Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Big Orange

Globalisation Not Dead In East Asia

Recommended Posts

According to this article Neoliberal Globalisation is still popular:

Quote

Anti-globalisation sentiments are spreading in America and Europe, but definitely not in Asia, the continent that is leading global economic growth. Surprisingly, this crucially important point is usually overlooked. In the vast majority of Asian countries, there is a strong desire in the political establishment and the business community to speed up globalisation and further liberalise international trade and investment, in particular. The ultimate goal is to build stronger national economies and raise living standards. By and large, the public accepts this stance, or at least does not show signs of resistance.

 

 

OK, if Neoliberal Globalisation in E Asia is still completely tickety boo and not going by almost completely on inertia like it has been in North America and Europe since 2007/8-ish, then why is a Japanese electronics multinational in financial crisis and a major South Korean shipping firm gone belly up? And China is now caught between a rock and a hard place with its demographic problem and automation.

And the "enthusiasm" of Neoliberalism since the 90s and the growth of Asian brands in earlier decades was welcomed in by totalitarian regimes and quasi-dictatorships.

Edited by Big Orange

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Globalism in East Asia also doesn't come with the supposedly-required mass immigration like it does in Europe and N America. No wonder their peoples are rejecting it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Futuroid said:

Globalism isn't dead anywhere.

It's a product of technology and international corporations, not of political will.

It is more a product of bending political will by international corporations through the lobbying.

Course the Asian countries love it, they are primary winners, gaining economically big time as work and income shifts in their direction and they can carry on as normal insulating themselves from any negative effects they like - try buying a company or property in many Asian countries and you will be told to ****** off.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Quote

Globalism isn't dead anywhere.

It's a product of technology and international corporations, not of political will.

Not really;

Andean Community (1969)

ASEAN–Australia–New Zealand Free Trade Area (AANZFTA) - 2010[1]

ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA) - 1992

Asia-Pacific Trade Agreement (APTA) - 1975

Central American Integration System (SICA) - 1993

Central European Free Trade Agreement (CEFTA) - 1992[2]

Commonwealth of Independent States Free Trade Area (CISFTA) - 2011[3]

Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA) - 1994

G-3 Free Trade Agreement (G-3) - 1995

Greater Arab Free Trade Area (GAFTA) -1997[4]

Dominican Republic–Central America Free Trade Agreement (DR-CAFTA) - 2004

East African Community (EAC) - 2005

European Economic Area (EEA; European Union–Norway–Iceland–Liechtenstein) - 1994

European Union Customs Union (EUCU; European Union–Turkey–Monaco–San Marino–Andorra) - 1958

European Free Trade Association (EFTA) - 1960

Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) - 1981

North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) - 1994[5]

Pacific Alliance Free Trade Area (PAFTA) - 2012[6]

Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership[7] (RCEP) (ASEAN plus 6)

South Asian Free Trade Area (SAFTA) - 2004[8]

Southern African Development Community Free Trade Area (SADCFTA) - 1980

Southern Common Market (MERCOSUR) - 1991

Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) - 201

Globalisation is not a spontaneous outcome of technology or corporate activity alone- it's very much a product of political will. Corporations are creatures of law and without the legal frameworks provided by politicaly sanctioned trade arrangments their abiliy to act in a globalised way would be extremely limited.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, wonderpup said:

 

Globalisation is not a spontaneous outcome of technology or corporate activity alone- it's very much a product of political will. Corporations are creatures of law and without the legal frameworks provided by politicaly sanctioned trade arrangments their abiliy to act in a globalised way would be extremely limited.

 

Estimated 12,000 lobbyists in the US, though majority not corporation-based.

Prime example in how corrupt and unrepresentative it has become was the handling of the TPP agreement - in private, with no open reveal of its contents whilst it was working its way through the political system.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, wonderpup said:

 

Not really;

Andean Community (1969)

ASEAN–Australia–New Zealand Free Trade Area (AANZFTA) - 2010[1]

ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA) - 1992

Asia-Pacific Trade Agreement (APTA) - 1975

Central American Integration System (SICA) - 1993

Central European Free Trade Agreement (CEFTA) - 1992[2]

Commonwealth of Independent States Free Trade Area (CISFTA) - 2011[3]

Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA) - 1994

G-3 Free Trade Agreement (G-3) - 1995

Greater Arab Free Trade Area (GAFTA) -1997[4]

Dominican Republic–Central America Free Trade Agreement (DR-CAFTA) - 2004

East African Community (EAC) - 2005

European Economic Area (EEA; European Union–Norway–Iceland–Liechtenstein) - 1994

European Union Customs Union (EUCU; European Union–Turkey–Monaco–San Marino–Andorra) - 1958

European Free Trade Association (EFTA) - 1960

Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) - 1981

North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) - 1994[5]

Pacific Alliance Free Trade Area (PAFTA) - 2012[6]

Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership[7] (RCEP) (ASEAN plus 6)

South Asian Free Trade Area (SAFTA) - 2004[8]

Southern African Development Community Free Trade Area (SADCFTA) - 1980

Southern Common Market (MERCOSUR) - 1991

Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) - 201

Globalisation is not a spontaneous outcome of technology or corporate activity alone- it's very much a product of political will. Corporations are creatures of law and without the legal frameworks provided by politicaly sanctioned trade arrangments their abiliy to act in a globalised way would be extremely limited.

 

You're getting yourself all mixed up again.

Cheap air freight, super fast communications and a huge disparity in expected standards of living around the globe has more to do with the movement of trade overseas than low tariffs.

Otherwise, why would so many of our manufactured goods come from China, which has no specific trade agreement with either the EU or the UK?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

You're getting yourself all mixed up again.

Cheap air freight, super fast communications and a huge disparity in expected standards of living around the globe has more to do with the movement of trade overseas than low tariffs.

Otherwise, why would so many of our manufactured goods come from China, which has no specific trade agreement with either the EU or the UK?

The WTO rules under which China operates is a trade agreement. My point is that Globalisation is an ideology not an inevitability. There is no natural law that states because country A has an abundance of  Steel then country B has no choice but to allow it's importation at any price.

What governs this situation is not the cheapness of freight or the speed of communications or even wage arbitrage between A and B- what governs this situation are the exisiting trade agreements in place between them- such as the WTO rules- and those trade agreements are absolutely political in nature and therefore ultimately subject to political control.

So if for whatever reason a majority of people in the UK came to the conclusion that membership of the WTO as currently configured is damaging to their interests the UK could withdraw from the WTO and impose whatever tarrifs it saw fit. I'm not arguing that this would be wise- I'm just pointing out that it would be possible.

Globalisation is first and foremost a political construct- one that could be deconstructed if the tide of public opinion turned sufficiently against it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Mercian said:

Globalism in East Asia also doesn't come with the supposedly-required mass immigration like it does in Europe and N America. No wonder their peoples are rejecting it.

Exactly.

Japan and South Korea are two of the most ethnically homogeneous nations in the world. Japan remains 97 per cent ethnic Japanese and its Muslim population runs into the tens of thousands and is kept on a strict leash. South Korea similarly is 96 per cent ethnic Korean. Neither nation feels the need to import tens of millions to solve their demographic issues - Japan indeed is going for automation not immigration. Why import people when machines will be doing those jobs anyway in 15 years.

Thats why they are more accepting - globalism without the need to radically change their societies, undermine their culture and over populate their countries.

If Japan ever found itself at war the nation would unite together - I am not sure you could say that about the UK anymore. Why would you fight to save London?

 

 

Edited by MARTINX9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, wonderpup said:

The WTO rules under which China operates is a trade agreement. My point is that Globalisation is an ideology not an inevitability. There is no natural law that states because country A has an abundance of  Steel then country B has no choice but to allow it's importation at any price.

What governs this situation is not the cheapness of freight or the speed of communications or even wage arbitrage between A and B- what governs this situation are the exisiting trade agreements in place between them- such as the WTO rules- and those trade agreements are absolutely political in nature and therefore ultimately subject to political control.

So if for whatever reason a majority of people in the UK came to the conclusion that membership of the WTO as currently configured is damaging to their interests the UK could withdraw from the WTO and impose whatever tarrifs it saw fit. I'm not arguing that this would be wise- I'm just pointing out that it would be possible.

Globalisation is first and foremost a political construct- one that could be deconstructed if the tide of public opinion turned sufficiently against it.

There's no natural law, statistical inference and very little empirical evidence to support the belief that letting businesses set up wherever labour costs, statutory obligations and taxes are least produces the most beneficial outcome for all. It's simply neoclassical general equilibrium theory writ large with individuals replaced as agents by nation states. Friedman's idea that indigenous workers displaced by globalisation will inevitably be allocated jobs within new industries makes the false assumption that creativity can be systematised and evenly distributed, something that thirty odd years of research into the emergent properties of dynamical systems has taught us is highly improbable. Economists excepted, no-one is surprised to learn that former steel workers in places like Sheffield and Motherwell are employed not in the vanguard of the next industrial revolution but in call centres, hospitals and supermarkets - if indeed they're employed at all.

 

 

Edited by zugzwang

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 20/03/2017 at 6:39 PM, onlyme2 said:

It is more a product of bending political will by international corporations through the lobbying.

Course the Asian countries love it, they are primary winners, gaining economically big time as work and income shifts in their direction and they can carry on as normal insulating themselves from any negative effects they like - try buying a company or property in many Asian countries and you will be told to ****** off.

 

Some things they cannot insulate themselves from, and its not just air pollution ..

New report confirms scale of China's soil pollution problem with 20% of farmland contaminated https://www.theguardian.com/environment/chinas-choice/2014/apr/18/china-one-fifth-farmland-soil-pollution

Edited by Saving For a Space Ship

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

There's no natural law, statistical inference and very little empirical evidence to support the belief that letting businesses set up wherever labour costs, statutory obligations and taxes are least produces the most beneficial outcome for all. It's simply neoclassical general equilibrium theory writ large with individuals replaced as agents by nation states. Friedman's idea that indigenous workers displaced by globalisation will inevitably be allocated jobs within new industries makes the false assumption that creativity can be systematised and evenly distributed, something that thirty odd years of research into the emergent properties of dynamical systems has taught us is highly improbable. Economists excepted, no-one is surprised to learn that former steel workers in places like Sheffield and Motherwell are employed not in the vanguard of the next industrial revolution but in call centres, hospitals and supermarkets - if indeed they're employed at all.

I read a William Gibson quote somewhere to the effect that 'the future is already here- but not evenly distributed'.

The call centres may be on the way out too;

Quote

Mobile giant O2 is set to be one of the first companies to rein in its use of human customer services operatives by encouraging its customers to talk to a new artificial intelligence-driven robot, the company has revealed.

Parent company Telefonica unveiled the new voice recognition technology, called Aura, at the Mobile World Congress trade show in Barcelona.

The system is scheduled to be introduced in the UK in the next year and is designed to answer customers’ questions about their account, such as how much of their monthly data allowance is left or what their next bill will be.

Customers will also be able ask to add new services, such as a roaming package, or cancel them, without speaking to a person.

O2 chief executive Mark Evans said Aura represented the next stage of the company’s efforts to encourage customers to serve themselves if they have a basic query.

Calls to the operator have already halved as people increasingly turn to a smartphone app to manage their accounts.  It is intended that the addition of artificial intelligence and voice recognition will reduce costs further, however, and increase loyalty by making it easier to interact with O2.

The operator’s call centres are outsourced to Capita, although the move could lead to job cuts that would be among the first in the UK directly attributable to the rise of the machines.

Soon we will be able to replace our zero hours jobs with no jobs at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   4 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.