Globalisation uber alles

I was wondering where to post this interesting discussion. It could have gone on several threads but economics is fundamental to recovery.

They cover a fair bit of ground including CV19 actions by various countries, the economic impact of lockdown, globalisation, markets, China and the USA becoming more inward looking, China adapting to have a more home centric market as it did before. Questions about big organisations. EU seen as having failed over CV19 in the early stages, ignoring the so called single economy that was fundamental to them.

The picture from Sweden isn't as rosy as is depicted in the UK. Impact of the press who are no longer trusted.

Live with Littlewood: Julia Hartley-Brewer, Douglas Carswell, Kate Andrews and many more

IEA Director General Mark Littlewood will be joined by a stellar panel of guests to discuss economic disintegration, global governance, immigration and more. On the show:
Kate Andrews, Economics Correspondent, The Spectator
Adam Bartha, Director, Epicenter
Douglas Carswell, former MP
Claire Fox, Founder, Institute of Ideas
Darren Grimes, Director, Reasoned
Julia Hartley-Brewer, Presenter, talkRADIO
Matt Kilcoyne, Deputy Director, Adam Smith Institute
Karin Svanborg-Sjövall, Chief Executive, Timbro

Interesting and fits within the general view, that the global system has being generating artificial growth off the back of funny money since 2008 (after the real economy collapsed) and we are floating on that debt and the china trap (trade and lose your soul).

Sweden is an interesting case, because they're have the best press in the world and are always used as a model of good government, one has to raise an eyebrow why the negatives are ignored.
 
Your second para is fairly spot on, but then the argument since the war is who must be dominated by. Now if you analyse that point carefully you’ll see a mind set change And it was largely the Attlee Government forced by what WSC had agreed to in relation to the setting up of the UN and the first proposals for the EEC. At it’s base was that country’s no longer could do as they pleased and that decisions had to be made collectively.
But that was hardly going to work if Business was going to be competitive over which Governments had no control. Couple that with residual gratitude to the US and the German guilt issue ( which was to a large extent manufactured human experience aside) and you have a new recipe. That mindset in Brussels has been there for ages.
 
British motor bikes were the only option in a way that Trabants were the only option for a car in East Germany. Their market was protected. The fact that East Germany protected with a physical barrier and Britain with non-tariff barriers is largely irrelevant. The result is the same; customers being flogged over-priced, out of date garbage.

The car industry is very capital intensive; long product development cycles and complex production make it so. But Debt / Equity ratios of the major players are often quite low. Pre-COVID, Toyota’s was very low at 0.53 and the likes of GM, BMW and Tata (JLR) were all under 1.5. Not exactly highly leveraged.
With respect the leveraging of these companies is not linked to the debt taken on by punters who buy the things, there’s the limitation.
 
With respect the leveraging of these companies is not linked to the debt taken on by punters who buy the things, there’s the limitation.
I think you’ll find a distant connection, when the punters stop shouldering the debt demand goes down and stock goes unsold. Unsold stock is not an asset and there’s rub. It’s obviously a question as to whether the investors consider the company a good risk butI grant you the lead time may not coincide.
 
Your second para is fairly spot on, but then the argument since the war is who must be dominated by. Now if you analyse that point carefully you’ll see a mind set change And it was largely the Attlee Government forced by what WSC had agreed to in relation to the setting up of the UN and the first proposals for the EEC. At it’s base was that country’s no longer could do as they pleased and that decisions had to be made collectively.
But that was hardly going to work if Business was going to be competitive over which Governments had no control. Couple that with residual gratitude to the US and the German guilt issue ( which was to a large extent manufactured human experience aside) and you have a new recipe. That mindset in Brussels has been there for ages.
The problem with collective decision making and treaties, is once signed up to something, it becomes enshrined in law (official and unofficial) and as such, its no longer subject to democracy. The victory of WW2 also had the calamitous effect that the people could no longer be trusted and the collective narrowed democracy choices, to restricts a theoretical idea that population have a desire for war (based on WW1+2 Combined logic)

Globalisation is all about international trade law and companies have being able to operate outside of public scrutiny and when we think of the madness of trading with china, before covid you were ignored. If you persisted then your eithe a racist or xenophobe who wants to turn our economy into a Hoxha autarky.
 
No, the price you pay is the market price set by supply and demand equilibrium. It’s commoditised. Global over capacity has driven the steel price down. Unlike other commodities such as oil or copper, steel isn’t traded on an exchange; there’s no nodal point where cartels can manipulate the price (oil) or where derivatives traders create market liquidity and price action outside of the demand for the base commodity (copper). There are near zero externalities in the steel market; in fact, the global steel mild market is a reasonable approximation to a perfect market.

Which is fundamentally different from a high added value piece of technology like a ventilator. You can’t compare the two.
Just a point of order on the trade of steel item... Isn't it being traded here Base Metals | Britannia Global Markets Limited
 
So if I’m managing a £100M project that is steel intensive, do I buy Chinese steel that is half the price of European equivalents. I can’t buy British steel; the products I need aren’t made in the UK any more.

To answer my own question, I’m going to buy the cheapest steel of the quality required. Which will almost certainly be Chinese.
My bold, of which you cannot be certain. The paperwork will say it is, it is unlikely that it really is.
 
My bold, of which you cannot be certain. The paperwork will say it is, it is unlikely that it really is.
Not true. Western steel industries, particularly American ones will tell you this but it’s bollocks.

The issue is with alloy additives; China offers tax rebates to mills exporting alloy steels. The data sheets list the additives, the steels comply with the Chinese standard. The problem occurs when purchasers buy alloys that are subsequently welded incorrectly.

The issue is not quality.
 
Just a point of order on the trade of steel item... Isn't it being traded here Base Metals | Britannia Global Markets Limited
Perhaps I should have been clearer. Most steel contracts are made direct between the purchaser and the supplier. There’s a logic to that; steel mills produce products, not metals. Most other metals are sold as the base metal for incorporation into a product by others.

There is an exchange market for recycled steel: the leading market is Rotterdam.
 
Top