woolley Posted December 5, 2016 Share Posted December 5, 2016 This just sounds like the kind of justification we are handed down by globalisation proponents and it is accepted by everyone as the conventional wisdom Can you begin imagine how stupidly expensive and antiquated a British made smartphone (perhaps a Bush or an Amstrad) using only British components would be? It would the Lada of smartphones with a Mercedes price tag. You are still missing the point. Oriental industry isn't innately and magically more advanced than the west. Much of the original R & D was and is still originated in the west. It's western intellectual property owned by western interests. The list of companies indulging in this is endless. Heavy engineering, consumer electronics and high tech. Dyson is just one example. There is no reason why a British made smartphone should be antiquated or could not be as good or better than one made in China, with the attendant supply chain also located in Britain or Europe. The problem is that the multinationals want to buy based on cheap labour economies with low regulation, lax environmental and welfare standards, etc. but sell into high value economies and pocket the difference. That is what globalisation is about. In so doing, they are steadily degrading the high value economies into cheaper labour economies to the detriment of those countries. Then some liberal politician will pipe up and tell us how wonderful it is that globalisation is making everyone in the world better off. It is only making the very much better off better off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo Posted December 5, 2016 Share Posted December 5, 2016 You are still missing the point. Oriental industry isn't innately and magically more advanced than the west. Much of the original R & D was and is still originated in the west etc Very often the best of contemporary innovation is designed around being able to quickly switch components depending upon the availability of multiple similar items - on an almost daily basis if necessary. That's very much location specific. You'll know that thing in Asia where you'll find a whole road in an industrial area which does nothing but, say, exhaust pipes. And the next road does, say, springs. The electronics industry is like that. Manufacturers need to know that they can source from multiple suppliers in one place. That's not realistically ever going to happen in Britain or even Europe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted December 5, 2016 Share Posted December 5, 2016 And how did this state of affairs come about? Is it a coincidence that the concentration is in low wage, low regulation economies? This is pretty thin justification for the leviathan that is globalisation. Do you see globalisation as a positive development and, if so, how would you justify the effects on the impoverished labour forces in the developed world? Are you going to feel the same way when your profession or gainful activity is globalised? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo Posted December 5, 2016 Share Posted December 5, 2016 Do you see globalisation as a positive development and, if so, how would you justify the effects on the impoverished labour forces in the developed world? Yes I see it as very positive. But more than that as inevitable and evolutionary. The efficiency of markets drives innovation and creates new opportunities. And it's not as if people used to work in factories making smartphones in the UK - and then they were made redundant. And soon enough the production will be completely automated anyhow. At which point there will be an even stronger case for taxing companies and paying people to be consumers. Are you going to feel the same way when your profession or gainful activity is globalised? I am very happy for everyone to compete equally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted December 5, 2016 Share Posted December 5, 2016 Are you going to feel the same way when your profession or gainful activity is globalised? I am very happy for everyone to compete equally. Either those have to be empty words or you are crazy. Would you be very happy to compete on the basis of your work being outsourced to India at a quarter of the cost? Or you are maybe in a profession that you think is immune to attack. A lot of people thought they were too, but what started as offshoring of low skilled jobs has slowly climbed the skill slope until it affected some highly qualified technicians. Who knows what can be done remotely in the future? You are either totally seduced by the official narrative on globalisation, or perhaps even you are heavily invested in the very companies taking advantage. "The efficiency of markets drives innovation and creates new opportunities." Indeed it does. For efficiency, read driving down of costs and beggar anyone standing in the way. Innovation does not require slave labour, but if it is there to be exploited it will certainly create new opportunities - but not for the man in the street. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted December 5, 2016 Share Posted December 5, 2016 And soon enough the production will be completely automated anyhow. At which point there will be an even stronger case for taxing companies and paying people to be consumers. I agree with this. Strong case indeed, but please. Dream on!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo Posted December 5, 2016 Share Posted December 5, 2016 Would you be very happy to compete on the basis of your work being outsourced to India at a quarter of the cost? One of the guys I am already working with in India earns a lot more than I do. I am hoping to get to where he is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarne Posted December 5, 2016 Share Posted December 5, 2016 http://news.sky.com/story/Boe-governor-mark-carney-in-globalisation-warning-10684635 Woolley is Mark Carney! Pretty much echoes what you said woolley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted December 5, 2016 Share Posted December 5, 2016 Thanks Tarne. He's not me but I briefed him over the weekend. (I think he's TJ on here, actually.) And, thirdly, the UK needed to "move towards more inclusive growth where everyone has a stake in globalisation". But is it anything more than weasel words as the natives start the fire under the cooking pot? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted December 5, 2016 Share Posted December 5, 2016 Would you be very happy to compete on the basis of your work being outsourced to India at a quarter of the cost? One of the guys I am already working with in India earns a lot more than I do. I am hoping to get to where he is. Well that would be very much an exception to the rule and not your average joe on the street. If it was general then global capital would be heading out of India tout de suite for the next bolt hole. I have a few Indian friends and more who are business associates and doing pretty well for themselves. They are all located in the UK though......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quilp Posted December 7, 2016 Share Posted December 7, 2016 Trump. Time magazine's 'Person of the Year' for 2016. Clinton and Putin included in the shortlist. Well I'll go to the bottom of our stairs... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donald Trumps Posted December 7, 2016 Share Posted December 7, 2016 Who's second - Forage? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted December 7, 2016 Share Posted December 7, 2016 Though they are rebranding to "Times up!" on his innaugeration day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmanx Posted December 8, 2016 Share Posted December 8, 2016 Is it a satire edition maybe co-edited by MAD magazine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobbie Bobster Posted December 8, 2016 Share Posted December 8, 2016 "...the person who had the greatest influence, for better or worse, on the events of the year. So which is it this year: Better or worse? The challenge for Donald Trump is how profoundly the country disagrees about the answer. It’s hard to measure the scale of his disruption. This real estate baron and casino owner turned reality-TV star and provocateur—never a day spent in public office, never a debt owed to any interest besides his own—now surveys the smoking ruin of a vast political edifice that once housed parties, pundits, donors, pollsters, all those who did not see him coming or take him seriously. Out of this reckoning, Trump is poised to preside, for better or worse." From time.com Hard to argue with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.