It's easy to dismiss other countries' concerns about acting politically on the effects of globalization when your country dictates the economic policy.
Does America really dictate economic policy? Or are we merely a tool of globalization and someone to blame if things go wrong? All I know is I am better off the more money I have and earn and while I sort of understand the issues associated with globalization I am in no position to criticize this nor do I have the power to change it. I'd rather be rich than poor.
@@rizmacadillacyes they literally formed it and there ability to cripple an entire countries economy just by sanctioning them (Cuba, Zimbabwe, Iran) all because they don’t agree with their politics only few can bypass this (Russia/China the only ones really).
@@rizmacadillacYes, America does dictate economic policy. It deliberately pursued the ability to do so, and has successfully done so for over half a century. Also, as a non-American (but still someone from a western country, who is also a disproportionate beneficiary of globalisation), your viewpoint is incredibly myopic.
Supply chain complexity obviously went to unsustainable extremes, creating fragility in the event of a trade shock. But the drastic de-globalization of the world's economies is an overcompensation. Trade isolationism introduces new fragility into local economies. Even the U.S., who is best positioned for self-reliance, will suffer from the inherent inefficiencies. Globalization isn't dying, it is just hibernating.
@@vinterskugge907 You have far more faith in the predictability of things 75 years in the future than I have. Current geopolitics and economics are likely to look rather quaint and primitive in 2100.
@@crawkn An important argument for globalization and international trade was that it would prevent wars and conflicts, because it would make would-be rivals and enemies dependent on each other. But as Europe has learnt with regards to Russian energy: Depending on your enemy doesn't make him your friend, it just gives him another weapon to use against you. The US is now learning the same with regards to China. Whether this lesson lasts for exactly 77 years, I don't know, but it will certainly last for a long time.
@@vinterskugge907 What it demonstrates is that there are limits on interdependence due to national security considerations. What it doesn't demonstrate is that there is no healthy balance between international trade and self-reliance. The fact that the world got that balance wrong in one direction, and now is getting it wrong in the other direction, doesn't change the fact that trade has tremendous advantages for all parties. These include both enhancement of economic prosperity _and_ reduced international hostilities. These benefits are real, substantial, and well understood, so they will motivate a resurgence in international trade. The important lesson learned is not that trade is bad, but that you need to be selective about what for, and how much you are dependent on rivals, and that it is important to maintain critical production competencies domestically, even when it costs more. Europe's over-reliance on Russian gas was very well understood to be a security issue, which they elected to risk anyway to enhance economic productivity. Some might reasonably argue that the already reaped rewards of the policy were worth the risk and the eventual consequences. In any case, it won't be the last time nations gamble on high-risk strategies. Remember Ukraine was a gamble by Putin, and he lost too.
Sometimes I find this kind of perspective really short sighted. "We're seeing trade wars with China... war in the middle east and coups in Africa" Those things are terrible, but those things have been happening continuously without pause for the last eighty years - why is now suddenly different?
Did you even understand the words being said in the video? Trade has existed since essentially man has existed but why is there a fracturing happening now? For something to be fractured, a fragile thing has to come to be such as the utopian concept of globalization has to come to be. The world has been mostly stuck in “ancient times” all the way to the beginning of the 20th century until exponential technological advancement took off and resulted in the world being so reliant on each other that if a war happens on the other side of the world it will directly effect you. And now that this fantastical idea falls in on itself because it cant work when everyone is killing each other when it collapses it will hurt everyone.
@@User-1147 Except everyone isn't killing each other. The fighting is two nations in Europe, and a few nations in Africa, and two seperate wars involving just two nations in the Middle East. The period of not-globalization caused WW1.
@@Seth9809 with the world being so interconnected you might as well be at war with each other when all of the west is sending arms and money to foreign nations and forgetting their own citizens
I don't think most people are against connected economies. People are against the over reach of governments and the inability to get aware from an onerous one
The dollar was choosen because it evaded European sanctions . Now USA is using the dollar to imposed sanctions. So a news currency to evade those sanctions is going to be chosen or created.
The last time we had strong multipolarity, it ended up in two world wars. The reason Pax Romana, Pax Mongolica, Pax Britannica, and Pax Americana are named that way is because there was one dominant power keeping trade routes open, and not having huge conflicts with rivals.
@@doujinflip UN and WTO, with multipolarity in mind by design, are dumped like yesterday garbage when they don't serve US's desire to be the world hegemony power.
we need circuit economics. that’s all there is to it. it’s healthcare 101 we need circulation to live. applies to economies too. the truth is…if we apply the biological metaphor to infinite growth the “line going up” is a wound spurting blood into the air…when what we really want is healthy circulation. the problem is our whole world today is laid out as a bunch of “endpoints” rather than circulatory channels. if we think of money as blood cells and it’s just pooling in bank accounts, i mean…that doesn’t sound biologically healthy to me! everything is stuck in a rut and spurting blood. circular economics is a win win for everyone but we have to actually design it that way. and the truth is…economic circuits may not even need money to function at all
@@TehKarmalizer i think you’re taking my comment too literally rather than picking up the spirit of it. just because you have one counterexample for one sentence out of everything i wrote doesn’t mean i’m not right about the rest
@@TehKarmalizer you yourself dont impress anyone... "invested in markets" is mostly being tied up into illiquid assets where it just sits, and theres data showing that fraction of wealth being hoarded away like this has been increasing since the 2008 crisis... the oligarchs are behaving like dragons.
I was just thinking that this is the post globalized world we already live in and it started back when the EU was formed. Let's call it Regionalization. The building blocks for EU similar organizations are already there in different parts of the world.
As a Bussiness owner I see that some of us are totally dependent on refinancing our debt before the cash reserve runs out but my pals think I am not helping them even though I got cash. And its also easy to manipulate numbers on a small scale which helps to improve our creditworthyness but the only thing concerning is creditors stop funding our operations due to high competition and no actual demand In the real estate sector. Being a landlord doesn't have the glory which it used to had.
I understand this classical perspective on economies and globalization but the universal truth is rather simple at its core: "Globalization" is not something that anyone controls as we cannot choose whether we live on the same planet or not. We as humans have to work together to create better conditions on this planet for all of us, whether we like it or not. You cannot escape this dynamic. As our history so far shows it's far from certain unfortunately that all of us will become this reasonable at any point in the foreseeable future and in time. But the point remains: We cannot escape from each other, we are all dependent on what each of us does, in every facet of our lives.
sure but that isnt the globalisation that is reffered to in the video. the reality is that the globalisation we speak of is just the result of american and european corporations offshoring production to low income nations. globalisation ending is very simply when western governments realise that the rest of the world isnt just a docile sweatshop and has their own agenda.
I believe many of your basic assumptions are wrong. But since I don't want to get into a long debate let me just tell you one thing to get you thinking, if you're willing to think about it. Earth does not have to be a singular world, it can be many. I will tell you one thing clearly, and it's that I'm against any form of deterministic assumptions or thought processes.
@@GustafUNLit could depend on personal values of each person. I think the greatest goal humanity can reach is become a space-faring civilization which expands beyond, there is no greater goal than that. To achieve that, we must be globalised fully
Globalizations risk is if it is not for everyone, it's not just unstable it converts trade into protectionism that converts IP, stock markets, resources and commodities into smaller more national concerns. That changes what could have be solved with diplomats and business people into jobs for politicians and military personnel. Globalization is not dead but neither is factionalism and factionalism is so much more volitie and business/trade hates unpredcitablity.
Cacao has never been harvested in Swiss Alps. Likewise, iron ore into Toyotas. Japan does not produce iron ore. Globalization have always existed even before it was called as such. The Portuguese bought spices in India and sold it in Europe.
Comparing the post-WW2 US Navy-backed globalisation to any global trade before is like comparing fibre optic internet to the mail pigeon. You're right somehow, but you're missing the message here completely at the same time.
There are 2 differences between what we had before the 90s and after it 1. Government protected a lot of their industry before, 2. The bigger point is all capital control were abolished before when bigger sums got transferred between nations some guy from the government needed to give its okay to it which could take up to 2 weeks. The fall of it was what turbo charged the globalization but its also directly responsible for the southeast Asia crisis, the banking crisis and Euro crisis.
Greetings, please look at the Creative Society, there are already technologies, other developments useful for the life of society and freeing time for personal development, but it is necessary to change the format from consumption to Creation, it is important the participation of each person to inform others ❤ When the people are silent, the political mafia weaves its intrigues and plans!
Humbly: globalization is going to happen, one way or another, but not the American way; historically, trends like this have tended to arise not all at once but unevenly, in fits and starts. The twentieth century was both a time of global fracture and globalization. I bet the twenty-first will be similar in that respect.
Ive been thinking it seems like weve expanded globally as far as we can comfortably without some major changes. I think its gonna go from people caring about the globe to people going back into their own cities and neighborhoods. Less news about foreign affairs and more news about main street where you live
I comprehend this traditional point of view on economies and globalization however the generally accepted fact is somewhat basic at its center: "Globalization" isn't something that anybody controls as we can't pick regardless of whether we live on a similar planet. We as people need to cooperate to make better circumstances on this planet for us all, regardless of whether we like it. You can't get away from this dynamic. As businesses expand globally, they often require consulting services to navigate international markets, regulations. i have built a long-term relationship with a financial analyst and I'm in steady stream of income
Globalization isn't something that anybody controls as we can't pick regardless of whether we live on a similar planet. We as people need to cooperate to make better circumstances on this planet for us all, regardless of whether we like it. You can't get away from this dynamic, I'm still at a crossroads deciding if to liquidate my 100k brokerage portfolio, curious on the most productive means to take advantage of the current situation...I am open to ideas
Through closely monitoring the performance of my portfolio, I have witnessed a remarkable growth of 483k in just the past two quarters. This experience has shed light on why experienced traders are able to generate substantial returns even in lesser-known markets. It is safe to say that this bold decision has been one of the most impactful choices I have made recently
I work with "LISA MICHELLE PACILLAS" You can easily look her up online. She has years of financial market experience and she is also FINRA & SEC verifiable.
Thanks for this tip, found her just after inputting her full name on my browser, seems impeccable and shows a great deal of expertise with over two decades of experience with reviews from her clients all over the world
It was interesting to hear about globalization reshaping, as previously i heard only about globalization dying out. I believe that nowadays we can see how geopolitical change affect our everyday lives, so i think i can agree with the main points of the video, but i’m not sure if countries named as “countries-connectors” will be remained just connectors. I think that their economy will drastically became more stable and essential. What do you think?
People still need “things”… and apart from taxes distorting the price of things would you buy something from India at $2 or the same thing made in the eu for $20. There will be shifts in power, but globalisation isn’t disappearing.
There will be national level production for super urgent (food, health, daily needs etc.) and super security (microprocessors, energy, arms/equipment etc.) related products; also, regional/friendly nation production for another kind of urgent and relatively less needed security products and rest are globalization i.e., luxury items etc...
@@patrickbateman1660 Yes that's the underlying fact. But what I actually meant is that, nation would want some super security/urgent products to produce in their own soil..
I wouldn’t have voted for Brexit originally, but I actually feel safer now it has happened. Life goes on, people work, study. And there’s this feeling that it is possible to survive without the massive amount of foreign products and workers. It was a fragile system.
Life goes on. Like it has for millions of years. It's literally not the end of the world. Well. Maybe it is for those who profited from "globalization." Grow. Adapt. 🤷♂️
Globalization works when the world economies do open up in spaces of Industry where it drives the growth on consumer spending with Net Savings directed towards Asset Purchases leads to Continental-Globalization.
Globalisation has undeniably brought about significant changes in our world, connecting nations, cultures, and economies. However, there is a growing concern that globalisation is causing fractures within societies. This thought-provoking video sheds light on this issue, prompting us to contemplate what lies ahead. As we witness the rise of protectionist policies and growing nationalism, it becomes crucial to consider the consequences of these shifts. What comes next? Will we see a reimagining of globalisation, one that prioritizes inclusivity and sustainability? I believe that this is a very controversial issue, because even if we calculate the prospects now, unexpected events can occur (for example, like Russia’s invasion of Ukraine) and radically change the situation.
Brazil would have a lot to gain from this change in globalization, but unfortunately our political class is incapable of seeing the benefits of trade agreements.
Power over peace is the goal of those who need power to maintain their peace. Like holding a tiger by the ears from behind knowing you can’t let go and your doom is from your population or the rest of the world … which do you pick?
Everyone seems to have missed that the expertise once tied to company or nation has been redistributed globally so that all you need is a competent and educated work force to implement such expertise. That makes the need for globalization redundant. This is a success story, not a failure. As long as one country has more of a material than it can use and wants to sell some to a country that doesn't have enough, there will be global supply chains. Globalization is a noun which denotes a process that has already happened.
War, as globalization ends countries will fight for as many resources as possible for their blocks. We are directly entering the resource wars era. We already were what with oil but this solidifies it.
The entire focal point of this video is to promote the China and it's interest by stating that USA cannot get rid of the them completely. However where it failed was to mention India which was not dependent upon Chinese cheating and yet providing a growing market and manufacturing hub for most of the major developed economies. But then ofcourse, Bloomberg has always been a pet of China .
You're acting as if India is not as dependent to China. Check your biggest source of imports. Your country will take decades if not several generations just to catch up to China's current level. Knowing how fragmented a democratic country and corrupt India, any projects in India will be disrupted.
Globalisation isn't going anywhere. We're all co-dependant (resources, products, labor, learning, tech, info...) on one another as countries, private companies even more so. It's just that it may not be a mainly US/West-lead effort anymore. And that doesn't necessarily need to be a bad thing. PS: emphasis on 'mainly'. Some people seemed offended(?) or outraged(?) somehow.
It's fun to be on the receiving end of globalism, not the giving end. Only reason America opened up its market to the rest of the world is because we needed allies to fight the Cold War, and it completely vanished our manufacturing base at home. Americans no longer have an incentive to run massive trade deficits with the whole world and be a security guarantor for a whole bunch of nations we honestly don't depend on. Which country is willing to lead the same globalization effort after U.S. leaves? China is the most dependent on U.S. led order. India positions itself as non-allinged. Who's left?
only way to look after a older population is with traded agreements around the world + to improve living standards you need big ideas. outdated idea to think humantiy can go back to the stone age now
Globalization was only ever possible because of the US protecting global shipping routes. There are no other candidates in the wings to take over that responsibility (including China). As piracy becomes more common, long range shipping costs will go through the roof including shipping insurance.
You are wrong. US war ships no longer patrol the Persian Gulf, we are withdrawing from the world…our industry is rebuilding at the pace greater than industrialization originally. Industry is coming back to Western Hemisphere. Europe is mad because we require cars sold here to have most of their parts originate here. Yeah…when we withdraw from global markets…those markets cease to be viable.
It is really interesting how globalization affects the world. I didn’t know that China occupies all the global market. This country produces everything and imports it to a lot of countries. This was something that really surprised me, although it was pretty logical. It would be interesting, but how globalization works in Japan?
So many people i know work so hard yet can barely afford the most basic cost of living.. It baffles me. Even tho Society is struggling, We are yet to even attempt to implement a concept around: "The better off the lowest income people are doing; The better off the rest of the economy could be doing." -Think of it like a ecosystem in nature. The littlest things might seem insignificant yet, if they crumbled away, the entire ecosystem could crumble. *(Think of this but as a analogy for our economy and our modern day society..) If we instead decided to support the lowest people in the ecosystem, there would be a beneficial dispersion towards other aspects of the society benefiting. All because the lowest people would be doing better (I say better but I really mean: Able to obtain the most basic living standards..) Yet even that would Vastly improve our current state of our economy & society *Also imagine this analogy in our economy. The more help we invest in the lowest level people, the more it would trickle into every facet of our economy. If poor people can pay their rent & not go homeless: landlords would get $, businesses would get $, banks would get $, local small shops would get $, mortgages & bills could be paid, insurance companies would get $, Taxes would get $, So essentially that $ would go out & filter right back in to improve our Country while simultaneously improving our quality of Life. Every bit of the economy would somehow find a way to benefit off of this situation... I don't get why we haven't even Given it a chance?? If it doesn't help? Then by all means stop it and figure out what else we should do. (I hope we TRY something soon, before things get any more unstable. The worst thing we could do is continue on doing exactly what we are currently doing.)
The oligarchy elite do not think as we do in this manner. Its humane. They have shown themslevs to be the corrupted. Who corrupt absolutely. Even with the most wealth. Its stil not ebough. Thry want and are set to maintain their Power. To Control. To enact the terms to a world accirding to their vision. For the first time in human history however. Is There technology at their disposal.The corporate techs are in the pockets of the politicans. Have them put in policies that benefits their own interwst. But then also effect the rest of us. They do not act in any way that represents the interest of citizens. And undermine us through the intelligence agencys usage of engineering society through all the means at thwir disposle. We know the CIA is world renown for such things.
I think everyone agrees that production has to shift to a local markets with a moderate protection and isolation supported by governments. Microprocessors, energy, food have to be local. There will be a need to international exchange to share technology and commodities. We have seen that economic sanctions will not be as effective as one’s thought, and even less now in a multipolar world. The solution will come with strong independent economical blocks willing to trade. Hopefully everyone will understand war slows progress and fair competition promotes development.
Well I don't think it will be possible to produce everything local. Just look how different knowledge, cheap labour and natural ressources are distributed around the world. I think we will blockbuilding again
@@JCB576 agreed. Comparative advantage is still an important concept which is why semiconductor production is so concentrated (esp. in Taiwan and US) The US might be able to shift production of some products within its borders but it doesn't have the advantage of cheap labour or proximity to some natural resources that other countries do. In the modern world with the range and variety of products that all of us are used to, it's almost impossible to produce everything in a single country.
Modern products are far more complex than most people understand, even your $10 cooking thermometer contains processors, radio transceivers, software, optimized antennas and displays, and that's just the surface layer. The only country on the planet that can and are producing everything local is China, no other country has the technology, capital, skilled workforce or energy, period. Take a look at trade deficit of Vietnam or Mexico with China over the last few years, supply chain didn't move there, all they've been doing was a re-routing Chinese goods and adds at most a final step. Not to say globalization isn't ending, China is decoupling with the west far more actively, and successfully than the other way (e.g. semiconductors). Yes many countries will attempt to localize, but only China can actually pull it off, countries that try and fail will suffer far worse than not having tried.
"The historical pattern continues to unfold. Western manufacturers seek to disengage from nations with authoritarian or communist regimes, such as China, only to shift their operations to alternative destinations like Vietnam."
At present, it is hard to achieve universal globalisation for one important reason: conflicts between different countries. The video cites the recent conflict between Russia and Ukraine, but there are many more: the USA and China, Palestine and Iran, and many others. As long as countries cannot reach common agreements on important issues, co-operation will be difficult.
100%. I was thinking the same, just like how communism can't work when you have capitalism being what the world has been built on. There will be no peace between countries until countries are able to resolve issues that are very crucial.
It going on as fighting occurs. What we are seing now is the reshaping of the world. An era that was america in the 20th century is coming to an end. Our controllers of the monetary have become to unstable and nations had enough of being held hostage with their economies well being. Youncant go around bullying countries or continue threats of invasion. You'll isolate yourself more abd more as the monger. We import way more than we export. We dont get to dictate other nations. Its not the 1950s, and weve had a relationship with communists from the east this entire time. We conduct ourselves accordingly and play ball or we can nuke each other up. Im sure the WEF has instructed the oligarchy otherwise. How has anyones predictions of events gone for us over the kast 4 years? Expect the unexpected lads. Where were going, we dont need any roads. But maybe a handbasket.
The real problem for people is simply mass production of goods on a global scale that has long surpassed a healthy demand. Goods brought into the world from all angles with the sole purpose of making increasing yearly profits. In time, no real recycling effort will be able to cope with that. We need a sustainable world that uses resources to produce what we really need.
Multilateralism is usually defined as collaboration between several countries in pursuit of a common goal, where other parties such as civil society or the private sector may also be involved. is usually defined as collaboration between several countries in pursuit of a common goal, where other parties such as civil society or the private sector may also be involved. It's the best
Indeed. The main issue, is that most of the West cannot do the collaboration; they lack the cultural norms to do that. They have to dominate, because their cultures demand that domination through economic and societal means, and military force at worst.
Interesting take on the global economic circumstances. Agree that over 4 decades ago America saw its major industries betray the American working class by moving production of many of their brand names to foreign countries for cheaper labour & greater profits. So many of those lands had no interest in the welfare of their population. Meanwhile in America, dark internal forces turned against the now greatly poor American working class. It is also important to see the desperate actions of Putin against Ukraine as pure economic subjugation which must be denied. Putin has destroyed Russia for generations.
Putin has brought Russia back from the brink of destruction in the 90s. Ukraine was attacked because it repeatedly broke Minsk peace agreements and increased NATO's influence in the area to levels Russia has repeatedly warned they would not accept.
From my point of view, the entire world isn’t ready for complete globalisation unless we stop sticking to things that are hindering the global progress, for instance, current wars and conflicts. Why don’t we analyse the current situation which world is stuck in and think how can we work together for our future. It would rather be more efficient to focus on such things as Space exploration, Environment Protection, Global Warming problem and further.
Interesting perspective on the situation, thanks for the detailed research! The world is dividing into two camps again and this is bound to lead to a global, even more horrifying crisis, isn’t it? This can’t help but make one wonder about our immediate future.
Hopefully we can avoid that. Fortunately NATO's (and the Imperial core in general) military has downsized a bit in recent decades, and China seems to be steering the military conflict that the US is trying to wage into an economic one instead, hence the BRI. Glad to see they learned from the USSR's mistakes. And the US's decline has been very gradual, not a pronounced one that could spontaneously erupt into a sudden global war.
@@richsalmon Until the end of the cold war, it was set to fight and make progress on two major fronts. Nowadays it's set to make progress on one front, and to only hold another. It's a minor but not inconsequential downgrade considering the growth of other nations.
@@st.altair4936 Perhaps. But a war against Russia and China, which is probably the most likely ww3 scenario, would be fought in two different ways. You do not need many tanks to fight China and you do not need many aircraft carriers to fight Russia.
@@richsalmon This is... just incorrect. Other than seeing how the Vietnam and Afganistan wars went, a large percentage of Europe and US imports are from China and Russia, be it directly or indirectly. This would be a global disaster even without accounting for nukes. Also, a modern China going into wartime would be terrifying with its 1.5B population.
The thing is that the global world is dividing into several regional superpowers and by that hinders the progress of globalization. The controversial point for me though is the impact of military conflicts happening now are given too much credit for being the main reason of this deglobalization, let's say. Though I'm really interested in the questions if the neutral status is attainable in such geopolitical situation and if the China's continuing economic crisis prevents it from being a superpower anymore.
The main driver of reduced globalism is decoupling from China. China trade is synonymous with globalism - clearly. I honestly think this was all a grand strategy that's going ridiculously well for the west. We built a house of cards in China. Now that Russia is effectively gone, we pulled the rug on China. China is in for a rude awakening.
Literally the vast majority of belligerent European kingdoms were actually family. Uncles, sisters, brothers, cousins. That didn't stop them from tearing Europe apart, and dragging in their occupied colonies.
Not mention of the Bretton Woods system coming out of WW2, which stated, geopolitically, the whole idea and enabalization of globalization. And with the US (since the fall of the USSR) no longer interested in policing the seas, has caused the trend away from it. Most of what is happening now is the effect of this cause. Cause and effect are simultaneous.
I know that the USA is still viable but there is a lot of news online about underreported or not reported problems that we will soon be plagued with, such as, food shortages, military supplies and personnel, government funding and the list goes on and on. This is very troubling to me.
what will happen next? there will be more and more wars between countries for territories, exactly as is already happening with Russia and Ukraine or Israel with Hamas, the same thing will be done by China, which will try to take Taiwan because the countries will think only of their interests and that's it, production will only be internal and that's it, exports will decrease and that will decrease the global economy. In short, we will go back in time to the early 1900s before the outbreak of WW1 and probably a new global war again because all countries will think about their interests 😂😂😂😂 I hope this is will not happen until I die but I have 29 so probably this will going to happen in my lifetime
I have always loved the word sovereignty, it really makes you feel like you can breath clearly. It makes other mad simply because you dont follow any trends or the status quo instead you carve your own path.
It is the rising monetary joining and reliance of public, territorial, and nearby economies across the world through a strengthening of cross-line development of products, administrations, innovations and capital. Stocks are falling and security yields are rising, however advertises still don't appear to be persuaded the Central bank will seek after plans to continue to increment loan costs until expansion is taken care of. I'm currently at a junction choosing if to exchange my stock portfolio, what's the most effective way to exploit this bear showcase?
What may be happening is the growing regionalization within the overarching globalized context. That isn't without its risks as can be seen with many of the conflicts emerging in the world now. It also points to the geopolitical decline of the post WWII system with two major powers, then to a unitary world superpower, and now the emergence of a multipolar world. It's hard to know how this will all shake out, but one of the challenges for all countries involved will be how to navigate conflicts both internal to those countries and external, and how to expand trading opportunities within the new regional context. Those connector economies may play an outsized role in this endeavor.
Wait... Let me get this straight. According to some, globalisation is the leading cause of inequalities but we have to fight it by regionalising and there by reducing reliance on each other. Seems like a lose-lose move from my POV?!? If anything regionalising will destabilise the world due to decreased reliance on each other and less required of other countries. Doesnt that also mean reduced productivity as specialisation is the best way to increase productivity?!? Who knows?!? I am not economics student.
After seeing these images of Vietnam and Indonesia all I can say is that I'm glad I travelled when I did. I don't begrudge people wanting a different life but I can't help feeling sad that it has come at the cost of beautiful landscapes and cultures.
These nations arent your human version of safari / wild life reservations. They want the same wealth the West has accumulated. And they certainly will achieve it.
I think it is wise to think about the impact of building all these manufacturing plants and infrastructure. This video is basically pointing out the fact that companies will find ways around the political situation. And this means it's disorganized, no one is watching out for making best use of land, etc. Yes, this same as it always was, but we could do better.
As AI advances, and machines start doing jobs it will br cheaper to do things in your own country than to do it elsewhere. Jobs will start coming back (as long as we don't need to pay people to do it)
there is no such a thig as self suffiency and energy independence what you should have a standard for your partners like EU and NATO standard for partnership now even your partner can be in north or south America or Asia or Africa
@@BrightWendigo America is one of the most blessed countries on Earth, that likes to tell itself it succeeded through adversity despite having the most favorable geography on the planet. Apart from Australia, other countries aren't so lucky. America may be able to pull back, but it can't make everyone else come with it. It'll just end up isolating itself as a result. The main driver of countries wishing to engage with the US is the debt-powered US consumer market. If the US makes ever more of its people buy American, there'll be little reason for other nations to care anymore. There's resources elsewhere already (plus the US has a habit of hoarding its resources anyway), and cheaper production as well. So NA will end up forming its own little bubble, and the rest of the world will move on from it. All the while Americans will end up paying much higher prices for their stuff.
@@ArawnOfAnnwn being isolated is the point, America only protected global trade to benefit its Allies because it’s European Allies needed oil. Now it doesn’t need to protect oil supply lines because of new renewable energy technology and shale oil. Globalization just puts America and it’s Allies at risk of sanctions and takes away their political leverage. Sure many in the global south depend on globalization, but those are weak NEED globalization because they have to rely on others.
globalization made lots of things nice, but made pricing bad for poor countries, Countries are now trying to become independent to one another. One of the reasons why people don't go to war its because its more expensive than just trading, if there is no trade to be done then what will prevent war from ever coming again?
World poverty is viewed as a solution, not a problem. The World Bank and IMF think of poverty as low-priced labor, creating a competitive advantage for countries that produce labor-intensive goods. So poverty/austerity is an economic solution that’s built into their models. ~ Michael Hudson
They also think of "least developed country status" as something countries can "qualify" for, and many LDCs are deliberately trying to stay poor to retain this status, which confers special trade privileges.
Human reality: There will always be one person in a crowded room that, instead of using the bathroom, will wee in the corner and stink it up for everyone.
It was mentioned regionalization of the economy from the globalization. But there is also the phenomenon of Glocalization - wouldn't it make regionalization another form of this practice? Idk...
I like around 3:30 when he says "...a 7% drop in global GDP..." I'm thinking 'wow, that sounds pretty high - manageable but pretty high' and then he says "...that doesn't sound like much, but think of it as removing the French and German economies over night" - Aaaaand that comparison makes it seem smaller 🤣
Kishore Mahbubani, a scholar and former diplomat from Singapore, claims that although globalization began in the West, it is in the West that the voices warning of its impending destruction are most audible. He contends that in managing globalization, the West, or more specifically the US, has made three strategic mistakes. The first is the failure of the elites in the US to protect the working classes from the inevitable disruptions caused by globalization. The second is the weakening of government institutions, especially in the US. Finally, the creation of a functional plutocracy has effectively undermined the American democratic system. 🇨🇳 🇨🇳🇨🇳
Well, we need to de-couple. Globalization has pros and cons. Different political systems, some bad actors, could cause global disasters, man-made or natural, based on covid-19 responses and weak supply chain systems, countries protecting their own supply chains, products, services, first........economic, geopolitical changes for better or worse, we need to be a combination of independence and cooperative trade among the world's countries
Globalization works if all parties have the same standards. Of course nations do not have the same standards, so regional alliances make sense. Why does US buy oil outside its borders? It you had unity between Canada and the US both countries would be independent in oil, natural gas and minerals. That's what is needed going forward. To rely on the Saudis for oil and other countries for various things doesn't make sense in today's world.
Trash comment section. Obviously the first thing some people are seeing on this and from a limited angle, the ignorance is hilarious. This video barely touches on anything really. You need hours on each region to really explain what is happening.
I knew that China is really a globalizing country that has a huge influence on other countries due to the fact that it produces so many imported goods. But I didn't even think that countries like Morocco, Indonesia and Vietnam were involved in Globalization. It's like the world has divided into two camps, the consumer countries and those who produce products. Do you think a rich country like America will ever be able to overtake China in production?
They all are - producing cheap resources to send to the west. They were denied oppertunities to internally develop for quite some time - in fact ,it's been the goal and foundation. Now that is falling apart
So the main idea of the video is that the thing happening right now is reshaping of global economy. I find it controversial that countries rely on each other, but they still unable to coexist in peace as one country wants to top the other by all means possible.. The question is when we finally put aside any overflowing "bad ambitions" and strive together for better future by cooperating?
The US can pull back all it wants, but it can't force everyone else to follow suit. It has the advantage of the most blessed geography on Earth, whatever the stories it likes to tell itself about the vaunted greatness of its people. The rest of the world isn't so lucky. The more the US pulls back, the more it'll just end up isolating itself. The main driver of countries wishing to engage with the US is the debt-powered US consumer market. If the US makes ever more of its people buy American, there'll be little reason for other nations to care anymore. There's resources elsewhere already (plus the US has a habit of hoarding its resources anyway), and cheaper production as well. So NA will end up forming its own little bubble, and the rest of the world will move on from it. All the while Americans will end up paying much higher prices for their stuff.
America doesn't make cheap products but they did help create cheap labor for cheap products in countries who are taking advantage of it's citizens that's for sure!
History has been constant on one thing, the country another country will go to war with, is the same country you trade with. Britan and France did this for almost the last 1000 years (The conquest of England by William the Conquoror from France, the 100 years war, what we in the states call the "French and Indian wars 1696-1763, The American and French Revolution etc. Other countries have other conflicts between nations that also trade wirh each other. On the other hand, until Western Nations wanted Chinese goods, no wars between any European country with China. Europe had nothing China wanted and thus little trade and no wars.
Globalisation forgot one thing: the people. Jobs and investments went offshore, many businesses closed, concentration in other parts of the world 🌎 Now the people are paying the price for it. 😢
1 - No modern technology developed in the last 30 years was ever produced in America, you can't off shore something you were never able to build. 2 - The people certainly didn't complain about paying lower prices for things. 3 - The actual punitive price you're paying isn't for globalization, it's for picking a fight with people that's feeding you.
The proper check to balance that was/is supposed to be unions, representatives and trade policy with a chain of action emanating from the unemployed/exploited citizens to elected officials and ultimately policy change on employers. Sadly every section of that chain was destroyed with uncontrollable cost of living from the concentration of wealth accumulation staying in Capital and leaving Labor coupled with fentanyl/mental health epidemics attacking the exploited; having electable officials being whittled down to a binary two-party system that overlooks alleviation in favor of clickbait issues; the absence of a salient crisis allows policy to court wealth for private issues, allowing employers unfettered exploitation in search of lower cost for higher reward in Capital accumulation-as during times when the cost for Capital is low, markets capture and store wealth much faster and efficiently with the engine behind the that capture being the lack of policy to keep up with technology when used for arbitrage in either overseas labor+shipping or for domestic automation. Globalization did what it does, Congress, USTR and the WTO forgot humans.
@@vlhc4642 Also, you got lower prices but you also got lower wages and worsening living conditions. Global competition for jobs without some element of protectionism means unions are easily broken and bargaining power destroyed. Globalization meant cheaper goods at the cost of westerners being poor enough to only afford the cheapest things.
@@bobsteve4812 Its easy to imagine you could have built something if you never built it. Dunning Kruger effect is very real. And no globalization does not by itself reduce wages, efficient distribution of production is the basis of capitalism and it always increase the net wealth of the system. Your theoretical reduction in wage is simply being on the losing end of capitalism, which distributes wealth on ability, not desire. And in reality your wages haven't been reduced and quality of life hasn't gone done because of reserve-currency based debt consumption. Your opposition to globalism is really you taking your wage increases for granted and developing an unrealistic expectation around continuing to be paid for producing nothing.
Peter Zeihan was one of the early authors on deglobalisation topics - check out his books and narrative …some would say he is pro-US biased, but only time will tell I guess
Hes a hack. i love that he thinks if the us navy stopped patrolling the sea, globalization would collapsed overnight forgetting the fact that big countries like the UK, gulf states, Russia, China, India, Indonesia, Australia can provide security by working together.
He is biased very much so he is not a geopolitical analyst but a geopolitical sensationalist, there is so much he has gotten wrong over the year in his analysis and its not complicated stuff but simple date anybody can look up. Outlandish statements like ,,if we sanction china 500 million chinese will starve to death" I am also amazed that he speaks as if whatever comes out of his mouth is set in stone. Anybody who makes a prediction should always clarify that they are making that prediction based on current date and observations, however as you might know life is process which involves change and all this date are variables that can at any given point change their trajectory in a whole new direction, essentially making a said prediction complete useless fan fiction.
Would be interesting to see how the "US-led block supporting Israeli war in Gaza" compared with the other "block" that voted for a ceasefire looks like in terms of FDI. No, the fracturing of globalization is the illusion invented by imperialist powers, whether it is Russia or the US, trying to hold on to their "block of influence". If you look closer, you see increased connectivity across the globe. Everyone is participating in global affairs more equally rather than letting everything be determined by the small club of "Western industrial countries". And this certainly freaks some people out.
less successful civilizations always get together to destroy successful civilizations for social justice. Happened to Egypt and others. Modern communism is from a white dude in Germany btw.. People can't compete, hide their hate in virtue signaling self righteousness. We have Liberal values and want small businesses thriving... Brainwashed people just see corrupted capitalism... Capitalism and communism are the same when corrupted. Western culture and Eastern culture are just different dresses for the same truth. It would be interesting if the west never donated charity to the east again. 👌
I really don’t see „increased connectivity“ at this point. Not when it comes to supply chains, raw materials, energy, knowledge. I rather see the West closing the gate, now.😢
@@Claude_van_KlotenIt's no longer in the US' advantage to continue pushing for globalization. The citizens have realized it first as they've lost out a lot of prosperity to lower cost overseas manufacturing, and this has now filtered into the politics. Remember, the US was very isolationist prior to 1941. They did not want to get involved in the affairs of Europe or Asia. They stayed out of the League of Nations because of this. With the Soviet threat neutralized, the US no longer needs the rest of the world's political alliance against another superpower. So, it's really a return to form for lot of Americans to want to go back to doing their own thing and letting everyone else sort it out. This, of course, will result in lower prosperity for everyone, as no other country in the world has the ability or willingness to protect trade they are not directly engaged in, and this will, in turn, result in increased piracy and state sponsored privateering, which will drive up shipping costs and make many trade routes unprofitable, and they will vanish, resulting in shorter and less efficient supply chains. That's also not including the effect of regional wars springing up and disrupting supply lines.
Its such a fragile system. Covid, the suez canal blockage and other things really showed this. Its great to trade but being totally reliant is just narrow sighted.
Globalization 1.0 fractured through the world wars. What followed it? Globalization 2.0. What makes us think that we won't move onto globalization 3.0 after this period of instability? The lesson we keep forgetting to learn is that the wealth generation must be divided out fairly to avoid the instability. As long as we keep making excuses for situations like a relatively few getting very rich while most people get left behind we're going to keep running into the periods where the majority want to tear it all down.
The thing this video and the comments neglect (either intentionally or through ignorance) is that globalization and international trade routes (particularly those on the seas) exist only because of the US security apparatus. Without American participation or the US' naval protection of sea lanes, the world returns to the general global milieu that existed before the end of WWII. America calls the shots because it is on America's efforts that the current global geopolitical and economic order even functions. Europeans frequently forget, to their peril, that their supply chain of both materials and energy is either protected by the US or is at the mercy of powers whose geopolitical and philosophical interests are hostile to, or at least in direct conflict with, European interests. At the very least, these hostile powers have hegemonic ambitions that mirror "Great Game" politics that existed prior to the end of WWII, and a return to European colonial empires to supply Europe's material and energy needs is neither possible nor palatable to any power.
The role of China in globalization is crucial. Despite the fact that China gives us a lot of bounties and helps to develop the world economy, by the other hand, it seems that China tries to remove other countries from the global market. Will China occupy the whole global market in the future?
It remained unsaid for a long time or we simply didn't want to admit it. Ok, report on the current point. Wherever has been this, can only tell the future history books.
It was supposed to be like this. We have finally reached new world where everyone is developing at own pace and own way without other countries dictating what to do just like older times but in a modern context
Get unlimited access to Bloomberg.com for $1.99/month for the first 3 months: www.bloomberg.com/subscriptions?in_source=TH-camOriginals
It's easy to dismiss other countries' concerns about acting politically on the effects of globalization when your country dictates the economic policy.
Does America really dictate economic policy? Or are we merely a tool of globalization and someone to blame if things go wrong? All I know is I am better off the more money I have and earn and while I sort of understand the issues associated with globalization I am in no position to criticize this nor do I have the power to change it. I'd rather be rich than poor.
@@rizmacadillacyes they literally formed it and there ability to cripple an entire countries economy just by sanctioning them (Cuba, Zimbabwe, Iran) all because they don’t agree with their politics only few can bypass this (Russia/China the only ones really).
Anti west / anti america so trendy
@@rizmacadillacYes, America does dictate economic policy. It deliberately pursued the ability to do so, and has successfully done so for over half a century.
Also, as a non-American (but still someone from a western country, who is also a disproportionate beneficiary of globalisation), your viewpoint is incredibly myopic.
@@monkeymox2544 myopic =/= unrealistic
Supply chain complexity obviously went to unsustainable extremes, creating fragility in the event of a trade shock. But the drastic de-globalization of the world's economies is an overcompensation. Trade isolationism introduces new fragility into local economies. Even the U.S., who is best positioned for self-reliance, will suffer from the inherent inefficiencies. Globalization isn't dying, it is just hibernating.
Globalization is a win-win for almost every country. Temporary hiccups don't mean globalization is dying.
It's not coming back the way it was, though. Not this century.
@@vinterskugge907 You have far more faith in the predictability of things 75 years in the future than I have. Current geopolitics and economics are likely to look rather quaint and primitive in 2100.
@@crawkn An important argument for globalization and international trade was that it would prevent wars and conflicts, because it would make would-be rivals and enemies dependent on each other.
But as Europe has learnt with regards to Russian energy: Depending on your enemy doesn't make him your friend, it just gives him another weapon to use against you. The US is now learning the same with regards to China.
Whether this lesson lasts for exactly 77 years, I don't know, but it will certainly last for a long time.
@@vinterskugge907 What it demonstrates is that there are limits on interdependence due to national security considerations. What it doesn't demonstrate is that there is no healthy balance between international trade and self-reliance. The fact that the world got that balance wrong in one direction, and now is getting it wrong in the other direction, doesn't change the fact that trade has tremendous advantages for all parties.
These include both enhancement of economic prosperity _and_ reduced international hostilities. These benefits are real, substantial, and well understood, so they will motivate a resurgence in international trade. The important lesson learned is not that trade is bad, but that you need to be selective about what for, and how much you are dependent on rivals, and that it is important to maintain critical production competencies domestically, even when it costs more.
Europe's over-reliance on Russian gas was very well understood to be a security issue, which they elected to risk anyway to enhance economic productivity. Some might reasonably argue that the already reaped rewards of the policy were worth the risk and the eventual consequences. In any case, it won't be the last time nations gamble on high-risk strategies. Remember Ukraine was a gamble by Putin, and he lost too.
Sometimes I find this kind of perspective really short sighted. "We're seeing trade wars with China... war in the middle east and coups in Africa" Those things are terrible, but those things have been happening continuously without pause for the last eighty years - why is now suddenly different?
Did you even understand the words being said in the video?
Trade has existed since essentially man has existed but why is there a fracturing happening now? For something to be fractured, a fragile thing has to come to be such as the utopian concept of globalization has to come to be. The world has been mostly stuck in “ancient times” all the way to the beginning of the 20th century until exponential technological advancement took off and resulted in the world being so reliant on each other that if a war happens on the other side of the world it will directly effect you. And now that this fantastical idea falls in on itself because it cant work when everyone is killing each other when it collapses it will hurt everyone.
@@User-1147 And exponential population growth. I like being alive.
@@User-1147 Except everyone isn't killing each other. The fighting is two nations in Europe, and a few nations in Africa, and two seperate wars involving just two nations in the Middle East.
The period of not-globalization caused WW1.
@@Seth9809 with the world being so interconnected you might as well be at war with each other when all of the west is sending arms and money to foreign nations and forgetting their own citizens
trade war with China is a new one ,until recently the chinese were friednly
I don't think most people are against connected economies. People are against the over reach of governments and the inability to get aware from an onerous one
Pretty much.
Basically what's next is Pax Sinica. USA is dead. Pax americana . Now is China. Pax Sinica.
Or new currency of United Nations or BRICS. But dollar goes into the trash. Also a massive reform of United Nations
The dollar was choosen because it evaded European sanctions . Now USA is using the dollar to imposed sanctions. So a news currency to evade those sanctions is going to be chosen or created.
The overreach of corporations that compromise governments.
"Multipolarity" is the dirty word that this program was trying to avoid lol
The last time we had strong multipolarity, it ended up in two world wars. The reason Pax Romana, Pax Mongolica, Pax Britannica, and Pax Americana are named that way is because there was one dominant power keeping trade routes open, and not having huge conflicts with rivals.
@@doujinflip UN and WTO, with multipolarity in mind by design, are dumped like yesterday garbage when they don't serve US's desire to be the world hegemony power.
Like it or not multipolar world is happening faster
@@doujinflip Mongolica 🏹
@@doujinflip the problem is that said dominant power is abusing its power
we need circuit economics. that’s all there is to it. it’s healthcare 101 we need circulation to live. applies to economies too. the truth is…if we apply the biological metaphor to infinite growth the “line going up” is a wound spurting blood into the air…when what we really want is healthy circulation. the problem is our whole world today is laid out as a bunch of “endpoints” rather than circulatory channels. if we think of money as blood cells and it’s just pooling in bank accounts, i mean…that doesn’t sound biologically healthy to me! everything is stuck in a rut and spurting blood. circular economics is a win win for everyone but we have to actually design it that way. and the truth is…economic circuits may not even need money to function at all
Only works under a socialist program. Capitalism is too decentralized to make this happen.
Wow, nailed it perfectly!
Spoken like someone who has never had money. Rich people don’t have massive vaults of cash secreted away. Much of that value is invested in markets.
@@TehKarmalizer i think you’re taking my comment too literally rather than picking up the spirit of it. just because you have one counterexample for one sentence out of everything i wrote doesn’t mean i’m not right about the rest
@@TehKarmalizer you yourself dont impress anyone... "invested in markets" is mostly being tied up into illiquid assets where it just sits, and theres data showing that fraction of wealth being hoarded away like this has been increasing since the 2008 crisis... the oligarchs are behaving like dragons.
We need a global cultural wave that promotes regional economies
Not cultural, economic & academic, but that is happening! Supply chains continue to regionalize.
Alter-globalization is theoretically stronger, imo. I think both are preferable to the actual globalization we’ve experienced.
I was just thinking that this is the post globalized world we already live in and it started back when the EU was formed. Let's call it Regionalization. The building blocks for EU similar organizations are already there in different parts of the world.
Yes, and a rapid reduction in the income inequality that is largely driven by multinational corporate interests.
Tell that to people, they want to have low prices locally, but it won't play out...
So yes, but prices have to go up.
As a Bussiness owner I see that some of us are totally dependent on refinancing our debt before the cash reserve runs out but my pals think I am not helping them even though I got cash. And its also easy to manipulate numbers on a small scale which helps to improve our creditworthyness but the only thing concerning is creditors stop funding our operations due to high competition and no actual demand
In the real estate sector. Being a landlord doesn't have the glory which it used to had.
I understand this classical perspective on economies and globalization but the universal truth is rather simple at its core: "Globalization" is not something that anyone controls as we cannot choose whether we live on the same planet or not. We as humans have to work together to create better conditions on this planet for all of us, whether we like it or not. You cannot escape this dynamic. As our history so far shows it's far from certain unfortunately that all of us will become this reasonable at any point in the foreseeable future and in time.
But the point remains: We cannot escape from each other, we are all dependent on what each of us does, in every facet of our lives.
sure but that isnt the globalisation that is reffered to in the video.
the reality is that the globalisation we speak of is just the result of american and european corporations offshoring production to low income nations. globalisation ending is very simply when western governments realise that the rest of the world isnt just a docile sweatshop and has their own agenda.
I believe many of your basic assumptions are wrong. But since I don't want to get into a long debate let me just tell you one thing to get you thinking, if you're willing to think about it.
Earth does not have to be a singular world, it can be many.
I will tell you one thing clearly, and it's that I'm against any form of deterministic assumptions or thought processes.
@@GustafUNLit could depend on personal values of each person. I think the greatest goal humanity can reach is become a space-faring civilization which expands beyond, there is no greater goal than that. To achieve that, we must be globalised fully
Globalizations risk is if it is not for everyone, it's not just unstable it converts trade into protectionism that converts IP, stock markets, resources and commodities into smaller more national concerns. That changes what could have be solved with diplomats and business people into jobs for politicians and military personnel. Globalization is not dead but neither is factionalism and factionalism is so much more volitie and business/trade hates unpredcitablity.
Cacao has never been harvested in Swiss Alps. Likewise, iron ore into Toyotas.
Japan does not produce iron ore. Globalization have always existed even before
it was called as such. The Portuguese bought spices in India and sold it in Europe.
Comparing the post-WW2 US Navy-backed globalisation to any global trade before is like comparing fibre optic internet to the mail pigeon. You're right somehow, but you're missing the message here completely at the same time.
There are 2 differences between what we had before the 90s and after it
1. Government protected a lot of their industry before,
2. The bigger point is all capital control were abolished before when bigger sums got transferred between nations some guy from the government needed to give its okay to it which could take up to 2 weeks. The fall of it was what turbo charged the globalization but its also directly responsible for the southeast Asia crisis, the banking crisis and Euro crisis.
i almost think they mean labour market as that is the thing most detrimentally affected locally in a globalization scheme.
No. Not bought, They looted
Greetings, please look at the Creative Society, there are already technologies, other developments useful for the life of society and freeing time for personal development, but it is necessary to change the format from consumption to Creation, it is important the participation of each person to inform others ❤ When the people are silent, the political mafia weaves its intrigues and plans!
Humbly: globalization is going to happen, one way or another, but not the American way; historically, trends like this have tended to arise not all at once but unevenly, in fits and starts. The twentieth century was both a time of global fracture and globalization. I bet the twenty-first will be similar in that respect.
Ive been thinking it seems like weve expanded globally as far as we can comfortably without some major changes. I think its gonna go from people caring about the globe to people going back into their own cities and neighborhoods. Less news about foreign affairs and more news about main street where you live
I comprehend this traditional point of view on economies and globalization however the generally accepted fact is somewhat basic at its center: "Globalization" isn't something that anybody controls as we can't pick regardless of whether we live on a similar planet. We as people need to cooperate to make better circumstances on this planet for us all, regardless of whether we like it. You can't get away from this dynamic. As businesses expand globally, they often require consulting services to navigate international markets, regulations. i have built a long-term relationship with a financial analyst and I'm in steady stream of income
Globalization isn't something that anybody controls as we can't pick regardless of whether we live on a similar planet. We as people need to cooperate to make better circumstances on this planet for us all, regardless of whether we like it. You can't get away from this dynamic, I'm still at a crossroads deciding if to liquidate my 100k brokerage portfolio, curious on the most productive means to take advantage of the current situation...I am open to ideas
Through closely monitoring the performance of my portfolio, I have witnessed a remarkable growth of 483k in just the past two quarters. This experience has shed light on why experienced traders are able to generate substantial returns even in lesser-known markets. It is safe to say that this bold decision has been one of the most impactful choices I have made recently
I fancy your approach on the market situation, I am needing assistance on market picks
I work with "LISA MICHELLE PACILLAS"
You can easily look her up online. She has years of financial market experience and she is also FINRA & SEC verifiable.
Thanks for this tip, found her just after inputting her full name on my browser, seems impeccable and shows a great deal of expertise with over two decades of experience with reviews from her clients all over the world
It was interesting to hear about globalization reshaping, as previously i heard only about globalization dying out. I believe that nowadays we can see how geopolitical change affect our everyday lives, so i think i can agree with the main points of the video, but i’m not sure if countries named as “countries-connectors” will be remained just connectors. I think that their economy will drastically became more stable and essential. What do you think?
When Western money is pouring in via their factories, definately.
People still need “things”… and apart from taxes distorting the price of things would you buy something from India at $2 or the same thing made in the eu for $20.
There will be shifts in power, but globalisation isn’t disappearing.
@globalization will dieShowmetheevidence-
There will be national level production for super urgent (food, health, daily needs etc.) and super security (microprocessors, energy, arms/equipment etc.) related products; also, regional/friendly nation production for another kind of urgent and relatively less needed security products and rest are globalization i.e., luxury items etc...
@@bbabbich3467 Yes, you got it correctly..these signs and symptoms..
The average microprocessor requires 18 nations to co operate. Microprocessors can only exist with globalisation
@@patrickbateman1660 Yes that's the underlying fact. But what I actually meant is that, nation would want some super security/urgent products to produce in their own soil..
I wouldn’t have voted for Brexit originally, but I actually feel safer now it has happened. Life goes on, people work, study. And there’s this feeling that it is possible to survive without the massive amount of foreign products and workers. It was a fragile system.
@@StermaPerma there's more immigration post brexit and even more imports.
Life goes on. Like it has for millions of years. It's literally not the end of the world. Well. Maybe it is for those who profited from "globalization." Grow. Adapt. 🤷♂️
BUT... BUT WHAT ABOUT ISRAEL!1?!?@?
Globalization works when the world economies do open up in spaces of Industry where it drives the growth on consumer spending with Net Savings directed towards Asset Purchases leads to Continental-Globalization.
Globalisation has undeniably brought about significant changes in our world, connecting nations, cultures, and economies. However, there is a growing concern that globalisation is causing fractures within societies. This thought-provoking video sheds light on this issue, prompting us to contemplate what lies ahead. As we witness the rise of protectionist policies and growing nationalism, it becomes crucial to consider the consequences of these shifts. What comes next? Will we see a reimagining of globalisation, one that prioritizes inclusivity and sustainability? I believe that this is a very controversial issue, because even if we calculate the prospects now, unexpected events can occur (for example, like Russia’s invasion of Ukraine) and radically change the situation.
Thanks, ChatGPT.
Globalization, as it was understood, was built upon slaughter and coercion to rob much of the world to overfeed but a part of it.
Brazil would have a lot to gain from this change in globalization, but unfortunately our political class is incapable of seeing the benefits of trade agreements.
A horrific world war and the very slow collapse of modern civilization.
modern civilization is overrated . Just a bunch of worky slaves shuttling back and forth with hardly a moment for themselves
@@bbabbich3467thats been my argument for the past 40years........its not feeling that strong of a argument of late.....
Power over peace is the goal of those who need power to maintain their peace. Like holding a tiger by the ears from behind knowing you can’t let go and your doom is from your population or the rest of the world … which do you pick?
Everyone seems to have missed that the expertise once tied to company or nation has been redistributed globally so that all you need is a competent and educated work force to implement such expertise. That makes the need for globalization redundant. This is a success story, not a failure. As long as one country has more of a material than it can use and wants to sell some to a country that doesn't have enough, there will be global supply chains. Globalization is a noun which denotes a process that has already happened.
War, as globalization ends countries will fight for as many resources as possible for their blocks.
We are directly entering the resource wars era. We already were what with oil but this solidifies it.
THE WORLDWIDE PEOPLES WHO SUFFER IN DIRE POVERTY KNEW THIS WAS NEVER GOING TO WOR FOR THEM!
The entire focal point of this video is to promote the China and it's interest by stating that USA cannot get rid of the them completely. However where it failed was to mention India which was not dependent upon Chinese cheating and yet providing a growing market and manufacturing hub for most of the major developed economies. But then ofcourse, Bloomberg has always been a pet of China .
You're acting as if India is not as dependent to China. Check your biggest source of imports. Your country will take decades if not several generations just to catch up to China's current level. Knowing how fragmented a democratic country and corrupt India, any projects in India will be disrupted.
Globalisation isn't going anywhere. We're all co-dependant (resources, products, labor, learning, tech, info...) on one another as countries, private companies even more so. It's just that it may not be a mainly US/West-lead effort anymore. And that doesn't necessarily need to be a bad thing.
PS: emphasis on 'mainly'. Some people seemed offended(?) or outraged(?) somehow.
It's fun to be on the receiving end of globalism, not the giving end. Only reason America opened up its market to the rest of the world is because we needed allies to fight the Cold War, and it completely vanished our manufacturing base at home. Americans no longer have an incentive to run massive trade deficits with the whole world and be a security guarantor for a whole bunch of nations we honestly don't depend on. Which country is willing to lead the same globalization effort after U.S. leaves? China is the most dependent on U.S. led order. India positions itself as non-allinged. Who's left?
only way to look after a older population is with traded agreements around the world + to improve living standards you need big ideas. outdated idea to think humantiy can go back to the stone age now
Globalization was only ever possible because of the US protecting global shipping routes. There are no other candidates in the wings to take over that responsibility (including China). As piracy becomes more common, long range shipping costs will go through the roof including shipping insurance.
Not be? What are you talking about? The majority of the wealth and companies come from the west, it'll be west-led even if indirectly for a long time.
You are wrong. US war ships no longer patrol the Persian Gulf, we are withdrawing from the world…our industry is rebuilding at the pace greater than industrialization originally. Industry is coming back to Western Hemisphere. Europe is mad because we require cars sold here to have most of their parts originate here. Yeah…when we withdraw from global markets…those markets cease to be viable.
It is really interesting how globalization affects the world. I didn’t know that China occupies all the global market. This country produces everything and imports it to a lot of countries. This was something that really surprised me, although it was pretty logical. It would be interesting, but how globalization works in Japan?
Inwards, with debt and lower birthrates.
So many people i know work so hard yet can barely afford the most basic cost of living..
It baffles me. Even tho Society is struggling, We are yet to even attempt to implement a concept around: "The better off the lowest income people are doing; The better off the rest of the economy could be doing." -Think of it like a ecosystem in nature. The littlest things might seem insignificant yet, if they crumbled away, the entire ecosystem could crumble. *(Think of this but as a analogy for our economy and our modern day society..)
If we instead decided to support the lowest people in the ecosystem, there would be a beneficial dispersion towards other aspects of the society benefiting. All because the lowest people would be doing better (I say better but I really mean: Able to obtain the most basic living standards..) Yet even that would Vastly improve our current state of our economy & society
*Also imagine this analogy in our economy. The more help we invest in the lowest level people, the more it would trickle into every facet of our economy. If poor people can pay their rent & not go homeless: landlords would get $, businesses would get $, banks would get $, local small shops would get $, mortgages & bills could be paid, insurance companies would get $, Taxes would get $, So essentially that $ would go out & filter right back in to improve our Country while simultaneously improving our quality of Life. Every bit of the economy would somehow find a way to benefit off of this situation... I don't get why we haven't even Given it a chance?? If it doesn't help? Then by all means stop it and figure out what else we should do. (I hope we TRY something soon, before things get any more unstable. The worst thing we could do is continue on doing exactly what we are currently doing.)
The oligarchy elite do not think as we do in this manner. Its humane. They have shown themslevs to be the corrupted. Who corrupt absolutely. Even with the most wealth. Its stil not ebough. Thry want and are set to maintain their Power. To Control. To enact the terms to a world accirding to their vision. For the first time in human history however. Is There technology at their disposal.The corporate techs are in the pockets of the politicans. Have them put in policies that benefits their own interwst. But then also effect the rest of us. They do not act in any way that represents the interest of citizens. And undermine us through the intelligence agencys usage of engineering society through all the means at thwir disposle. We know the CIA is world renown for such things.
The governments of Argentina and Venezuela are doing just that. Simply can not afford it in the long run.
Regarding maps: When did Greenland vote independently in the UN?
It is just a colony
I think everyone agrees that production has to shift to a local markets with a moderate protection and isolation supported by governments.
Microprocessors, energy, food have to be local.
There will be a need to international exchange to share technology and commodities.
We have seen that economic sanctions will not be as effective as one’s thought, and even less now in a multipolar world.
The solution will come with strong independent economical blocks willing to trade.
Hopefully everyone will understand war slows progress and fair competition promotes development.
Well I don't think it will be possible to produce everything local. Just look how different knowledge, cheap labour and natural ressources are distributed around the world. I think we will blockbuilding again
@@JCB576 agreed. Comparative advantage is still an important concept which is why semiconductor production is so concentrated (esp. in Taiwan and US) The US might be able to shift production of some products within its borders but it doesn't have the advantage of cheap labour or proximity to some natural resources that other countries do.
In the modern world with the range and variety of products that all of us are used to, it's almost impossible to produce everything in a single country.
Modern products are far more complex than most people understand, even your $10 cooking thermometer contains processors, radio transceivers, software, optimized antennas and displays, and that's just the surface layer. The only country on the planet that can and are producing everything local is China, no other country has the technology, capital, skilled workforce or energy, period. Take a look at trade deficit of Vietnam or Mexico with China over the last few years, supply chain didn't move there, all they've been doing was a re-routing Chinese goods and adds at most a final step.
Not to say globalization isn't ending, China is decoupling with the west far more actively, and successfully than the other way (e.g. semiconductors). Yes many countries will attempt to localize, but only China can actually pull it off, countries that try and fail will suffer far worse than not having tried.
@@JCB576 Ugh try buying fresh produce, salad locally has taken big hits to quality lately
microprocessors ? Simple ones maybe but the more advanced ones need very advanced technologies that are very expensive to create and maintain.
"The historical pattern continues to unfold. Western manufacturers seek to disengage from nations with authoritarian or communist regimes, such as China, only to shift their operations to alternative destinations like Vietnam."
At present, it is hard to achieve universal globalisation for one important reason: conflicts between different countries. The video cites the recent conflict between Russia and Ukraine, but there are many more: the USA and China, Palestine and Iran, and many others. As long as countries cannot reach common agreements on important issues, co-operation will be difficult.
100%. I was thinking the same, just like how communism can't work when you have capitalism being what the world has been built on. There will be no peace between countries until countries are able to resolve issues that are very crucial.
It going on as fighting occurs. What we are seing now is the reshaping of the world. An era that was america in the 20th century is coming to an end. Our controllers of the monetary have become to unstable and nations had enough of being held hostage with their economies well being. Youncant go around bullying countries or continue threats of invasion. You'll isolate yourself more abd more as the monger. We import way more than we export. We dont get to dictate other nations. Its not the 1950s, and weve had a relationship with communists from the east this entire time. We conduct ourselves accordingly and play ball or we can nuke each other up. Im sure the WEF has instructed the oligarchy otherwise. How has anyones predictions of events gone for us over the kast 4 years? Expect the unexpected lads. Where were going, we dont need any roads. But maybe a handbasket.
The real problem for people is simply mass production of goods on a global scale that has long surpassed a healthy demand. Goods brought into the world from all angles with the sole purpose of making increasing yearly profits. In time, no real recycling effort will be able to cope with that. We need a sustainable world that uses resources to produce what we really need.
Unprovoked,what a great joke 😅 2:01
Multilateralism is usually defined as collaboration between several countries in pursuit of a common goal, where other parties such as civil society or the private sector may also be involved. is usually defined as collaboration between several countries in pursuit of a common goal, where other parties such as civil society or the private sector may also be involved.
It's the best
Indeed. The main issue, is that most of the West cannot do the collaboration; they lack the cultural norms to do that.
They have to dominate, because their cultures demand that domination through economic and societal means, and military force at worst.
Interesting take on the global economic circumstances. Agree that over 4 decades ago America saw its major industries betray the American working class by moving production of many of their brand names to foreign countries for cheaper labour & greater profits. So many of those lands had no interest in the welfare of their population. Meanwhile in America, dark internal forces turned against the now greatly poor American working class. It is also important to see the desperate actions of Putin against Ukraine as pure economic subjugation which must be denied. Putin has destroyed Russia for generations.
Putin has brought Russia back from the brink of destruction in the 90s. Ukraine was attacked because it repeatedly broke Minsk peace agreements and increased NATO's influence in the area to levels Russia has repeatedly warned they would not accept.
What makes you think those industries were with them to begin with?
Putin has destroyed Russia for generations but for some reason it is now experiencing its best time in a long time.
From my point of view, the entire world isn’t ready for complete globalisation unless we stop sticking to things that are hindering the global progress, for instance, current wars and conflicts. Why don’t we analyse the current situation which world is stuck in and think how can we work together for our future. It would rather be more efficient to focus on such things as Space exploration, Environment Protection, Global Warming problem and further.
Because that would mean the West would actually have to stop dominating the Global South. It would mean a complete and utter economic revolution.
The more you want to be in control the less you actually have. RIP Reset
Interesting perspective on the situation, thanks for the detailed research!
The world is dividing into two camps again and this is bound to lead to a global, even more horrifying crisis, isn’t it? This can’t help but make one wonder about our immediate future.
Hopefully we can avoid that. Fortunately NATO's (and the Imperial core in general) military has downsized a bit in recent decades, and China seems to be steering the military conflict that the US is trying to wage into an economic one instead, hence the BRI. Glad to see they learned from the USSR's mistakes.
And the US's decline has been very gradual, not a pronounced one that could spontaneously erupt into a sudden global war.
@@st.altair4936 NATO is largely increasing in military power. As to China's military ambitions, they are not shrinking.
@@richsalmon Until the end of the cold war, it was set to fight and make progress on two major fronts. Nowadays it's set to make progress on one front, and to only hold another. It's a minor but not inconsequential downgrade considering the growth of other nations.
@@st.altair4936 Perhaps. But a war against Russia and China, which is probably the most likely ww3 scenario, would be fought in two different ways. You do not need many tanks to fight China and you do not need many aircraft carriers to fight Russia.
@@richsalmon This is... just incorrect.
Other than seeing how the Vietnam and Afganistan wars went, a large percentage of Europe and US imports are from China and Russia, be it directly or indirectly. This would be a global disaster even without accounting for nukes.
Also, a modern China going into wartime would be terrifying with its 1.5B population.
The thing is that the global world is dividing into several regional superpowers and by that hinders the progress of globalization. The controversial point for me though is the impact of military conflicts happening now are given too much credit for being the main reason of this deglobalization, let's say. Though I'm really interested in the questions if the neutral status is attainable in such geopolitical situation and if the China's continuing economic crisis prevents it from being a superpower anymore.
The main driver of reduced globalism is decoupling from China. China trade is synonymous with globalism - clearly.
I honestly think this was all a grand strategy that's going ridiculously well for the west. We built a house of cards in China. Now that Russia is effectively gone, we pulled the rug on China. China is in for a rude awakening.
the "China economic crisis" only exist in your head
The wild thing is, we had just settled this during World War I. Interdependent economies and relationships do not reduce the chance of war.
How was this settled during ww1?
Literally the vast majority of belligerent European kingdoms were actually family. Uncles, sisters, brothers, cousins. That didn't stop them from tearing Europe apart, and dragging in their occupied colonies.
the lesson of history, is that humans do not learn the lessons of history... or else forget them whenever convenient in the short term
I didn't even know TH-cam videos can have multiple languages at choosing. This is great!
Not mention of the Bretton Woods system coming out of WW2, which stated, geopolitically, the whole idea and enabalization of globalization. And with the US (since the fall of the USSR) no longer interested in policing the seas, has caused the trend away from it. Most of what is happening now is the effect of this cause. Cause and effect are simultaneous.
I know that the USA is still viable but there is a lot of news online about underreported or not reported problems that we will soon be plagued with, such as, food shortages, military supplies and personnel, government funding and the list goes on and on. This is very troubling to me.
Everything is manageable in the West especially when you know beforehand.
What come next ? Improved wages, and greater incentives
Nothing. Your wages will remain stagnant due to robotics and AI
what will happen next? there will be more and more wars between countries for territories, exactly as is already happening with Russia and Ukraine or Israel with Hamas, the same thing will be done by China, which will try to take Taiwan because the countries will think only of their interests and that's it, production will only be internal and that's it, exports will decrease and that will decrease the global economy.
In short, we will go back in time to the early 1900s before the outbreak of WW1 and probably a new global war again because all countries will think about their interests 😂😂😂😂
I hope this is will not happen until I die but I have 29 so probably this will going to happen in my lifetime
Nope, such a world as they're talking about would mean lower wages, because everyone would be poorer.
That might be the tag line for next years promises.
This started so well, and then it just ended with cliches.
Re-Sovereigntization is up next and I am looking forward to it.
In the developing world it might regress to a Neo-feudalism.
No its not
Yej went well for brexit
I have always loved the word sovereignty, it really makes you feel like you can breath clearly. It makes other mad simply because you dont follow any trends or the status quo instead you carve your own path.
You choose to condemn russia but choose to do the same thing in Palestine
exactly...so hypocritical... even people in those western countries protest.
It is the rising monetary joining and reliance of public, territorial, and nearby economies across the world through a strengthening of cross-line development of products, administrations, innovations and capital. Stocks are falling and security yields are rising, however advertises still don't appear to be persuaded the Central bank will seek after plans to continue to increment loan costs until expansion is taken care of. I'm currently at a junction choosing if to exchange my stock portfolio, what's the most effective way to exploit this bear showcase?
What may be happening is the growing regionalization within the overarching globalized context. That isn't without its risks as can be seen with many of the conflicts emerging in the world now. It also points to the geopolitical decline of the post WWII system with two major powers, then to a unitary world superpower, and now the emergence of a multipolar world. It's hard to know how this will all shake out, but one of the challenges for all countries involved will be how to navigate conflicts both internal to those countries and external, and how to expand trading opportunities within the new regional context. Those connector economies may play an outsized role in this endeavor.
How about declaring China a "Non-market based economy" to remove it Most-Favored-Nation Status since it is a Social based Government directed economy?
commercial rules! like water in a riber will always find a way and eventually create its own power 😎
It will be interesting to see how USA will try to do to keep global economy using mostly dollars.
Wait... Let me get this straight.
According to some, globalisation is the leading cause of inequalities but we have to fight it by regionalising and there by reducing reliance on each other.
Seems like a lose-lose move from my POV?!? If anything regionalising will destabilise the world due to decreased reliance on each other and less required of other countries.
Doesnt that also mean reduced productivity as specialisation is the best way to increase productivity?!?
Who knows?!? I am not economics student.
After seeing these images of Vietnam and Indonesia all I can say is that I'm glad I travelled when I did. I don't begrudge people wanting a different life but I can't help feeling sad that it has come at the cost of beautiful landscapes and cultures.
If you think mining, industry, and logging are somehow new; I'd recommend you open a history book. It is nothing new, you just don't like it.
These nations arent your human version of safari / wild life reservations. They want the same wealth the West has accumulated. And they certainly will achieve it.
@@hydra7427Some people want to eat the hotdog, they just don't want to see how the sausage is made
It's not like factories are popping up everywhere in those countries!
I think it is wise to think about the impact of building all these manufacturing plants and infrastructure. This video is basically pointing out the fact that companies will find ways around the political situation. And this means it's disorganized, no one is watching out for making best use of land, etc. Yes, this same as it always was, but we could do better.
As AI advances, and machines start doing jobs it will br cheaper to do things in your own country than to do it elsewhere. Jobs will start coming back (as long as we don't need to pay people to do it)
So now you understand How *Fragile* this Peece is
One would think, and they would be wrong. Control will not give up control. There will be a backlash to this short term optimism.
self suffiency and energy independence... duh lol.
there is no such a thig as self suffiency and energy independence what you should have a standard for your partners like EU and NATO standard for partnership now even your partner can be in north or south America or Asia or Africa
@@taghipoorrahim2104Ofcourse their is. America is energy independent and self sufficient.
@@BrightWendigo America is one of the most blessed countries on Earth, that likes to tell itself it succeeded through adversity despite having the most favorable geography on the planet. Apart from Australia, other countries aren't so lucky. America may be able to pull back, but it can't make everyone else come with it. It'll just end up isolating itself as a result. The main driver of countries wishing to engage with the US is the debt-powered US consumer market. If the US makes ever more of its people buy American, there'll be little reason for other nations to care anymore. There's resources elsewhere already (plus the US has a habit of hoarding its resources anyway), and cheaper production as well. So NA will end up forming its own little bubble, and the rest of the world will move on from it. All the while Americans will end up paying much higher prices for their stuff.
@@BrightWendigo and name a car, mobile, etc. that 100% made of USA no chip no piece no part exported
@@ArawnOfAnnwn being isolated is the point, America only protected global trade to benefit its Allies because it’s European Allies needed oil. Now it doesn’t need to protect oil supply lines because of new renewable energy technology and shale oil. Globalization just puts America and it’s Allies at risk of sanctions and takes away their political leverage. Sure many in the global south depend on globalization, but those are weak NEED globalization because they have to rely on others.
Globalisation never began in 1900 it was there from the advent of civilisation, it’s visibility and scales decreased and increased over time.
Excellent video. Content and visuals. Thank you.
globalization made lots of things nice, but made pricing bad for poor countries, Countries are now trying to become independent to one another. One of the reasons why people don't go to war its because its more expensive than just trading, if there is no trade to be done then what will prevent war from ever coming again?
There is and all has been trade to be done
World poverty is viewed as a solution, not a problem. The World Bank and IMF think of poverty as low-priced labor, creating a competitive advantage for countries that produce labor-intensive goods. So poverty/austerity is an economic solution that’s built into their models. ~ Michael Hudson
They also think of "least developed country status" as something countries can "qualify" for, and many LDCs are deliberately trying to stay poor to retain this status, which confers special trade privileges.
Human reality: There will always be one person in a crowded room that, instead of using the bathroom, will wee in the corner and stink it up for everyone.
Sounds like certain political actors that we all know.
The others keep using the toilet that overflows on the floor.
@@borealphoto lol When we have to try and work out which ones are the idiots and which ones are the zombies. What a world we live in lol
Next is regional players seeing economic growth to capitalize. I think u will still see significant cross border trade.
It was mentioned regionalization of the economy from the globalization. But there is also the phenomenon of Glocalization - wouldn't it make regionalization another form of this practice? Idk...
I like around 3:30 when he says "...a 7% drop in global GDP..." I'm thinking 'wow, that sounds pretty high - manageable but pretty high' and then he says "...that doesn't sound like much, but think of it as removing the French and German economies over night" - Aaaaand that comparison makes it seem smaller 🤣
Kishore Mahbubani, a scholar and former diplomat from Singapore, claims that although globalization began in the West, it is in the West that the voices warning of its impending destruction are most audible. He contends that in managing globalization, the West, or more specifically the US, has made three strategic mistakes. The first is the failure of the elites in the US to protect the working classes from the inevitable disruptions caused by globalization. The second is the weakening of government institutions, especially in the US. Finally, the creation of a functional plutocracy has effectively undermined the American democratic system. 🇨🇳 🇨🇳🇨🇳
Okay did they have a different choice? Or were they driven by the situation of power?
So now you understand How Fragile this Peece is
Everyone has to want it
4th : enriching Asia, specifically China.
#5 failed ESG transition 😊
People voted for this. All of this. @@owowhatsthis....3025
The same as what we've had for the past 2000 years, war, famine, and poverty
This video takes little notice of EU, members of which are major players on the global stage. What a pity.
Well, we need to de-couple. Globalization has pros and cons. Different political systems, some bad actors, could cause global disasters, man-made or natural, based on covid-19 responses and weak supply chain systems, countries protecting their own supply chains, products, services, first........economic, geopolitical changes for better or worse, we need to be a combination of independence and cooperative trade among the world's countries
Globalization has freed Third World Countries from the shackles of Western Supremacy
China numba 1
Globalization works if all parties have the same standards. Of course nations do not have the same standards, so regional alliances make sense. Why does US buy oil outside its borders? It you had unity between Canada and the US both countries would be independent in oil, natural gas and minerals. That's what is needed going forward. To rely on the Saudis for oil and other countries for various things doesn't make sense in today's world.
I need an etf covering those economies
About time. I am fed up to send my money to people that hate me.
Mmmm
Trash comment section. Obviously the first thing some people are seeing on this and from a limited angle, the ignorance is hilarious. This video barely touches on anything really. You need hours on each region to really explain what is happening.
Anti-American sentiment is strong too. Makes my blood boil.
@@WinduhzVistaWhen the US pulls back, they'll all learn exactly why there were tens of thousands of troops stationed in South Korea and Japan.
I knew that China is really a globalizing country that has a huge influence on other countries due to the fact that it produces so many imported goods. But I didn't even think that countries like Morocco, Indonesia and Vietnam were involved in Globalization. It's like the world has divided into two camps, the consumer countries and those who produce products.
Do you think a rich country like America will ever be able to overtake China in production?
They all are - producing cheap resources to send to the west. They were denied oppertunities to internally develop for quite some time - in fact ,it's been the goal and foundation. Now that is falling apart
So the main idea of the video is that the thing happening right now is reshaping of global economy.
I find it controversial that countries rely on each other, but they still unable to coexist in peace as one country wants to top the other by all means possible..
The question is when we finally put aside any overflowing "bad ambitions" and strive together for better future by cooperating?
Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.
These days is in a war with both Eurasia and Eastasia
The US can pull back all it wants, but it can't force everyone else to follow suit. It has the advantage of the most blessed geography on Earth, whatever the stories it likes to tell itself about the vaunted greatness of its people. The rest of the world isn't so lucky. The more the US pulls back, the more it'll just end up isolating itself. The main driver of countries wishing to engage with the US is the debt-powered US consumer market. If the US makes ever more of its people buy American, there'll be little reason for other nations to care anymore. There's resources elsewhere already (plus the US has a habit of hoarding its resources anyway), and cheaper production as well. So NA will end up forming its own little bubble, and the rest of the world will move on from it. All the while Americans will end up paying much higher prices for their stuff.
chinese bot activated
@@Madikon07 Ah ad hominems! The last refuge of the lazy and/or intellectually challenged. 😂😌
worth it
抵制使用英語囉。
America doesn't make cheap products but they did help create cheap labor for cheap products in countries who are taking advantage of it's citizens that's for sure!
We would be more competetive if we didn't tax manufacturing to subsidize other sectors.
History has been constant on one thing, the country another country will go to war with, is the same country you trade with. Britan and France did this for almost the last 1000 years (The conquest of England by William the Conquoror from France, the 100 years war, what we in the states call the "French and Indian wars 1696-1763, The American and French Revolution etc.
Other countries have other conflicts between nations that also trade wirh each other.
On the other hand, until Western Nations wanted Chinese goods, no wars between any European country with China. Europe had nothing China wanted and thus little trade and no wars.
US empire crumbling
I'm American and I wish it would so we can bring all our troops home
Globalisation forgot one thing: the people. Jobs and investments went offshore, many businesses closed, concentration in other parts of the world 🌎 Now the people are paying the price for it. 😢
1 - No modern technology developed in the last 30 years was ever produced in America, you can't off shore something you were never able to build.
2 - The people certainly didn't complain about paying lower prices for things.
3 - The actual punitive price you're paying isn't for globalization, it's for picking a fight with people that's feeding you.
The proper check to balance that was/is supposed to be unions, representatives and trade policy with a chain of action emanating from the unemployed/exploited citizens to elected officials and ultimately policy change on employers. Sadly every section of that chain was destroyed with uncontrollable cost of living from the concentration of wealth accumulation staying in Capital and leaving Labor coupled with fentanyl/mental health epidemics attacking the exploited; having electable officials being whittled down to a binary two-party system that overlooks alleviation in favor of clickbait issues; the absence of a salient crisis allows policy to court wealth for private issues, allowing employers unfettered exploitation in search of lower cost for higher reward in Capital accumulation-as during times when the cost for Capital is low, markets capture and store wealth much faster and efficiently with the engine behind the that capture being the lack of policy to keep up with technology when used for arbitrage in either overseas labor+shipping or for domestic automation.
Globalization did what it does, Congress, USTR and the WTO forgot humans.
@@vlhc4642 Its not that they werent able to build it, they effectively chose not to because it wasnt the cheapest place to do it.
@@vlhc4642 Also, you got lower prices but you also got lower wages and worsening living conditions. Global competition for jobs without some element of protectionism means unions are easily broken and bargaining power destroyed. Globalization meant cheaper goods at the cost of westerners being poor enough to only afford the cheapest things.
@@bobsteve4812 Its easy to imagine you could have built something if you never built it. Dunning Kruger effect is very real.
And no globalization does not by itself reduce wages, efficient distribution of production is the basis of capitalism and it always increase the net wealth of the system.
Your theoretical reduction in wage is simply being on the losing end of capitalism, which distributes wealth on ability, not desire.
And in reality your wages haven't been reduced and quality of life hasn't gone done because of reserve-currency based debt consumption. Your opposition to globalism is really you taking your wage increases for granted and developing an unrealistic expectation around continuing to be paid for producing nothing.
Peter Zeihan was one of the early authors on deglobalisation topics - check out his books and narrative …some would say he is pro-US biased, but only time will tell I guess
Hes a hack. i love that he thinks if the us navy stopped patrolling the sea, globalization would collapsed overnight forgetting the fact that big countries like the UK, gulf states, Russia, China, India, Indonesia, Australia can provide security by working together.
He is biased very much so he is not a geopolitical analyst but a geopolitical sensationalist, there is so much he has gotten wrong over the year in his analysis and its not complicated stuff but simple date anybody can look up.
Outlandish statements like ,,if we sanction china 500 million chinese will starve to death"
I am also amazed that he speaks as if whatever comes out of his mouth is set in stone. Anybody who makes a prediction should always clarify that they are making that prediction based on current date and observations, however as you might know life is process which involves change and all this date are variables that can at any given point change their trajectory in a whole new direction, essentially making a said prediction complete useless fan fiction.
No mention of the impacts of climate change and peak oil.
🤡🤣
@BloombergOriginals 4:50 You forgot to translate the non-English speakers.
Would be interesting to see how the "US-led block supporting Israeli war in Gaza" compared with the other "block" that voted for a ceasefire looks like in terms of FDI.
No, the fracturing of globalization is the illusion invented by imperialist powers, whether it is Russia or the US, trying to hold on to their "block of influence". If you look closer, you see increased connectivity across the globe. Everyone is participating in global affairs more equally rather than letting everything be determined by the small club of "Western industrial countries". And this certainly freaks some people out.
less successful civilizations always get together to destroy successful civilizations for social justice.
Happened to Egypt and others.
Modern communism is from a white dude in Germany btw..
People can't compete, hide their hate in virtue signaling self righteousness.
We have Liberal values and want small businesses thriving...
Brainwashed people just see corrupted capitalism...
Capitalism and communism are the same when corrupted.
Western culture and Eastern culture are just different dresses for the same truth.
It would be interesting if the west never donated charity to the east again. 👌
I really don’t see „increased connectivity“ at this point. Not when it comes to supply chains, raw materials, energy, knowledge. I rather see the West closing the gate, now.😢
@@Claude_van_KlotenIt's no longer in the US' advantage to continue pushing for globalization. The citizens have realized it first as they've lost out a lot of prosperity to lower cost overseas manufacturing, and this has now filtered into the politics. Remember, the US was very isolationist prior to 1941. They did not want to get involved in the affairs of Europe or Asia. They stayed out of the League of Nations because of this. With the Soviet threat neutralized, the US no longer needs the rest of the world's political alliance against another superpower. So, it's really a return to form for lot of Americans to want to go back to doing their own thing and letting everyone else sort it out.
This, of course, will result in lower prosperity for everyone, as no other country in the world has the ability or willingness to protect trade they are not directly engaged in, and this will, in turn, result in increased piracy and state sponsored privateering, which will drive up shipping costs and make many trade routes unprofitable, and they will vanish, resulting in shorter and less efficient supply chains. That's also not including the effect of regional wars springing up and disrupting supply lines.
The challenge is so many countries rely on so few for aid, humanitarian assistance, markets, and protection of trade routes.
Its such a fragile system. Covid, the suez canal blockage and other things really showed this. Its great to trade but being totally reliant is just narrow sighted.
Globalization 1.0 fractured through the world wars. What followed it? Globalization 2.0.
What makes us think that we won't move onto globalization 3.0 after this period of instability?
The lesson we keep forgetting to learn is that the wealth generation must be divided out fairly to avoid the instability.
As long as we keep making excuses for situations like a relatively few getting very rich while most people get left behind we're going to keep running into the periods where the majority want to tear it all down.
The thing this video and the comments neglect (either intentionally or through ignorance) is that globalization and international trade routes (particularly those on the seas) exist only because of the US security apparatus. Without American participation or the US' naval protection of sea lanes, the world returns to the general global milieu that existed before the end of WWII. America calls the shots because it is on America's efforts that the current global geopolitical and economic order even functions.
Europeans frequently forget, to their peril, that their supply chain of both materials and energy is either protected by the US or is at the mercy of powers whose geopolitical and philosophical interests are hostile to, or at least in direct conflict with, European interests. At the very least, these hostile powers have hegemonic ambitions that mirror "Great Game" politics that existed prior to the end of WWII, and a return to European colonial empires to supply Europe's material and energy needs is neither possible nor palatable to any power.
we're not supposed to talk about that fact....LoL!
Dhaarmik way of globalisation is coming ❤
what is dhaarmik way of globalisation?
explain this dhaarmic
The role of China in globalization is crucial. Despite the fact that China gives us a lot of bounties and helps to develop the world economy, by the other hand, it seems that China tries to remove other countries from the global market. Will China occupy the whole global market in the future?
It remained unsaid for a long time or we simply didn't want to admit it. Ok, report on the current point. Wherever has been this, can only tell the future history books.
russian invaion of ukraine was unprovoked....wow
Very strangely... Europe is fractured in 3 pieces, but nothing is fractured in the US, Canada or Australia??? Strange map!
It was supposed to be like this. We have finally reached new world where everyone is developing at own pace and own way without other countries dictating what to do just like older times but in a modern context
It’s very unfortunate that Bloomberg did not bring on Peter Ziehan. He’s the paramount figure on de-globalization.
He's an establishment shill who repeats establishment talking points so he'd be a perfect match for Bloomberg.