Our last post was on October 31, 2007 and Daniel Altman’s last post on “Managing Globalization” was on December 10, 2008; he has since formed the not for profit consulting firm, North Yard Economics and is writing a book. The Doha Round of talks petered out long ago; hope is to revive them.

We don’t see a revival of the Doha talks, let alone survival; given the economic conditions everywhere. Until the tsunami subsides, geopolitical issues will only take on much more importance; seemingly. Which allows protectionism to gain a stronger foothold.

Unfortunately, the most honest definition of globalization could be, “Chasing the cheapest labor and moving on when wages climb.” The question has to be asked, at that point, Now what?” This definition, however, is overly simplistic.

Nonetheless, we will continue to watch, listen and post. To that end, we have stripped the pages of silly retail information or other light hearted fare; which is why the site is so sparse. You may now find that type of content at The Blog! or via our newsletter. We invite you to sign up and “Thank you,” if you do.

“…squaring the needs of global economic growth with the imperative of curbing global warming will also depend on major long-term changes in consumption behavior.

Meanwhile, oil’s pride of place looks assured. Prices will rise and fall, reserves will run dry and be discovered. But the thirst will continue, and will continue to be quenched.”

In other words, get used to paying more at the pump and for anything else even remotely touched by the oil industry – which generally means everything.

Another interesting tidbit from the same article:

“It’s not that the oil’s not there,” said Paul Stevens, professor at the University of Dundee in Scotland. “It’s whether there’s the investment to get it out. The issues are geopolitical and economic.”

It seems that most issues of globalization boil down to ‘geopolitical and economic’ – chasing currency for influence while billions pay the price, today and tomorrow.

How many zeros are needed before the numbers become meaningless?

Frankly, this could drag on for quite a while with no deadline or period of time being defined, perhaps as much as two years – who knows?

Here’s an interesting take from Neil Reynolds at globeandmail.com, in Canada. I’ve seen similar opinions being disseminated in US publications and others … I’m not convinced it is the proper course, but it is interesting.

We apologize for our brief hiatus … and now back to business …

Take a look at these statements:

“The China textile safeguard mechanism that has preserved millions of jobs around the world will expire at the end of 2008. As of today, there is no means for either the United States or the European Union to stop China once the safeguard mechanism expires.”

“Unless something is done about China in the Doha round, the developing world will lose tens of billions of dollars in exports.”

“The developing world must insist that China’s growth continues to be restrained.”

Cass Johnson, president of NCTO (National Council of Textile Organizations)

Now let’s look at some numbers: The National Council of Textile Manufacturers finds that China will have a 70% share of imports (over items not presently protected by the agreement struck in 2005) in the U.S. and the European Union.

According the NCTO (National Council of Textile Organizations), for items not protected by quotas, China’s dominance was apparent – a 39% share in the U.S. and a 48% share in the European Union – this accounts for an outrageous 23% swing in the U.S. and a 21% swing in the European Union – in the U.S. this amounted to the egregious gain/loss of a little more than $10 billion for 2005 alone.

Imagine again, if you will, a world without quotas – developing nations no longer developing, millions of jobs lost/displaced, countless billions shifting in vastly different directions … or maybe in just one direction…

Now here’s an article that seems to suggest that someone doesn’t see the big picture … positive news is great, but let’s not sugarcoat reality, please.

sources:UPI, Reuters ]]> http://karenskorner.obviousintentions.com/?feed=rss2&p=51 0 http://karenskorner.obviousintentions.com/?p=46 http://karenskorner.obviousintentions.com/?p=46#comments Wed, 09 Nov 2005 03:08:20 +0000 Editor http://karenskorner.obviousintentions.com/?p=46 Paraphrasing the president of the National Council of Textile Organisations, “this only pushes the Chinese threat further out.”

The crux of the agreement between China & the U.S. is that imports will resume at a faster pace than the 7.5% the fed set earlier in the year. This will occur for three years, one year beyond the WTO ruling for countries to place limitations on Chinese imports. We’ll just have to wait and see … the WTO has it’s work cut out for itself on all fronts of global trade. For a comprehensive overview of the U.S. textile industry’s response/concern please read this Forbes.com article.

The actual allowances are:
10 percent import growth in clothing products
12.5 percent import growth in textile products in 2006.
These allowances increase 12.5 percent in 2007.
Followed by another increase of 15 to 16 percent in 2008.

…Watch out for 2009!!

Seems like a win/win for China … the deal, so far.

One could not have lived in the free world over the last 10 days without having heard of import quotas levied against specific Chinese textiles by the United States. During this time, 7 of China’s most exported clothing items had a quota imposed. China countered this move with one of their own – imposing an export tariff on the very articles the U.S. placed quotas on, almost 4 times the export tariffs of other similar goods.

This is a shrewd move on the part of the Chinese government’s trade ministry, because the United States can only levy tariffs and quotas on Chinese imports until the year 2008. Sounds like a long time, huh? We’ll grant you that, however, the Chinese nation will only continue to become an uber-giant in the global textile market between now and then. When China became a member of the World Trade Organization, part of the deal (at the behest of the United States) was the ability to levy and impose such methods through 2008. China hopes that it can buy goodwill and a little less scrutiny through being “a team player” globally until that time … then look for that last domino to fall.

While we really didn’t expect the Bush administration’s quotas to provide much bite, at least the Chinese trade ministry reported accurately to it’s governmental overseers the reality of the U.S. decisions – the U.S. is their largest importer of textiles, not to mention goods overall, it makes virtually no sense at all to push the point when merely waiting will produce a similar result, albeit later than sooner.

At least the U.S. bought a little more time to figure out how to deal with the Chinese and Indian juggernauts that a “no quota system” has brought. During which time the american textile industry and cotton growers have a little extra time to “grab a better hold” or “gain better footing” to weather the storm that looms.

Translation?? Buy american made products. It helps create jobs for americans and it helps keep those jobs in America, but that is only the first step. The United States has to become self-sufficient again, from the raw materials needed, to the production of the finished product. This would make us stronger both at home and abroad.

… stepping off of the soapbox and slinking away muttering something about commonsense …

This is NOT just in, but … Signs Of Recovery. A very nice report. Apparently, our federal government is finally doing something to address the trade inequities between us and China. It could have and should have come sooner, but better late than never.