Wednesday, July 30, 2008

Globalisation was a con anyway

Doha world trade talks collapse in blow to globalisation

The Doha round of world trade talks has collapsed in what one former trade chief called the biggest blow to globalisation since the end of the Cold War

Posted by sold 2 rent 1 @ 08:52 AM (1162 views)
Please complete the required fields.



11 thoughts on “Globalisation was a con anyway

  • last_days_of_disco says:

    @s2r

    I suppose you could say it was “crashed on purpose” but not for the purpose you are implying. Really, it stopped being feasible for the developed world to try and drag the under-developed world out of poverty when their own economies are shot to ribbons.

    To continue the drunken party analogy that President Bush used. The optimism that drove that party is now gone and hence people are going home. Its the next morning and everyone’s heads hurt and the rich kids are going home to recover and find out they are lot less rich than before because the splurge was largely paid for by them. Its an age old story. What is worse than the “Imperialist West”, no “Imperialist West”.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • it_is_going_with_a_bang says:

    Lets face it alot of these talks were held over the last 7 years when economies worldwide were nearly all booming. As usual when the opposite is happening human instinct reacts with protectionism.
    Which is why global trade deals will never last.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • S2R – for once I agree with you (except the last bit about crashing the economy on purpose)

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • This may have some historical significance – it might prove to be the point at which the trend towards globalisation and multi-nationalism went into reverse.

    Time will tell..

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • So now the conspiracy is a ‘New World Chaos’.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • S2r1…. James is pointing out a grammatical error viz. “countries cheap goods” vs “countries’ cheap goods”. The missing apostrophe changes the meaning of the sentence.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • God almighty – posts coming up in bizarre order again. Mods take note – I think the hamster on the wheel which keeps this site moving might have finally died.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • Whostolemyendowment says:

    Who is to benefit from globalisation – not the 3rd world low paid making Nike trainers for a buck a day, while another lower cost country tries to undercut even further – that’s for sure. It would be old world corporations sqeezing more profit from whatever quarter, and consumers wanting ever cheaper goods – even at the detrement to their own country’s manufacturing base.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • sold 2 rent 1 says:

    cyril,

    “S2R – for once I agree with you (except the last bit about crashing the economy on purpose)”

    At last, people are waking up (but not fully)
    People are blind until after the crash. We all know that from previous HPCs

    The world economy is crashing because the economic model was unsustainable.
    The West takes on more and more debt from the East
    The Western economies go bankrupt and crash
    The Eastern economies crash from massive over-investment

    James,

    “buying stuff for the developing countries, was it for their birthdays?”

    What are you talking about?
    The globalisation flaw is about unsustainable and perpetual creation of debt.

    Can anyone make sense of this James’s statement?

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • renting2 10.32am – unless you argued that it’s out of chaos (e.g. the end of WWII) that new institutions of domination emerge (UN, World Bank, IMF) – depending, of course, on your take on those institutions.

    It’s funny how many things work…….until they don’t. The Bretton Woods system was the pegging of other currencies to the dollar and the redeemability of the dollar in gold. This “worked” until the US couldn’t redeem the depreciated dollars it printed to cover its trade deficits. So the question is, did it ever really work? Mortgage-backed securities were guaranteed….until they weren’t, when the guarantors went skint. Everybody was a genius at making money in the housing bubble…..until they weren’t. Governments were popular when people felt well-off and now they aren’t. Now a trade sgreement that is supposed to keep the world prosperous has worked………until world prosperity faded.

    Institutions that are supposed to keep things humming along – governments, international organisations, banks – are emperors with no clothes.

    Are there ANY counter-cyclical safety nets?

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • sold 2 rent 1 says:

    icarus,

    Nicely put.
    Add to your list of things that work great and then suddenly break, the ERM in 1992.

    Basically we are sold solutions that are always unsustainable.
    When those solutions break, we are then sold another one.

    David Icke calls it – PROBLEM – REACTION – SOLUTION

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



Add a comment

  • Your email address is required so we can verify that the comment is genuine. It will not be posted anywhere on the site, will be stored confidentially by us and never given out to any third party.
  • Please note that any viewpoints published here as comments are user´s views and not the views of HousePriceCrash.co.uk.
  • Please adhere to the Guidelines

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>