Discussion
crankedup said:
Dr Jekyll said:
But the advantage is that we can buy stuff more cheaply. A manufacturer that can buy cheap steel is going to stay in business longer than one who can't. So suggesting more trade means more unemployment is extremely simplistic. In the long run producing everything where it's cheapest makes everyone better off.
How so?The "problem" with globalisation isn't the endpoint, i.e. global free trade, but some of the "creative destruction" that occurs as inefficiencies are forced out of the economy as trade becomes more free. Consequently we don't just drop barriers overnight with developing economies, but slowly liberalise trade so that people have time to react. However, if you don't see which way the wind is blowing and you refuse to change, then you may well end up unemployed and suffering.
sidicks said:
B'stard Child said:
So all the companies I've worked at it's 10%
Yet the coffee example is 20% and it wasn't fair market price because the same goods were available on the open market at 20% less than the price that was being charged
Why would an 'arm's length' deal be done at cost price?Yet the coffee example is 20% and it wasn't fair market price because the same goods were available on the open market at 20% less than the price that was being charged
B'stard Child said:
Oh the 20% (god I actually clicked on a Guardian Link)
https://www.theguardian.com/business/shortcuts/201...
'the company says it pays higher prices because it only buys premium coffee beans."https://www.theguardian.com/business/shortcuts/201...
So the 20% isn't 'like-for-like'?!
I appreciate central buying may have cost benefits but are you trying to say that the coffee beans weren't able to be purchased by any company other than them?
The fundamental is that the franchise was tied to the source for beans - it wasn't an arms length price more and arm and leg length price
Oh and I never suggested that the sale should be a cost price
Globalisation is no different to the old "regionalisation" and "localisation".
The cluster with the best skills, infrastructure, laws, location and cost wins.
London trains top lawyers and bankers, so it is a financial hub. Munich trains top engineers and designers, so it is a vehicle hub. San Francisco trains top programmers, so it is a tech hub.
The challenge, now -- in the post-human era -- is that lower-class and middle-class services will soon start seeing huge job losses, to compound the millions of lower-class manufacturing jobs lost. Taxidrivers, vandrivers, traindrivers, warehousepickers, supermarket staff, doctors, etc. will all be replaced by robots or AI during the next 50 years and join carworkers, miners, etc. from the past 50 years on the scrapheap.
The cluster with the best skills, infrastructure, laws, location and cost wins.
London trains top lawyers and bankers, so it is a financial hub. Munich trains top engineers and designers, so it is a vehicle hub. San Francisco trains top programmers, so it is a tech hub.
The challenge, now -- in the post-human era -- is that lower-class and middle-class services will soon start seeing huge job losses, to compound the millions of lower-class manufacturing jobs lost. Taxidrivers, vandrivers, traindrivers, warehousepickers, supermarket staff, doctors, etc. will all be replaced by robots or AI during the next 50 years and join carworkers, miners, etc. from the past 50 years on the scrapheap.
ATG said:
The "problem" with globalisation isn't the endpoint, i.e. global free trade, but some of the "creative destruction" that occurs as inefficiencies are forced out of the economy as trade becomes more free. Consequently we don't just drop barriers overnight with developing economies, but slowly liberalise trade so that people have time to react. However, if you don't see which way the wind is blowing and you refuse to change, then you may well end up unemployed and suffering.
Good post. So which way is the wind blowing? It's not obvious.fblm said:
ATG said:
The "problem" with globalisation isn't the endpoint, i.e. global free trade, but some of the "creative destruction" that occurs as inefficiencies are forced out of the economy as trade becomes more free. Consequently we don't just drop barriers overnight with developing economies, but slowly liberalise trade so that people have time to react. However, if you don't see which way the wind is blowing and you refuse to change, then you may well end up unemployed and suffering.
Good post. So which way is the wind blowing? It's not obvious.Hopefully Doublesix and Gunk will also see the link is more than just the consequences to checkout staff
As people say we will evolve the job market to create different jobs but I don't see it,how can we magic up the jobs that will be neede to continue the same level of tax income,how will sOciety afford its self?
More tax taken from business,driving up prices for an out of work population?
More tax taken from business,driving up prices for an out of work population?
B'stard Child said:
I've no problem with them paying higher prices - premium brand (apparently) - I'm talking about the 20% they were adding on and charge to their franchise
You don't think that other coffee suppliers make a margin on the coffee they sell?The fair market price / arm's length price is the price that would be paid to an independent 3rd part which would clearly include a profit margin for that third party!
B'stard Child said:
I appreciate central buying may have cost benefits but are you trying to say that the coffee beans weren't able to be purchased by any company other than them?
The fundamental is that the franchise was tied to the source for beans - it wasn't an arms length price more and arm and leg length price
Except that doesn't appear to be the case from what we know.The fundamental is that the franchise was tied to the source for beans - it wasn't an arms length price more and arm and leg length price
And if you have evidence that the transfer pricing rules have been abused then www.hmrc.gov.uk would be delighted to hear from you!
B'stard Child said:
Oh and I never suggested that the sale should be a cost price
What do you think the mark up represents then?Edited by sidicks on Wednesday 7th December 10:04
On a personal level, I have enjoyed the change that globalization has had on me over the last 12 years or so.
I work as a consultant and support my clients activities in North America and India with a sprinkling of side activities.
"Can you go to Melbourne and give a presentation next month", for example.
Far more enjoyable than siting behind a desk all day IMHO.
I work as a consultant and support my clients activities in North America and India with a sprinkling of side activities.
"Can you go to Melbourne and give a presentation next month", for example.
Far more enjoyable than siting behind a desk all day IMHO.
smifffymoto said:
As people say we will evolve the job market to create different jobs but I don't see it,how can we magic up the jobs that will be neede to continue the same level of tax income,how will sOciety afford its self?
More tax taken from business,driving up prices for an out of work population?
Taxing the poor doesn't seem to be making everyone happy... Why don't we tax the rich? We have an every widening chasm of a wealth gap in the UK and more so in the US, it's more than an elephant in the room, it's an elephant that sMore tax taken from business,driving up prices for an out of work population?
tting everywhere.FredClogs said:
Taxing the poor doesn't seem to be making everyone happy... Why don't we tax the rich? We have an every widening chasm of a wealth gap in the UK and more so in the US, it's more than an elephant in the room, it's an elephant that stting everywhere.
We do tax the rich. Quite heavily. That's why around 1/3rd of the population subsidise the other 2/3rds. HTHtting everywhere.ATG said:
Basic economics, but also just common sense. Note that he said "in the long run".
The "problem" with globalisation isn't the endpoint, i.e. global free trade, but some of the "creative destruction" that occurs as inefficiencies are forced out of the economy as trade becomes more free. Consequently we don't just drop barriers overnight with developing economies, but slowly liberalise trade so that people have time to react. However, if you don't see which way the wind is blowing and you refuse to change, then you may well end up unemployed and suffering.
Maybe, but I still cannot see 'how we are all better off' Perhaps if everything cost of living was a flat level playing field, which it can never be. Long term? What is the definition of long term in this instance, impossible to construct a long term plan on a Global basis, but some in the EU seem to think it is possible, and look where that has led us.The "problem" with globalisation isn't the endpoint, i.e. global free trade, but some of the "creative destruction" that occurs as inefficiencies are forced out of the economy as trade becomes more free. Consequently we don't just drop barriers overnight with developing economies, but slowly liberalise trade so that people have time to react. However, if you don't see which way the wind is blowing and you refuse to change, then you may well end up unemployed and suffering.
Quite so but if we continue down the AI,robot,mechanised route how will we afford to keep paying for stuff,care of the elderly,hospitals,government.
My example does seem far fetched but it is also entirely possible.It may sound abit tin foil hat,conspiracy theory barm pot but I honestly believe we are sleep walking into some very big problems in the near future.
It's very easy to take the I'm alright Jack approach and bury your head in the sand while singing la,la,la,I'm not listening.
My example does seem far fetched but it is also entirely possible.It may sound abit tin foil hat,conspiracy theory barm pot but I honestly believe we are sleep walking into some very big problems in the near future.
It's very easy to take the I'm alright Jack approach and bury your head in the sand while singing la,la,la,I'm not listening.
crankedup said:
In the situation whereby Global Companies take the piss the most satisfying solution is to boycott the products. Plenty of privately run independants selling good coffee for example.
Do private coffee companies deduct the cost of the coffee they buy as an expense when calculating their profits?Edited by sidicks on Wednesday 7th December 10:47
crankedup said:
In the situation whereby Global Companies take the piss the most satisfying solution is to boycott the products. Plenty of privately run independants selling good coffee for example.
That is one thing that puzzles me about the UK.Here in Aus most coffee shops are independants. Starbucks etc. have never got more than a toehold here. Brits seem to love branded products.
My post has been sidetracked somewhat down an alley of tax avoidance etc.and the "moral obligations" of corporations that conduct international trade.
What I want to ask is this.....
Globalisation has meant that many jobs from First World economies have been outsourced to Third World economies basically because of cheaper production costs.
Freedom of movement has also kept wages lower than they might have been,whilst free movement of capital has fuelled the rise in property prices.
Obviously this has benefitted the large corporations ( higher profits ) and the consumer ( lower prices in the shops ).
This has been at the expense of the "indigenous"worker,who finds his standards of living dropping as the stagnation of wages is greater than the cost of living and in some cases with freedom of movement actual job losses.
Even if we increase worker productivity this alone will not resolve the problem.
Therefore would it not be reasonable to apply tariffs on imported goods in order to even the playing field ?
Is free trade enslaving the indiginous workforce in a spiralling decreasing of his standard of living ?
Should we impose taxes on foreign money seeking safe havens and distorting the property market ?
To those of you that say yes to free trade put yourself in the seat of the worker in the Midlands and North of England who have lost their jobs and cannot find worthwhile work to sustain a decent standard of living.
Or do you believe we should shrug our shoulders and say "we're all right Jack,suck it up" ?
What I want to ask is this.....
Globalisation has meant that many jobs from First World economies have been outsourced to Third World economies basically because of cheaper production costs.
Freedom of movement has also kept wages lower than they might have been,whilst free movement of capital has fuelled the rise in property prices.
Obviously this has benefitted the large corporations ( higher profits ) and the consumer ( lower prices in the shops ).
This has been at the expense of the "indigenous"worker,who finds his standards of living dropping as the stagnation of wages is greater than the cost of living and in some cases with freedom of movement actual job losses.
Even if we increase worker productivity this alone will not resolve the problem.
Therefore would it not be reasonable to apply tariffs on imported goods in order to even the playing field ?
Is free trade enslaving the indiginous workforce in a spiralling decreasing of his standard of living ?
Should we impose taxes on foreign money seeking safe havens and distorting the property market ?
To those of you that say yes to free trade put yourself in the seat of the worker in the Midlands and North of England who have lost their jobs and cannot find worthwhile work to sustain a decent standard of living.
Or do you believe we should shrug our shoulders and say "we're all right Jack,suck it up" ?
avinalarf said:
My post has been sidetracked somewhat down an alley of tax avoidance etc.and the "moral obligations" of corporations that conduct international trade.
Indeed - apologies for that. Unfortunately some people appear to be confused about the real issues of globalisation!avinalarf said:
What I want to ask is this.....
Globalisation has meant that many jobs from First World economies have been outsourced to Third World economies basically because of cheaper production costs.
Freedom of movement has also kept wages lower than they might have been,whilst free movement of capital has fuelled the rise in property prices.
Obviously this has benefitted the large corporations ( higher profits ) and the consumer ( lower prices in the shops ).
And of course benefitted those who own those corporations I.e. The pension and savings plans of ordinary people.Globalisation has meant that many jobs from First World economies have been outsourced to Third World economies basically because of cheaper production costs.
Freedom of movement has also kept wages lower than they might have been,whilst free movement of capital has fuelled the rise in property prices.
Obviously this has benefitted the large corporations ( higher profits ) and the consumer ( lower prices in the shops ).
avinalarf said:
This has been at the expense of the "indigenous"worker,who finds his standards of living dropping as the stagnation of wages is greater than the cost of living and in some cases with freedom of movement actual job losses.
Even if we increase worker productivity this alone will not resolve the problem.
I think it's debatable that standards of living have dropped meaningfully - even if the gap between those at the bottom and those at the top may have widened.Even if we increase worker productivity this alone will not resolve the problem.
avinalarf said:
Therefore would it not be reasonable to apply tariffs on imported goods in order to even the playing field ?
Is free trade enslaving the indiginous workforce in a spiralling decreasing of his standard of living ?
Should we impose taxes on foreign money seeking safe havens and distorting the property market ?
We already have extra taxes on property bought by companies.Is free trade enslaving the indiginous workforce in a spiralling decreasing of his standard of living ?
Should we impose taxes on foreign money seeking safe havens and distorting the property market ?
avinalarf said:
To those of you that say yes to free trade put yourself in the seat of the worker in the Midlands and North of England who have lost their jobs and cannot find worthwhile work to sustain a decent standard of living.
Or do you believe we should shrug our shoulders and say "we're all right Jack,suck it up" ?
To be fair, job losses have occurred everywhere and I'm sure that a significant number of those working in the South East were forced to relocate there for work purposes rather than were born there. People do have to make their own sacrifices too. The government does offer significant training / adult education to help people change careers, but maybe more could be done?Or do you believe we should shrug our shoulders and say "we're all right Jack,suck it up" ?
RYH64E said:
Globalisation and free markets might mean cheap products in UK shops, but unless the UK competes in the international market our consumers won't have the funds to buy said goods, no matter how cheap.
There's no real answer to globalisation imo, the UK isn't going to go back to making products for the same price as overseas suppliers, and the UK consumer is used to buying 5 pairs of socks for a couple of quid from Primark. As one example, clothes today are cheaper than when I was a teenager, and I'm in my mid-fifties.
Having worked in fashion retail for a while I've seen the perception of value alter significantly. Like you said, clothes are cheaper now than they were even 17 years ago but the overhead costs have remained the same which have meant retailers margins have been squeezed so that they can compete. As the margins shrink, it means you can't raise the pay of the staff and you can't look to expand as the overheads remains stubbornly high.There's no real answer to globalisation imo, the UK isn't going to go back to making products for the same price as overseas suppliers, and the UK consumer is used to buying 5 pairs of socks for a couple of quid from Primark. As one example, clothes today are cheaper than when I was a teenager, and I'm in my mid-fifties.
People come in to our store and declare us to be 'too expensive' yet they happily spend £15+ on a burger, chips and drink over the road in 5 guys at lunch time. It feels like people put more value upon premium fast food, booze and fags than they do over clothing themselves. The attitude is that Primark can sell it for £3 so why can't everyone else? The classic was the delivery driver who told me that our trousers were too expensive (£49) but that he bought a new pair every 2 weeks from Primark for £15 as they kept falling apart.
You can spin the wheel on a number of issues causing income growth to stagnate. Globalism is one but just as equally why not aging population demographics, low productivity growth, velocity of money, wealth inequalities, lack of genuine innovation, inflation targeting, misallocation of financial resources etc.
However as a lefty democratic socialist type my views on capitalism and it's discontents are certainly not the prevailing views of society the moment
.
However as a lefty democratic socialist type my views on capitalism and it's discontents are certainly not the prevailing views of society the moment
.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff