Daily Kos

Globalization begins the great unwinding.

Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 01:05:34 PM PDT

From the New York Times:

Decisions like those suggest that what some economists call a neighborhood effect — putting factories closer to components suppliers and to consumers, to reduce transportation costs — could grow in importance if oil remains expensive. A barrel sold for $125 on Friday, compared with lows of $10 a decade ago.

. . .

The cost of shipping a 40-foot container from Shanghai to the United States has risen to $8,000, compared with $3,000 early in the decade, according to a recent study of transportation costs. Big container ships, the pack mules of the 21st-century economy, have shaved their top speed by nearly 20 percent to save on fuel costs, substantially slowing shipping times.

The study, published in May by the Canadian investment bank CIBC World Markets, calculates that the recent surge in shipping costs is on average the equivalent of a 9 percent tariff on trade. "The cost of moving goods, not the cost of tariffs, is the largest barrier to global trade today," the report concluded, and as a result "has effectively offset all the trade liberalization efforts of the last three decades."

Continued...

I shall now play the part of a pundit and construct a narrative without providing sufficient supporting evidence. (I'm feeling lazy.)

Once upon a time, the United States of America was a manufacturing powerhouse. (That was how we won WWII.) Now it's just a financial powerhouse, full of hollow shells that design and sell products largely manufactured elsewhere. This happened quite simply because it could. As long as it was cheaper to replace domestic labor with capital investment (automation) and foreign labor (offshoring), any company that failed to do so would be outcompeted and replaced in the market by those that did.

The cost imbalance was partly driven by rising health insurance expenses in a mad system that funneled health care through health insurance through employers, without respect for the necessity of basic health and dental care for human dignity. It was partly driven by developing countries even less worker-friendly than the U.S., with lax labor and environmental regulations that allowed corporations to externalize significant expenses onto the public there without compensation or even accounting. And, it was partly driven by the rise of the U.S. dollar as an international reserve currency, which caused us to have a significant capital account surplus (exporting more financial products), the mirror image of our current account deficit (importing more real products); that made imports artificially cheaper, which likewise made it artificially cheaper for American companies to produce goods elsewhere -- effectively importing their own products -- than to produce them here.

As a side effect of the hollowing out of our manufacturing base, globalization similarly hollowed out the American middle class by replacing well-paying factory jobs with low-paying service jobs. It also caused a dramatic expansion of the income gap, because the profits from more productive capital investment and cheaper foreign labor accrue to those who control the capital -- not to the domestic workers, who were lucky just to not be laid off. During this same long rocky period for regular folks, the top 1% have done very, very well for themselves. Not only have those with great wealth obtained much lower taxes through their control of the media narrative, but they also have such high leverage available through a derivatives-based shadow banking system that while the profits are privatized, the risks are systemic and therefore necessarily socialized.

Since the "haves and have-mores" are the post-Nixon Republican base (as George W. Bush once revealed in a memorable moment of funny-because-it's-true), the Republican party has likewise done very, very well for itself and its DINO pets. Wealthy pluto-cons used a venture capital approach to build up a hydra of think tanks, which they use to push their message into a stenographic media environment, resulting in their aforementioned control of the media narrative, in a nice (for them) little reinforcing feedback loop. As a result, those in the D.C./N.Y. bubble perceive U.S. politics through a dollar-weighted filter. Heard through the babble of think-tank-driven bloviating, a wealthy ten-millionaire's opinion effectively has a thousand times as much weight as a middle-class ten-thousandaire in determining what our politicans and political press see as the "center" of the range of socially-acceptable views.

However, the globalization of financial capital depends on the globalization of real capital, which depends on the price of energy for transport. The globalization grasshoppers long ago succumbed to at least the top two causes of human misjudgment (if not more): misconstrued incentive and denial. They didn't want to believe in natural constraints on the growth of global wealth; so they didn't believe it; so they didn't plan for it, and now here we are.

With the gorging on debt of our borrow & squander conservatives concurrent with the rise of the euro, the U.S. dollar is being reduced to one egg in a basket approach to reserve currencies; and constrained supply is meeting rising demand to push energy prices higher. With the tide flowing out, it is clear that the conservatives have been swimming naked. Instead of following IMF austerity programs (very controversial), nations are literally growing their way out of trouble by giving peasant farmers coupons for fertilizer (very effective). Wealth has financial gravity; like mass, it pulls more to itself, flowing up in a society from those with less wealth to those with more -- not the other way around. The egghead theories that the conservatives use to justify their self-serving policies are simply, plainly, wrong.

We can fix our problems. With a massive public investment in renewable energy, reconstructing the artificial incentives from free trade to fair trade, decoupling health care from the specific employer so that it's only a household and public expense instead of a labor cost per se, restoring the ability of workers to collectively negotiate with the massive pools of collectivized capital that control so many businesses, and of course ending our mutually unwanted occupation of Iraq -- we can fix this. We can build an even better and fairer America than what we had before, designed around a fundamental respect for the personal dignity of every human, recognizing our fundamental interconnectedness with our environment and each other. Let's do it!

Tags: New York Times, globalization, oil prices, Rescued (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 21 comments

  •  Globalization has contracted before (5+ / 0-)

    It is worth remembering that this isn't the first era of globalization. The world economy of the late 19th century was highly globalized also, albeit in somewhat different ways than today. Pre-1914, there were all sorts of Thomas-Friedman-predecessors who claimed that the economic interconnectedness of the world would prevent war. We all know how that turned out.

    The contraction began with the first world war, continued in the 1920s and reached a peak in the 1930s as protectionist barriers went up.

    So it is entirely possible that it could happen again.

    "A clown is like aspirin, only he works twice as fast" - Groucho Marx

    by Morpheus on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 01:18:24 PM PDT

    •  There will always be international trade. (7+ / 0-)

      I think that the era of cheap energy is over, and labor will never again be as globally fungible as it was in 2000. From now on, shorter global supply chains will have more of a competitive advantage, and so local labor will have a bit more negotiating leverage. That's all -- and enough for me, a very big deal I think.

      Doesn't John McCain look tired?

      by SciVo on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 01:25:25 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Of course, but it can expand and contract (8+ / 0-)

        Of course international trade will continue. All I'm saying is, it can expand and contract significantly. It seems like the past 25 years all we've heard is cheerleading adn inevitability. It ain't inevitable.

        "A clown is like aspirin, only he works twice as fast" - Groucho Marx

        by Morpheus on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 01:44:22 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Remember the spice and silk trade. (3+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          Pariah Dog, SciVo, MAORCA

          That even when global transport was slow and expensive certain things were "globalized" in a sense.  What's been weird in the last 20 years is the way that even a cheap lawn chair could be transported around the world and still carry a lower price than a locally made product.  Now that is coming to an end.  Now there will be a sifting out as to what products it's still cheaper to ship (especially information and mid-tech things like cell phones) and what products can justify building local manufacturies from scratch.  Should be interesting

          His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. --Mark Twain on G.W. Bush.

          by Anubis Bard on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 04:21:53 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Excellent piece. No proof needed (12+ / 0-)

    Well thought out and rationalized.  I enjoyed reading this.  Walmart is not going to like your last paragraph.

    i can't wait until an american leader starts focusing on americans.

    As individual as you are, one is still at risk of being judged by the company they keep.

    by publicv on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 02:05:26 PM PDT

  •  I have long noticed two things: (13+ / 0-)

    (1)  If Americans don't have good-paying jobs, who is going to buy stuff?  Certainly not the $3 workers in Indonesia and China . . . .

    (2)  At some point, energy costs are going to be prohibitive to ship stuff all over the world.  Therefore, it will make sense to build stuff locally (as the diarist said).  However, now that we have shuttered our factories, it will take a lot to get them back up and running again, won't it?

    Stupid, short-sighted idiots.  International cheap labor was unsustainable from the start.  Ditto the huge plantations of crops for export, and nothing grown locally for the local people to eat.

    To say my fate is not tied to your fate is like saying, "Your end of the boat is sinking."--Hugh Downs

    by Dar Nirron on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 02:22:06 PM PDT

  •  Sweet jeebus! (8+ / 0-)

    Never mind political pix, write this type of diary every day! You are brilliant and a fantastic writer!

  •  Well done (4+ / 0-)

    Perfect attitude for the problems we face today.

    Great Job!

  •  This was a thought provoking diary... (4+ / 0-)

    It was somewhere between a scholarly essay and a stream of consciousness.  A fun read.

    Treasure each day like it will be your last, but treat the earth like you will live forever. -me

    by protothad on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 09:27:03 PM PDT

  •  Great diary and recommended. (3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    nanobubble, Eloise, SciVo

    One small nit to pick:

    Perhaps I'll do a diary on this someday.

    Generally speaking, corporate profits have doubled in the last 10 years or so (I believe that was Robert Reich on NPR) while employee salaries and wages have risen only slightly, if at all.

    While profits have been skyrocketing, blame keeps being pointed at "health care costs" which have likewise risen rapidly.  HOWEVER, they still are not a huge percentage of many corporations' operating budgets. And, "health care insurance" has been reduced, slashed, limited and otherwise hacked to pieces, even for 'well-insured' employees.

    So, "health care coverage" is really corporate America's strawman for their abuse of American employees -- cutting their benefits, shifting costs to employees, limiting their access to medical care. All this is being done simply to increase profits and line the pockets of the executives.

    Don't fall for the strawman. America can afford health care coverage.  Universal coverage with single payer would cut administrative costs 30% right off the top.  

    We are being held hostage by the greed of CEOs and corporate boards.  

    •  I look forward to that diary! (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      nanobubble

      My argument was more of a bottom-up one, that rising health insurance prices (for equivalent insurance) push more and more workers into the zone where the total cost of domestic labor is worth replacing with investments in automation and/or offshoring. The flip side of that is, of course, more and more workers compromising on the quality (or even existence) of the health insurance that they will accept from employers.

      We really need single-payer IMO. I hope that we can either change enough minds and/or members of Congress to push that, or else that Obama's plan serves as a bridge that gets us closer by incrementalizing across an anxiety gap. I can't see past the edge that the status quo creeps closer to every day, and that's kind of scary.

      Doesn't John McCain look tired?

      by SciVo on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 03:00:53 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  You need unapologetic populist tax policy here. (3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    nanobubble, SciVo, Lexpression

    Intensive investment in green infrastructure and "de-globalization", i.e. rebuilding our industrial base, are vital to avoid America's slide into third-world status. But the main source of government revenue for such investments has always been taxation of the broad middle class. And the middle class is absolutely tapped out, in debt to the eyeballs, upside down on their mortgages and sinking fast. Increasing the tax burden on average Americans in an age of $4/gallon gas and exploding health care costs will simply provoke another wave of bankruptcies.

    The only way to fund these massive, absolutely necessary investments in the future is by clawing back some of those trillions of dollars squirreled away by our wealthy overlords. This means a big, fat, no-apologies estate tax; a very high marginal rate on incomes above a certain level, including investment income, and ironclad financial policing to prevent the überclass from hiding their booty overseas. They have been the sole economic beneficiaries of the last 35 years; time for them to pay the rent.

    We need to start emphasizing this unabashedly populist notion of economic fairness right now, right from the start, before the framing is set by those who have already plundered this nation.

  •  Excellent Diary! (3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    nanobubble, SciVo, SolarAngel

    tipped and recc'd... highly.

    For starters - gasp - it ISN'T about the campaign!

    Secondly, it's outstanding writing. And then, there's the subject matter, which is near and dear to my heart. Not to sound like a xenophobe or protectionist, but the end of this globalization crap couldn't come too soon for me. Having grown up in the fifties and sixties, the climate of the last thirty-odd years makes for a very stranger in a strange land feeling for me.

    Meddle not in the affairs of dragons... for thou art crunchy and good with ketchup.

    by Pariah Dog on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 05:30:45 AM PDT

    •  Thank you! But it's not the end, exactly. (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Pariah Dog

      I chose "unwinding" carefully. It will neither be a "rollback" to how things were before, nor a complete "unraveling" of the current order of things. Many threads of interconnection will be selectively cut and pulled out of the tangle as supply chains are tightened up. Many lives will be dramatically changed, and this crisis will prove an opportunity to shore up our middle class, if only we seize it. What was done cannot be undone; international trade relations have been greatly improved, institutions built for the constant work of relationship management, and things will never be the same.

      Doesn't John McCain look tired?

      by SciVo on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 08:17:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I don't think the unwinding is that great (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    SciVo

    I shall now play the part of a pundit and construct a narrative without providing sufficient supporting evidence.

    Two can play that game!

    I basically agree with what you're saying.  I just don't think it's at the level of being a new narrative to describe, of being a 'great unwinding'.  I think it's just part of organizations making decisions about their supply chains.  I saw this from the link you put at Dog's, so I'll leave my specific commentary there.

    There is one thing I want to respond to specifically with which I disagree strongly.

    As a side effect of the hollowing out of our manufacturing base, globalization similarly hollowed out the American middle class by replacing well-paying factory jobs with low-paying service jobs. It also caused a dramatic expansion of the income gap, because the profits from more productive capital investment and cheaper foreign labor accrue to those who control the capital -- not to the domestic workers, who were lucky just to not be laid off.

    I think globalization is a dangerous scapegoat for this trend in our country because it makes it sound like it's a natural evolution, and thus, no one's responsible for it happening and not much can be done to change it.  I completely disagree.  The reason the gains from the past three decades or so went almost entirely to the richest people are unnatural.  Public policy was purposefully altered to push the productivity gains up the ladder, not down, and write trade pacts that were corporate friendly, far from being 'free' trade.  We chose to allocate the gains in such a way, and we continue to have choices for how those gains are allocated.

Permalink | 21 comments