[Sixstrings]

Global trade only for some necessities.

In a perfect world, trade should be for things you do not have, and can't produce on your own -- or, people just like the import better. But you can't just have *cheaper* as the priority, because then you get to where we are now in the US, with so many rust belts and poverty.

The US is so *financial economy based* now, and it's the nominal home to trans national corporations; and UK is in a similar boat, being overly financial sector based.

So we're just importing everything, more and more. Americans do a lot of the design and creativity and we got people working on wall street, and Apple has a big campus but yet at the end of the day.. that's like a few thousand employees, while they employ a million in China.

Globalism can work out, as long as it's workin' out.. but when it doesn't, then suddenly we find we don't even make any rocket engines anymore and were buying them all from the Russians but oops.. we got some problems with Russia.. and we gotta figure out how to make rocket engines again. Etc., etc.

What we need in the US, I think, *is just some more focus on manufacturing and diverse production HERE, domestically*.

They ought to start making some more steel again, in Pennsylvania. And Apple should be somehow required to do a certain percentage of manufacturing here, in the US.

Things have just gotten TOO international, that's what I think, and the government should just do some more domestic production focus.

So that's where I'm leaning to.. I'm not all against imports, but I think there should start being a certain percentage requirement that the thing is made here, and just start reversing the offshoring trend a bit, and really that is the best -- a diverse economy and not all wall street and government workers, and government checks because there aren't jobs.

[Outcast_Searcher]

Global trade only for some necessities.

In a perfect world, trade should be for things you do not have, and can't produce on your own -- or, people just like the import better. But you can't just have *cheaper* as the priority, because then you get to where we are now in the US, with so many rust belts and poverty.

What's getting screwy is in the modern world, the US is so *financial economy based* and so is the UK now, too.

So we're just importing everything, more and more. Americans do a lot of the design and creativity and we got people working on wall street, and Apple has a big campus but yet at the end of the day.. that's like a few thousand employees, while they employ a million in China.

But companies need to make profits on what they produce, and there is lots of global competition.

A lot of trade is based on comparative advantage. If a country has some advantage in producing a good (examples: low wages for manual labor, or certain climates for certain types of foods), it is likely it can wield a competitive advantage and produce the good cheaper than (many) competitors, and make trading that product lucrative.

Note that there is no comparative advantage if your costs are significantly higher due to using lots of expensive low skilled labor (or labor in general).

So you can get competitive and do lots of trade. Or you can block trade with laws and regulations. In the long run, trade tends to make people wealthier due to the comparative advantage involved UNLESS it costs lots of jobs.

Technology and automation and robotics aren't going away. The desire for people to be richer than they would be otherwise is unlikely to go away. There aren't easy answers here. Just saying "trade is bad" while we fail to provide Americans solid and globally competitive educations isn't going to be very helpful overall.

[Sixstrings]

This is a good thread, lots of directions to go, feel free anyone to bounce off the previous posts. I just have another note about UK..

I'm voting out. Stuff Europe, Stuff USA (the leaders and politicians, NOT the people)

If some Brits are disliking "the USA" then it's really just the "establishment." There's honestly no difference, British establishment and American establishment.

So essentially, in my opinion your view is really "stuff the Establishment."

I think the long term trend is that either UKIP or the British far left will eventually get a majority in the UK, or rather, some of their views will. And, over here, we'll eventually have a "Sanders" or a "Trump."

We're always gonna be allies though, whatever happens. We may just flip our establishments, at about the same time, who knows.

Anyhow Gas, on behalf of our President I apologize for him going over there and treating Britain like it's Ukraine or some colony, and sounding like he's issuing orders.

That really was inappropriate language to be saying to the British people, directly.

I would just say that, our politics is really one and the same. A tory is gonna be against the brexit, same as a Jeb Bush type Republican would be, or Ted Cruz or John Kasich or all of those guys. Hillary Clinton -- she would be against the brexit, the same as establishment Labour is.

How it looks to the British people, yeah that wasn't right and I don't approve. Just the haughty, orders-giving tone about it, that makes all of us Americans look bad, to the British people.

I'm just sayin' though, it's really the ESTABLISHMENT -- be more upset with Cameron, this thing looks like good cop bad cop to me and Cameron just brings Obama in and we're the bad guy.

[Sixstrings]

This thing does look odd, did Obama actually flat out say it was his decision to remove the Winston Churchill bust?

One thing to just note though, AGAIN, is that UK and US politics are so linked that really Churchill over here is a REPUBLICAN thing -- Obama was snubbing conservatives in general, when he took Churchill out.

But yeah, I'm gonna have to watch this thing on youtube, diplomatically that's just ridiculous to come swaggering into London like a loud American telling Brits how to vote and economic scaremongering and bragging he threw away Winston Churchill's bust, what's up with that.

(I still suspect Cameron and Obama were in cahoots though)

Obama, Cameron and the Day of the ‘Remains’
The president’s entry into the ‘Brexit’ debate included adding to the economic scaremongering.

The debate about whether Britain should remain in the European Union or leave (“Brexit”) took a dramatic turn Friday when President Obama broke off from wishing Queen Elizabeth II a happy 90th birthday to lecture the British people about how to vote in the EU referendum on June 23.

In a joint news conference with Prime Minister David Cameron, who has staked his political future on Britain’s voting “Remain” rather than “Leave,” Mr. Obama was full of surprises.

For one thing, he admitted that it had been his call to remove the bust of Winston Churchill from the Oval Office when he first became president. That was a jaw-dropper, because until now the White House has maintained that the decision was taken before Mr. Obama took up residence and was no reflection on the president’s attitude toward Britain or its “special relationship” with the United States.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/obama-cameron-and-the-day-of-the-remains-1461364735

Obama put the bust into mothballs, but American conservatives got the USS Winston Churchill anyhow, so that's better than a bust:



If a Republican wins the WH, most likely Churchill bust will come out of storage and be put back on the oval office shelf.


(hm, can we get a better looking churchill bust though? That's the one that got removed and put in storage.)

Here's the press conference, so far I'm hearing David Cameron say how much he loves the EU and trade deals and Obama agrees with him:

And we both know just how important trade deals are, in driving global growth. So Barrack and I, reamin the most determined, to achieve our vision." -- David Cameron
https://youtu.be/kn3eBn0D--w

Gas, mate -- it's okay to be unhappy with Obama and Clinton and our establishment Republicans and D's.. but spread the blame , David Cameron sounds like "Bush Republican" to me, and it's the same kind of view Clinton has, and it's the same view your establishment tories and labour have.

It's the Establishment, not just "the Americans," it's "the British" too.

Watching some more of the press conference, I can tell what Cameron is doing -- he's actually trying to have two positions at once.

I'll stop going on about this but really it's unfair all around -- David Cameron keeps dragging in our President and it's a good cop / bad cop thing and it pressures British voters, and this happened with the Scottish secession vote too.

Brits ought to be upset with CAMERON, first and foremost.

And then, Obama going over there and being the "heavy" and bad cop and Cameron gets to put it off on the "Americans," it's a sneaky kind of thing Cameron does and Obama going along with it makes all of us Americans look bad.

Thing about David Cameron is.. that's a *politician*. It is no different than someone like Ted Cruz, over here. So what Cameron is probably doing is trying to keep his conservative base on board with him, then drag in the American president and let him be the bad cop. That's politician kind of stuff, right there.

Anyhow -- Obama going over there, saying all this -- it was MOST LIKELY all at Cameron's request and the British Foreign Ministry but then Cameron has to position it so it looks like America is the bad guy, because Cameron is thinking about his conservative base.

If Cameron were truly loyal to his base, he wouldn't have brought Obama in to start with and have a press conference. Obama being so forceful, and Cameron sounding like he is riding a line between his base and establishment, makes it look to me like it's all calculated.

Long story short -- it's not "the Americans" fault -- Brits, look in the mirror, you got an establishment too, you have "RINOs" too.

Lastly -- if Trump wins the WH over here, and assuming he doesn't turn establishment, then the US would have a more US-centric view. And I presume Trump would be okay with the UKIP and BRITAIN having a Britain-centric view, if that's what British voters want.

And we can still be allies, and still stand up to the Russians, and we'll always be family even if we have more individual sovereignty and less global government. Common defense -- NATO, and the military integration going on between US and UK, none of that requires the UK to be in the EU.

[vtsnowedin]

The issues are much too numerous and complex for the simple poll choices provided. Are you for trade deals? Which ones and what are the terms of the deal? I'm for free trade for the most part as I have stated elsewhere but that has conditions on it like not allowing a government subsidized product to unfairly compete with a local one that is taxed. Also I would not allow imports of a product produced with little or no environmental controls to come in and undercut a locally produced product that was produced under strict anti pollution controls.
And there is also the issue of National security. Each country should retain sufficient industrial capacity to provide for it's own defense all the way from the mine to the tank or plane.
So I can be for "free trade" but against NAFTA or the Pacific trade deal ( I forget what the acronym is) because they are not good deals, not because the major premise is wrong.

[ralfy]

Ultimately, it won't be a matter of choice due to limits to growth. Given that, there will still be free trade, etc., but not in the way most imagine.

[onlooker]

Ultimately, it won't be a matter of choice due to limits to growth. Given that, there will still be free trade, etc., but not in the way most imagine.

Absolutely, Globalization will now run in reverse due to all the constraints that will be encountered.

[vtsnowedin]

Ultimately, it won't be a matter of choice due to limits to growth. Given that, there will still be free trade, etc., but not in the way most imagine.

Absolutely, Globalization will not run in reverse due to all the constraints that will be encountered.

OK do either of you wish to elaborate about how you think it will play out.

[onlooker]

Too many uncertainties and variables too predict in detail how it will play out V. One thing I am confident though in saying is that it will be marked by turmoil and extremes of an ideological nature. Until hopefully, the remnants of what is left of human society can reconfigure itself in a sustainable, orderly, harmonious and productive manner. Nothing is certain except uncertainty. That is why I say hopefully. I may ask you in turn V, how long do you think Capitalism and Globalization can last given that already indications exist that it is unraveling and given the environmental constraints and limitations which are conspiring to end profiteering and the pursuit of materialism and concomitant greed.

[Newfie]

Ultimately, it won't be a matter of choice due to limits to growth. Given that, there will still be free trade, etc., but not in the way most imagine.

Absolutely, Globalization will not run in reverse due to all the constraints that will be encountered.

OK do either of you wish to elaborate about how you think it will play out.

Poorly. Just reading Rise and Fall of the British Empire. He makes the point of how English population increase in 1800's was supported by industrialization and global trade, without which England would have suffered "famine as seen today in Africa."

As we hit the limits to growth globalisim will roll back stranding billions.

[vtsnowedin]

I think capitalism will last indefinitely because it is human nature and can contend with scarcity much better then any alternative. Globalization will undergo larger changes as scarcity provokes resource wars.But I doubt it will retreat to a world full of isolationist countries living only on there own resources. We will still swap Iowa corn and Kansas wheat for Brazilian coffee and India's tea.

[Newfie]

Corn and wheat sustain the body. Tea and coffee do not.

But more to the point a Service Economy does not sustain the body. The quantity of people involved in the Service Economy are largely redundant and the population will be reduced by that amount, more or less.

[Sixstrings]

Interesting, nobody voted for globalism.

[vtsnowedin]

Corn and wheat sustain the body. Tea and coffee do not.

But more to the point a Service Economy does not sustain the body. The quantity of people involved in the Service Economy are largely redundant and the population will be reduced by that amount, more or less.

But if you have more corn and wheat then you need you will happily trade the excess for coffee , tea ,orange juice or some other product you want and have difficulty producing it yourself.
Many services are essential in that if they were not available you would have to perform the very same tasks yourself reducing the amount of time you could devote to primary production. You have to have meals every day and any number of household tasks we frequently pay to have done for us still have to be done if we cant afford to hire it done for us.
Some things of course are unnecessary such as news programing and internet blogs but I don't think you can write off even half of the service economy.

[Newfie]

What did we do before it existed?

We always have to be careful to appripriatly Quailfy our answers here. The answer depends upon when in the decline you are using as your reference. Service jobs won't go away immediately. They will be reduced. And the reductions will become deeper as the global economy unwinds. How deep it will go is the question of which none can be sure. At the worst case zero, but that is near extinction.

[ralfy]

OK do either of you wish to elaborate about how you think it will play out.

That's been done multiple times across various threads in this forum.

[ralfy]

I think capitalism will last indefinitely because it is human nature and can contend with scarcity much better then any alternative. Globalization will undergo larger changes as scarcity provokes resource wars.But I doubt it will retreat to a world full of isolationist countries living only on there own resources. We will still swap Iowa corn and Kansas wheat for Brazilian coffee and India's tea.

Capitalism, which involves continuous growth, requires a surplus of resources to "last indefinitely", with anything lacking substituted by another that's as good or better. For that to happen in a world with physical limitations, resources will have to be extracted from outside the planet.

[ralfy]

Corn and wheat sustain the body. Tea and coffee do not.

But more to the point a Service Economy does not sustain the body. The quantity of people involved in the Service Economy are largely redundant and the population will be reduced by that amount, more or less.

Perhaps health care and other services connected to basic needs are part of the service economy. Also, the manufacture of medicine, etc.

[REAL Green]

It appears we have entered a new era but what this will be is still uncertain. It is uncertain because it hit so fast. The central banks are going full MMT out of necessity. The risks to liquidity are just to great to allow the markets to sort this one out. Vladimir Lenin said “In Some Decades, Nothing Happens; In Some Weeks, Decades Happen”. I really think this is a defining period with the end of globalism’s assent. Economics defines politics so this will surely alter the way people cooperate and compete. I don’t think the markets will be allowed to crash like they used to but what will change is a decline in real wealth so the markets will be little more than a façade of appearance of wealth when the reality is much less will be there. Global value chains driven by the raw greed for yields can never be matched in regards to production. Value chains will adapt be being smaller and shorter. On the other hand, a world of less could be a world that can scale better actually offering more wealth in well-being. People are going to have to try to do more locally if they want more. Localism is the best system for the public and private good. Globalism will remain but this virus checked its advance. Let’s hope that the level this all settles to offers opportunity for more rational human activity found in localism.