "more efficiency" to be reamed out of the global economy as a whole. However, the world is not a free place, most comparative advantage is the result of choices made save obviously for resources and climate sensitive crops (to say otherwise almost reaks of cultural racism. Education, infrastructure, etc can be built and thus any comparative advantage anyone has was obtained through development via asserted actions).

The world is not a fair place, most superpowers obtained their economic dominance through protectionism and developmental intervention first and once such power was obtained, they "embraced free trade" and then often sought to use their economic leverage to bend the world to their wishes. You then have to make another choice between "freedom of the market" and "political freedom", unless you are that sole dominate power that is.

This is why, against the backdrop of a British dominated world, US isolationism and protectionism went hand in hand as essential to the geopolitical aim of preserving the victory in the American Revolution. To remain free and independent politically, it was necessary to avoid being economic dependent on the country that could leverage their power to reduce the former.

There is no way in which a world where PRC China is the number one economic power or a co-super power, that there is not going to be a political reaction in all of the countries whose systems are at odds with theirs. China has and will continue to leverage its economic power to achieve its aims and bend other county's to their will.

To blame "those other countries" for not wanting the tentacles of a totalitarian regime reaching into and violating their own sovereignty because it deviates from the worship of complete and slavish devotion to the alter of economic efficiency demonstrates a rather idealistic view of the world that has been gnashed about on the rocks of reality. This is not irrational or "dumb rubes acting against their economic interest", it is putting political freedom over "economic freedom".

America was right to resist the influence of the British Empire in the 19th century just like it did the Soviet influence of the 20th century. However, when it comes to resisting the influence of the PRC, for those who grew up in an era of a free market world, led by the US, facing off against the anti-market Soviet Union, it is not unreasonable that they would be disappointed at the direction of global geopolitics now as this is something much similar to that of the 19th century than that of the contest with the USSR.
Logged
Benjamin Frank
Frank
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,307


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: August 06, 2022, 07:59:49 PM »

There is a question that you have to ask that is often overlooked in these discussions, "how sustainable is it really to maintain the kind of global environment where this can occur"?

Countries are going to make decisions that are in line with the interests of them and their people. To think otherwise is rather idealistic view of the world and one in which you are apt to be disappointed or forced to make a set of terrible choices.

There are some assumptions at the heart of free trade that I have became rather dubious about in recent times. One of them is that the presumption that the default state of the world is peace and security and history shows that the opposite is true. Therefore the maintenance of such peace, security and "open sea lanes" can only be sustained through military intervention.

There is also the presumption that the world is a "fair" place and thus free trade allows for "more efficiency" to be reamed out of the global economy as a whole. However, the world is not a free place, most comparative advantage is the result of choices made save obviously for resources and climate sensitive crops (to say otherwise almost reaks of cultural racism. Education, infrastructure, etc can be built and thus any comparative advantage anyone has was obtained through development via asserted actions).

The world is not a fair place, most superpowers obtained their economic dominance through protectionism and developmental intervention first and once such power was obtained, they "embraced free trade" and then often sought to use their economic leverage to bend the world to their wishes. You then have to make another choice between "freedom of the market" and "political freedom", unless you are that sole dominate power that is.

This is why, against the backdrop of a British dominated world, US isolationism and protectionism went hand in hand as essential to the geopolitical aim of preserving the victory in the American Revolution. To remain free and independent politically, it was necessary to avoid being economic dependent on the country that could leverage their power to reduce the former.

There is no way in which a world where PRC China is the number one economic power or a co-super power, that there is not going to be a political reaction in all of the countries whose systems are at odds with theirs. China has and will continue to leverage its economic power to achieve its aims and bend other county's to their will.

To blame "those other countries" for not wanting the tentacles of a totalitarian regime reaching into and violating their own sovereignty because it deviates from the worship of complete and slavish devotion to the alter of economic efficiency demonstrates a rather idealistic view of the world that has been gnashed about on the rocks of reality. This is not irrational or "dumb rubes acting against their economic interest", it is putting political freedom over "economic freedom".

America was right to resist the influence of the British Empire in the 19th century just like it did the Soviet influence of the 20th century. However, when it comes to resisting the influence of the PRC, for those who grew up in an era of a free market world, led by the US, facing off against the anti-market Soviet Union, it is not unreasonable that they would be disappointed at the direction of global geopolitics now as this is something much similar to that of the 19th century than that of the contest with the USSR.

I find it interesting that you have a better understanding of economics than me but that you're anti free trade.
Logged
Torie
Moderator
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 43,193
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: August 08, 2022, 09:19:38 AM »
« Edited: August 08, 2022, 11:23:34 AM by Torie »

There is a question that you have to ask that is often overlooked in these discussions, "how sustainable is it really to maintain the kind of global environment where this can occur"?

Countries are going to make decisions that are in line with the interests of them and their people. To think otherwise is rather idealistic view of the world and one in which you are apt to be disappointed or forced to make a set of terrible choices.

There are some assumptions at the heart of free trade that I have became rather dubious about in recent times. One of them is that the presumption that the default state of the world is peace and security and history shows that the opposite is true. Therefore the maintenance of such peace, security and "open sea lanes" can only be sustained through military intervention.

There is also the presumption that the world is a "fair" place and thus free trade allows for "more efficiency" to be reamed out of the global economy as a whole. However, the world is not a free place, most comparative advantage is the result of choices made save obviously for resources and climate sensitive crops (to say otherwise almost reaks of cultural racism. Education, infrastructure, etc can be built and thus any comparative advantage anyone has was obtained through development via asserted actions).

The world is not a fair place, most superpowers obtained their economic dominance through protectionism and developmental intervention first and once such power was obtained, they "embraced free trade" and then often sought to use their economic leverage to bend the world to their wishes. You then have to make another choice between "freedom of the market" and "political freedom", unless you are that sole dominate power that is.

This is why, against the backdrop of a British dominated world, US isolationism and protectionism went hand in hand as essential to the geopolitical aim of preserving the victory in the American Revolution. To remain free and independent politically, it was necessary to avoid being economic dependent on the country that could leverage their power to reduce the former.

There is no way in which a world where PRC China is the number one economic power or a co-super power, that there is not going to be a political reaction in all of the countries whose systems are at odds with theirs. China has and will continue to leverage its economic power to achieve its aims and bend other county's to their will.

To blame "those other countries" for not wanting the tentacles of a totalitarian regime reaching into and violating their own sovereignty because it deviates from the worship of complete and slavish devotion to the alter of economic efficiency demonstrates a rather idealistic view of the world that has been gnashed about on the rocks of reality. This is not irrational or "dumb rubes acting against their economic interest", it is putting political freedom over "economic freedom".

America was right to resist the influence of the British Empire in the 19th century just like it did the Soviet influence of the 20th century. However, when it comes to resisting the influence of the PRC, for those who grew up in an era of a free market world, led by the US, facing off against the anti-market Soviet Union, it is not unreasonable that they would be disappointed at the direction of global geopolitics now as this is something much similar to that of the 19th century than that of the contest with the USSR.

Yes, free trade creates economic interdependence, and thus vulnerability to coercion. A sustainable and less risky free trade system depends on confidence and trust, and yes, shared values. You mention the UK and the US in the 19th century. Actually post Civil War, the UK was delighted when the US started flexing its international muscle and grabbing ports and building warships, and having a partner in the world domination enterprise (Pax Britannica became Pax Anglophonia). A special relationship was born that has lasted in good condition to this day. If only the UK had three times as many people as it were.
Logged
TheDeadFlagBlues
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,665
Mexico


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: August 08, 2022, 09:47:05 AM »

A bizarre hypothesis if there ever was one. Globalization was fading before the COVID-19 pandemic in the wake of Trump's trade wars. This had little effect on inflation in the US. There are obvious reasons for the present inflationary burst that relate to ultra-loose monetary policy and ultra-expansionary fiscal stimulus in the US, along with a massive energy shock. These factors are fundamentally transient and will fade away rapidly.
Logged
Torie
Moderator
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 43,193
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: August 08, 2022, 11:28:54 AM »
« Edited: August 08, 2022, 05:30:10 PM by Torie »

A bizarre hypothesis if there ever was one. Globalization was fading before the COVID-19 pandemic in the wake of Trump's trade wars. This had little effect on inflation in the US. There are obvious reasons for the present inflationary burst that relate to ultra-loose monetary policy and ultra-expansionary fiscal stimulus in the US, along with a massive energy shock. These factors are fundamentally transient and will fade away rapidly.


Surely you agree that an abrupt interruption in existing trading patterns had an impact on prices, if only as a one time thing. Long term, the truncation of free trade one way or the other will reduce overall standards of living, net, via inflation or otherwise, at least until such time as the next abrupt interruption in trading patterns. It seems to me prudence dictates a balancing act, in search of the Goldilocks sweet spot.
Logged
Meclazine
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,289
Australia
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: August 12, 2022, 04:13:00 PM »
« Edited: August 13, 2022, 04:07:35 AM by Meclazine »

Argentina raises interest rates to 69.5%

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/08/12/economy/argentina-inflation-interest-rates/index.html

That's a good return on your money. The currency must be crashing.
Logged
Tintrlvr
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,789


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: August 12, 2022, 05:18:03 PM »

Argentina raises interest rates to 69.5%

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/08/12/economy/argentina-inflation-interest-rates/index.html

That's a good return on your money. The currency must he crashing.

Only a good return if your bonds end up repaid!
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 52,600
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: August 13, 2022, 05:51:14 PM »

There is a question that you have to ask that is often overlooked in these discussions, "how sustainable is it really to maintain the kind of global environment where this can occur"?

Countries are going to make decisions that are in line with the interests of them and their people. To think otherwise is rather idealistic view of the world and one in which you are apt to be disappointed or forced to make a set of terrible choices.

There are some assumptions at the heart of free trade that I have became rather dubious about in recent times. One of them is that the presumption that the default state of the world is peace and security and history shows that the opposite is true. Therefore the maintenance of such peace, security and "open sea lanes" can only be sustained through military intervention.

There is also the presumption that the world is a "fair" place and thus free trade allows for "more efficiency" to be reamed out of the global economy as a whole. However, the world is not a free place, most comparative advantage is the result of choices made save obviously for resources and climate sensitive crops (to say otherwise almost reaks of cultural racism. Education, infrastructure, etc can be built and thus any comparative advantage anyone has was obtained through development via asserted actions).

The world is not a fair place, most superpowers obtained their economic dominance through protectionism and developmental intervention first and once such power was obtained, they "embraced free trade" and then often sought to use their economic leverage to bend the world to their wishes. You then have to make another choice between "freedom of the market" and "political freedom", unless you are that sole dominate power that is.

This is why, against the backdrop of a British dominated world, US isolationism and protectionism went hand in hand as essential to the geopolitical aim of preserving the victory in the American Revolution. To remain free and independent politically, it was necessary to avoid being economic dependent on the country that could leverage their power to reduce the former.

There is no way in which a world where PRC China is the number one economic power or a co-super power, that there is not going to be a political reaction in all of the countries whose systems are at odds with theirs. China has and will continue to leverage its economic power to achieve its aims and bend other county's to their will.

To blame "those other countries" for not wanting the tentacles of a totalitarian regime reaching into and violating their own sovereignty because it deviates from the worship of complete and slavish devotion to the alter of economic efficiency demonstrates a rather idealistic view of the world that has been gnashed about on the rocks of reality. This is not irrational or "dumb rubes acting against their economic interest", it is putting political freedom over "economic freedom".

America was right to resist the influence of the British Empire in the 19th century just like it did the Soviet influence of the 20th century. However, when it comes to resisting the influence of the PRC, for those who grew up in an era of a free market world, led by the US, facing off against the anti-market Soviet Union, it is not unreasonable that they would be disappointed at the direction of global geopolitics now as this is something much similar to that of the 19th century than that of the contest with the USSR.

Yes, free trade creates economic interdependence, and thus vulnerability to coercion. A sustainable and less risky free trade system depends on confidence and trust, and yes, shared values. You mention the UK and the US in the 19th century. Actually post Civil War, the UK was delighted when the US started flexing its international muscle and grabbing ports and building warships, and having a partner in the world domination enterprise (Pax Britannica became Pax Anglophonia). A special relationship was born that has lasted in good condition to this day. If only the UK had three times as many people as it were.


Yes, after the Civil War and if anything much closer to around 1900 than to 1860. However prior to that, especially during the Civil War and prior to that even more so, Britain saw the US as a threat to Canada, and we saw the British as a threat to take back over the country.

However, leaving aside the political/military situation for a second, in terms of trade, the British and American approaches were at odds with one another for decades beyond 1900.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 52,600
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: August 13, 2022, 06:14:44 PM »

There is a question that you have to ask that is often overlooked in these discussions, "how sustainable is it really to maintain the kind of global environment where this can occur"?

Countries are going to make decisions that are in line with the interests of them and their people. To think otherwise is rather idealistic view of the world and one in which you are apt to be disappointed or forced to make a set of terrible choices.

There are some assumptions at the heart of free trade that I have became rather dubious about in recent times. One of them is that the presumption that the default state of the world is peace and security and history shows that the opposite is true. Therefore the maintenance of such peace, security and "open sea lanes" can only be sustained through military intervention.

There is also the presumption that the world is a "fair" place and thus free trade allows for "more efficiency" to be reamed out of the global economy as a whole. However, the world is not a free place, most comparative advantage is the result of choices made save obviously for resources and climate sensitive crops (to say otherwise almost reaks of cultural racism. Education, infrastructure, etc can be built and thus any comparative advantage anyone has was obtained through development via asserted actions).

The world is not a fair place, most superpowers obtained their economic dominance through protectionism and developmental intervention first and once such power was obtained, they "embraced free trade" and then often sought to use their economic leverage to bend the world to their wishes. You then have to make another choice between "freedom of the market" and "political freedom", unless you are that sole dominate power that is.

This is why, against the backdrop of a British dominated world, US isolationism and protectionism went hand in hand as essential to the geopolitical aim of preserving the victory in the American Revolution. To remain free and independent politically, it was necessary to avoid being economic dependent on the country that could leverage their power to reduce the former.

There is no way in which a world where PRC China is the number one economic power or a co-super power, that there is not going to be a political reaction in all of the countries whose systems are at odds with theirs. China has and will continue to leverage its economic power to achieve its aims and bend other county's to their will.

To blame "those other countries" for not wanting the tentacles of a totalitarian regime reaching into and violating their own sovereignty because it deviates from the worship of complete and slavish devotion to the alter of economic efficiency demonstrates a rather idealistic view of the world that has been gnashed about on the rocks of reality. This is not irrational or "dumb rubes acting against their economic interest", it is putting political freedom over "economic freedom".

America was right to resist the influence of the British Empire in the 19th century just like it did the Soviet influence of the 20th century. However, when it comes to resisting the influence of the PRC, for those who grew up in an era of a free market world, led by the US, facing off against the anti-market Soviet Union, it is not unreasonable that they would be disappointed at the direction of global geopolitics now as this is something much similar to that of the 19th century than that of the contest with the USSR.

I find it interesting that you have a better understanding of economics than me but that you're anti free trade.

A lot of people treat trade as a matter of education versus ignorance. Whereas for me its one of idealism versus realism.

I mean if you take everything at face value that is taught in economics, everyone would be a libertarian, but hardly anyone is. That should tell you something about economics in terms of how it is taught and economics in terms of the real world in terms of how it interacts socially and politically on the ground.

In an ideal world where everyone is playing by the same rules, probably yes free trade would be the best. However, in reality, everyone else is cheating because it is in their interest to cheat and they will always cheat because to not do so, would be to put their own people's interests on the backburner. To then decry any given action as a "violation of the principles of free trade", seems at a certain point to necessitate some wishful thinking about the state of the world, or the benefit of the ideal that so much devotion is placed towards.

I recall a video from one of the wall street oriented news services and it was titled something along the lines of "Don't Worry, China isn't going to dominate the world". The reason the video then gave was because the world was dividing into two or three trade blocs, it wouldn't be possible for China to dominate the world. They then interviewed some "expert", who spent two decades living in China and had him go over the history and the transformation he had seen (in China). They then asked him at the tail end about the shift towards trade blocs (again the whole premise of the video along it being linked to thwarting Chinese global dominance) and the response he gave you could literally hear the hand wringing. "Oh no, that would be terrible, it would violate the principles of free trade. I really hope that doesn't continue to happen".

So the video says three things:
1. Don't worry about PRC domination
2. Because the world is dividing into three trade blocs
3. But that is terrible, because it violates free trade and ends globalization.

This is not the worst thing I thing I have consumed from such a news outlet (that would be a 2009 article that I read arguing that the Great Recession was a good thing because now you could get decent service in the coffee shop).

That said, I think it illustrates the coming geopolitical divide and why "globalization" is going to decline in the coming decades. Because no devotion to an idealistic concept is going to tangibly stand up to the geopolitical impacts of a world divided into two or three blocks.


Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.054 seconds with 11 queries.