Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 12,021
|
Post by Khunanup on Apr 26, 2017 20:10:18 GMT
The thing I love about this situation is Le Pen raging against globalisation and promising she would keep the factory open. One slight problem. Whirlpool is a huge American corporation so it's only thanks to globalisation that the jobs exist in the first place and if Le Pen did win the presidency it'd be corporations like that who pull out even quicker. The factory workers are therefore idiots. Slight problem with that theory is that there were multinationals before the last two decades "globalisation". First multinationals appeared in late 19th century. In that context a dishwasher made in France by a multinational would largely be of all components made in country and only the technology and a few of the management coming from the mother ship. Now it could be just one knob that is made in the country and the rest put together from imported bits and bobs to get some tax credit or incentive. Globalisation in the developed world has been going on since the late 19th century... |
|
|
|
Post by Antiochian on Apr 26, 2017 20:17:41 GMT
Slight problem with that theory is that there were multinationals before the last two decades "globalisation". First multinationals appeared in late 19th century. In that context a dishwasher made in France by a multinational would largely be of all components made in country and only the technology and a few of the management coming from the mother ship. Now it could be just one knob that is made in the country and the rest put together from imported bits and bobs to get some tax credit or incentive. Globalisation in the developed world has been going on since the late 19th century... Bit disingenuous there as the globalisation of the 1970s is a whole world away from the globalisation of 2017.... as for the globalisation of 1910.. what are we talking of? Osram? Nestle, maybe? Shell-Mex? Lever Brothers? Ford probably wasn't even producing cars outside the US then. If you walked into a corner grocery in Hereford in 1910, what was on the shelves that was non-Empire? Even in 1960 there would have been hardly anything that was non-Empire.. Even the US was largely an autarky until the 1970s. |
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 12,021
|
Post by Khunanup on Apr 26, 2017 20:28:41 GMT
Globalisation in the developed world has been going on since the late 19th century... Bit disingenuous there as the globalisation of the 1970s is a whole world away from the globalisation of 2017.... as for the globalisation of 1910.. what are we talking of? Osram? Nestle, maybe? Shell-Mex? Lever Brothers? Ford probably wasn't even producing cars outside the US then. If you walked into a corner grocery in Hereford in 1910, what was on the shelves that was non-Empire? Even in 1960 there would have been hardly anything that was non-Empire.. Even the US was largely an autarky until the 1970s. I'm talking higher end goods, not day to day goods as we have today. As you say it had a different face but globalisation has been around as long as the largest economies have had the ability to trade a large variety of goods to each other in bulk. The biggest vehicle of it has of course been Free Trade. |
|
|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Apr 26, 2017 21:21:57 GMT
Globalisation in the developed world has been going on since the late 19th century... Bit disingenuous there as the globalisation of the 1970s is a whole world away from the globalisation of 2017.... as for the globalisation of 1910.. what are we talking of? Osram? Nestle, maybe? Shell-Mex? Lever Brothers? Ford probably wasn't even producing cars outside the US then. October 1911, Trafford Park in Manchester, was Ford's first plant in Britain. Otherwise, carry on. |
|
|
|
Post by Antiochian on Apr 26, 2017 21:51:46 GMT
Bit disingenuous there as the globalisation of the 1970s is a whole world away from the globalisation of 2017.... as for the globalisation of 1910.. what are we talking of? Osram? Nestle, maybe? Shell-Mex? Lever Brothers? Ford probably wasn't even producing cars outside the US then. October 1911, Trafford Park in Manchester, was Ford's first plant in Britain. Otherwise, carry on. Good.. so they weren't in 1910... Q.E.D. |
|
|
|
Post by Antiochian on Apr 26, 2017 22:00:54 GMT
Bit disingenuous there as the globalisation of the 1970s is a whole world away from the globalisation of 2017.... as for the globalisation of 1910.. what are we talking of? Osram? Nestle, maybe? Shell-Mex? Lever Brothers? Ford probably wasn't even producing cars outside the US then. If you walked into a corner grocery in Hereford in 1910, what was on the shelves that was non-Empire? Even in 1960 there would have been hardly anything that was non-Empire.. Even the US was largely an autarky until the 1970s. I'm talking higher end goods, not day to day goods as we have today. As you say it had a different face but globalisation has been around as long as the largest economies have had the ability to trade a large variety of goods to each other in bulk. The biggest vehicle of it has of course been Free Trade. Globalisation is not the same as trading things.. The Romans exchanged gold for silk with the Chinese... are we saying that it was a globalised economy then? For anyone who knows ancient economies would also know that the Roman empire had a crisis because of its trade imbalance with the Chinese... Essentially the Romans had little in the way of tradeable goods that the Chinese wanted and thus gold was leeching out of the Western economies to the Eastern sphere.. sound familiar? Of course silk was for the senatorial classes (who were allowed to wear Tyrian Purple dyed garments) while the riffraff had to wear whatever. However the bleeding of a finite resource (gold) away to the East impacted everyone (debasement of the currency which resulted in Diocletian publishing price controls). Yet another case of the "elites" suiting themselves at the expense of the masses. Would you really like to continue this comparison of globalisation, old & new, any further? |
|
|
|
Post by manchesterman on Apr 26, 2017 22:06:40 GMT
Thanks for the advice proferred about my proposed bet on Macron.
I will hang fire and see if opinion polls tighten in the next few days. Given that every other party was urging their supporters to vote to stop MLP, I was expecting polls of closer to 70-30 than 60-40 but I will keep my powder dry for now!
|
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 12,021
|
Post by Khunanup on Apr 26, 2017 22:12:29 GMT
I'm talking higher end goods, not day to day goods as we have today. As you say it had a different face but globalisation has been around as long as the largest economies have had the ability to trade a large variety of goods to each other in bulk. The biggest vehicle of it has of course been Free Trade. Globalisation is not the same as trading things.. The Romans exchanged gold for silk with the Chinese... are we saying that it was a globalised economy then? For anyone who knows ancient economies would also know that the Roman empire had a crisis because of its trade imbalance with the Chinese... Essentially the Romans had little in the way of tradeable goods that the Chinese wanted and thus gold was leeching out of the Western economies to the Eastern sphere.. sound familiar? Of course silk was for the senatorial classes (who were allowed to wear Tyrian Purple dyed garments) while the riffraff had to wear whatever. However the bleeding of a finite resource (gold) away to the East impacted everyone (debasement of the currency which resulted in Diocletian publishing price controls). Yet another case of the "elites" suiting themselves at the expense of the masses. Would you really like to continue this comparison of globalisation, old & new, any further? Please, please read what is in front of you. I was very specific in saying 'the ability to trade a large variety of goods to each other in bulk'. The bit in bold is the crucial point. Globalisation is the direct result of the huge push towards tariff-free trade (Free Trade) in the mid to late 19th century primarily championed and instigated by our Liberal ancestors here in the UK. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2017 23:12:17 GMT
|
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,137 
Member is Online
|
Post by Foggy on Apr 27, 2017 0:25:06 GMT
Don't think he'd stand a chance without Paris. Obviously he's going to win, albeit by a smaller margin than anticipated. I could see MLP getting up to 48%. Won't be long until Macron is labelled as 'président de Paris'. Or Lackey of Brussels.... or the French equivalent thereof? We actually get the word lackey from the French ' laquais'. Nowhere in the world should use America's electoral system, though. Not even the United States. |
|
|
|
Post by Antiochian on Apr 27, 2017 8:29:09 GMT
Globalisation is not the same as trading things.. The Romans exchanged gold for silk with the Chinese... are we saying that it was a globalised economy then? For anyone who knows ancient economies would also know that the Roman empire had a crisis because of its trade imbalance with the Chinese... Essentially the Romans had little in the way of tradeable goods that the Chinese wanted and thus gold was leeching out of the Western economies to the Eastern sphere.. sound familiar? Of course silk was for the senatorial classes (who were allowed to wear Tyrian Purple dyed garments) while the riffraff had to wear whatever. However the bleeding of a finite resource (gold) away to the East impacted everyone (debasement of the currency which resulted in Diocletian publishing price controls). Yet another case of the "elites" suiting themselves at the expense of the masses. Would you really like to continue this comparison of globalisation, old & new, any further? Please, please read what is in front of you. I was very specific in saying 'the ability to trade a large variety of goods to each other in bulk'. The bit in bold is the crucial point. Globalisation is the direct result of the huge push towards tariff-free trade (Free Trade) in the mid to late 19th century primarily championed and instigated by our Liberal ancestors here in the UK. Which is now being eschewed by the Liberal Democrats who regard Free Trade with the EU as be all and end all and Free Trade with the rest as a "maybe"... Bulk trade in commodities (and I am a commodities strategist) far preceded trade in individual goods "of a large variety". It's the value added goods that have been last shoe to fall and they are the ones that have the most local labour component involved in their elaboration and the workers involved in their creation within the domestic economy are in the firing line of the "last leg" of globalisation. |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,952
|
Post by The Bishop on Apr 27, 2017 9:02:07 GMT
Not if its actually anything like 60-40 she wouldn't. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2017 9:47:57 GMT
Thanks for the advice proferred about my proposed bet on Macron. I will hang fire and see if opinion polls tighten in the next few days. Given that every other party was urging their supporters to vote to stop MLP, I was expecting polls of closer to 70-30 than 60-40 but I will keep my powder dry for now! 60-40 is more or less in keeping with the hypothetical Macron-Le Pen match up polls that were conducted before the first round, though slightly at the lower end of the range (IIRC its low point for Macron has been about 58-42 and it has gone up to around 64-36). |
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 12,021
|
Post by Khunanup on Apr 27, 2017 12:02:36 GMT
Please, please read what is in front of you. I was very specific in saying 'the ability to trade a large variety of goods to each other in bulk'. The bit in bold is the crucial point. Globalisation is the direct result of the huge push towards tariff-free trade (Free Trade) in the mid to late 19th century primarily championed and instigated by our Liberal ancestors here in the UK. Which is now being eschewed by the Liberal Democrats who regard Free Trade with the EU as be all and end all and Free Trade with the rest as a "maybe"... Bulk trade in commodities (and I am a commodities strategist) far preceded trade in individual goods "of a large variety". It's the value added goods that have been last shoe to fall and they are the ones that have the most local labour component involved in their elaboration and the workers involved in their creation within the domestic economy are in the firing line of the "last leg" of globalisation. Utter nonsense. Free trade with our nearest geographical neighbours is so blatantly obvious to anyone who thinks it's critical to a highly functioning economy that that has to be the starting point (therefore that's the free trade relationship that should come first, especially as the cost of longer distance transport is likely to rise in the next 50 years unless there's a concerted push to develop alternative non-fossil fuel propulsion systems which are cheap and efficient). It's also Liberals in the EU who have pushed free trade agreements with other countries and blocs (CETA, TTIP etc). The thing about Free Trade is that you want to come from as strong a negotiating position as possible which we can do as part of the EU with a very diverse, commodity rich economy linked with very wealthy (on a global scale) consumers. On our own with a resource poor, service dominated economy, albeit one with very wealthy consumers in global terms, we are only in a dominant position with smaller economies who are not exponentially growing or resource poor. This is why I am convinced that the future is trading blocs with various levels of political integration with only the very biggest economies and the very resource rich countries (like your homeland) being able to get decent free trade deals without being completely screwed over by the big economies or blocs. If any trade barriers go up between the UK and Europe we are completely fucked because we will never find a replacement for their goods and services that doesn't permanently impoverish this country due to us approaching the most important free trade deals from a position of weakness. We also run the endless risk of our services upping sticks and moving away because it's the easier sector of jobs to move which will likely mean we will be in hock to them as well which will mean favouritism towards multinational banks and other service companies which will screw over all other business and the people of the country. This is why May and her approach is utterly insane. She must do anything to have no trade barriers with our biggest single trading partner which is our nearest neighbour not because of any pro-European ideal but because it's critical for the economic wellbeing of our country and does give us a basis whereby we don't have to replace the good thing we have going with the EU tradewise as we scrabble around trying to adequately replace the trade deals we are part of as part of the EU. |
|
john07
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 15,801
Member is Online
|
Post by john07 on Apr 27, 2017 14:06:13 GMT
Globalisation in the developed world has been going on since the late 19th century... Bit disingenuous there as the globalisation of the 1970s is a whole world away from the globalisation of 2017.... as for the globalisation of 1910.. what are we talking of? Osram? Nestle, maybe? Shell-Mex? Lever Brothers? Ford probably wasn't even producing cars outside the US then. Wrong. Ford UK opened in 1909! |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Apr 27, 2017 14:37:39 GMT
Spotted on a streetlamp column in Camden Town this lunchtime: a Mélenchon sticker.
|
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Post by neilm on Apr 27, 2017 15:20:22 GMT
At this point, I'd like to throw in that being in a customs union is not free trade. Rather, it is the embodiment of the Theory of Second Best. Economics 101, chaps.
For the record, being in a customs union doesn't mean that internal tariffs don't exist either. They may do in the case of the EU but that's not a hard and fast rule. Just putting that out there.
Now, is free trade a public good as an economist would understand the term? That's an interesting discussion.
|
|
Georg Ebner
Non-Aligned
Roman romantic reactionary Catholic
Posts: 9,851
|
Post by Georg Ebner on Apr 27, 2017 16:31:58 GMT
 Macron:  LePen:  Fillon:  Melenchon:  |
|
Georg Ebner
Non-Aligned
Roman romantic reactionary Catholic
Posts: 9,851
|
Post by Georg Ebner on Apr 27, 2017 16:42:25 GMT
2012 vs. 2017: FN:  UMP-LR:  PS:  |
|
Georg Ebner
Non-Aligned
Roman romantic reactionary Catholic
Posts: 9,851
|
Post by Georg Ebner on Apr 27, 2017 16:50:40 GMT
Abstention:  |
|
