Display:
Another factor is the reason that why we only the last 150 years (or so) has had this kind of economic globalization, and why it has been accelerating. I am thinking about transport costs. Movement of capital as a production factor, movement of entire factories would have been unconceivable 200 years ago. When the brits moved the clothing industry from India to Britain they had to build a new one in Britain (and invent things like Spinning Jenny) while suppressing India (naturally, all under the flag of free trade). And few things were worth moving like that, since most goods were consumed locally. Cheap energy has changed that.

But cheap energy is not going to last forever. Peak oil may be a liquid fuels problem (which in and of itself causes major problems for transport), but the days of really cheap energy is probably counted anyway.

The question is, will we get a global government before increasing transport costs forces a relocalisation of the economies?

A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!

by A swedish kind of death on Tue Nov 20th, 2007 at 02:17:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Increasing travel costs will hit labour mobility first, then trade in goods, then movement of capital. So I think financial globalisation might outlast free trade.

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Nov 20th, 2007 at 02:20:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Not sure I agree. People can move pretty long ways assuming they can build a new life were they arrive (thinking about europeans to the Americas, and the chinese and indians to the areas around the Indian Ocean).

Goods depend on value, luxury items (which is bought for status) has always been traded from afar. But it will make no sense that fish-sticks in my store has traveled around the world first.

Capital, ay there is the rub. For what is capital? In some sense - and possibly the most destructive one in decapitalising economies - it is goods. And thus what applies to goods applies to this capital.

But it is more, the means of production and all of that. Knowledge, skills, social relationships. But can the worlds economies be ruled from a tax paradise in the bahamas connected with high speed communications?

A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!

by A swedish kind of death on Tue Nov 20th, 2007 at 02:31:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]
That can't be right: there was plenty of labour mobility when the cost of travel was extremely high: see the US in the 19th C.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Tue Nov 20th, 2007 at 02:33:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Sorry: meant Europe -> US.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Tue Nov 20th, 2007 at 02:42:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]
And plenty of goods mobility and plenty of capital mobility. I'm just making a claim about relative moving costs.

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Nov 20th, 2007 at 02:42:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]
How do you deconstruct the relative moving costs? Obviously it is different for different goods and different eeehm, kinds of labour? Capital moving costs are very low with computerisation but seem to me more sensitive to the financial and legal framework and their (perceived) stability.
by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Tue Nov 20th, 2007 at 06:21:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series