"How Nations Succeed and Fail" is a very descriptive title, and I almost voted for it, but I had to go with "Guns, Germs, and Cobalt." I think anyone who gets the reference will be intrigued and I'm sure they'll find the subject matter to their liking.
I want Africa in the title, but none of the titles you presented with Africa in them have appeal.
Africa: Guns Germs and Cobalt
would suit me better. Note: the only reason I want Africa in the title is that if "Yaw's Newsletter" had been entitled "Yaw's African Newsletter" I would have found it many months ago.
There has been so much debate or discussion about the real meaning of "globalization." I am looking forward to making the time for this! As for the voting, I can understand you need help, Yaw! "Beyond Colonization" sounds like it has traction ---like it will sound good over time. "Continental Exchange," No. Nobody will know what that means. There is a bank, there is hotel, there are millions of "continentals" and "exchanges" and probable several "continental exchanges" What could it mean?
Much appreciated comment. I also agree that no one knows what Continental exchange means. I probably won't choose that name even if it wins by tomorrow.
Intrigued to know your thoughts on institutions such as the African Union? I’m no expert, but it’s always come across to me more as a university activist’s naive attempt at pan-Africanism built more on abstract ideas like ‘solidarity’ rather than any material benefit for African people. At the very least, it seems more reasonable to draw distinctions between the more Middle Eastern North Africa, the more francophone West Africa, and the more Anglophone East/South Africa
In terms of names for the Substack, stuff like How Nations Succeed, and Fail and Africa from A to Z gives the clearest idea of what you do, but also sounds a bit like one of those YouTube channels that don’t always know what they are talking about. The Continental Exchange, Afrinometry and Guns, Germs and Cobalt are probably the most ‘professional sounding’, but I don’t know how well they’ll attract people here. Africa chips etc and Germs banter etc are both worse versions of the prior, while Beyond Colonisation sounds like the simplistic activist types you usually criticise. Global Notions Today just sounds like satire.
Maybe I'll write about the AU soon. But it has no teeth.
There are smaller regional groups ECOWAS in West Africa, the Magreb Union in North Africa..the South African development community, East African community, but they are all mainly talk shops. Many countries in ECOWAS trade more with UAE than each other (their gold as an example). The best one by far is the Southern African Customs union because Botswana, Namibia, Lesotho, and Eswatini are all trade highly with South Africa, have many people in those countries work in South Africa, and they all use the South African rand as one of their currencies of legal tender.
The WTO thing is insane. Biden's new tariffs are actually illegal under WTO charter which begs the question: why should anyone else follow it? I guess you would if you were too afraid of escaping American vassalage.
It's possible that the industry policy might increase trade. Because if everyone subsidies manufacturing you're effectively taking resources from the non tradeable sector to the tradeable sector.
Also it's unlikely governments will crack down on services trade simply because they're hard to track and pose no national security issues. Unless we get telesurgeries and telerobotics.
Also given the shitty roads in most African countries there is barely enough trade integration within their countries, I don't know what these leaders were expecting. Besides industrialisation always begins at the ports. Although as I have mentioned before aviation innovations may change this historic pattern.
Great writing as usual! It wasn't in *Americans* (as in the people of America) interests in "the early 1990s" or for most of the rest of the world for that matter (and in both cases it wasn't in the rest of the worlds since the 1970s, it was never in *Americans" interest but most *Americans* were willing to sacrifice for a couple of decades after the war to make the world a better place but the process got hijacked by bad forces that were allowed to fester within it and likely were planning on hijacking it from its get go. If they hadn't of de-democratized so much they wouldn't have been able to do what they did in the 1990s. But I've recently learned new things and now suspect that most of the damages done to Americans are from the USA's domestic economic empire, not the international one, we essentially underwent a domestic Globalization as well.
What is this "de-democratization" you speak of? Are you talking about global de-democratization? Are you saying America de-democratized in the 90s under Clinton?
"Domestic globalization" does not make sense to me as a term. Do you mean a more integrated national economy?
""Domestic globalization" does not make sense to me as a term. Do you mean a more integrated national economy?": As with many concepts regarding the economy, the question is for whom, like, efficient for whom? In this case its integrated for whom? The USA had effective capital controls between states for the entirety of its whole existence (and for thirteen of the states for hundreds of years prior to their existence because our thirteen predecessor colonies had them), these capital controls were the result of different things, some direct and some indirect, all which varied over time and things came and went but there were always things there until the late 1990s, but only to a big way until the late 1970s (they were quickly greatly diminished with the advent of the so called "Neoliberal Era"). The biggest example in the late stage was the significant inhibitors on interstate banking competition that were formally done away with by the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994 (however one of its key provisions did not take effect until 1998), but in practice through a combination of some formal state level changes but mostly at both the state and federal level just a refusal to enforce the law by adapting to and regulating newly common behavior (mainly what "brokered accounts") like they had for over 200 years prior, this quickly led a 15 year process (but with a lot up front) of huge capital flights from many states, huge capital concentrations, and the implementation of "hub and spoke" systems in the banking industry. Much of this capital flight took the form of selling off firms to the first 1980s "china shock" (smaller than 2000, I think) but also (and there were other regulatory inhibitors led to the hub and spoke system being applied to a variety of industries. Much of the resulting increase in "economic integration" is really just money flows between increasingly tiny amounts of people and the actual number of physical good and services is exchanged between states is possibly less and likely at least less than it other wise would be and its very likely that geographic integration, which is what people seem to refer here, is far less because so many counties got so reduced that their participation is far lower or in some cases almost just completely cut out. So, I think its actually less integrated but I KNOW that no one can accurately say that the 1978 America wasnt deeply economically integrated (it had been for hundreds of years ! lmao)
"What is this "de-democratization" you speak of? Are you talking about global de-democratization?" How did the above happen? Propaganda, well, yeah, there was a shit ton, but the main reason (and this reason was necessary for the propaganda to happen by allowing concertation of control of the information ecosystem) is de-democratization. The Democrats and the Republicans used to be "mass member parties" under the collective control of a wide network of highly variegated local branches. This structure allowed for not only a far wider amount of voices to speak but also for local and state interests to be represented. Each local branch had a large degree of autonomy. This decentralized system went part and parcel with the broader political system of the USA's Old Republic, where power was distributed across various levels of government.
The Old Republic of the USA was a highly politically and economically decentralized space. Some major areas of the economy remained highly so until the 1980s and significantly so until the late 1990s. There was a high degree of variability in economic regulations, fiscal policy, and social policy between states and even towns, cities, and counties. Yet, all but one of its states operated within English Common Law, or more accurately, English Common Law descendant, with only slight variations. The Federal Government was always there and was never nothing.
This decentralized system allowed for a large degree of local governance and a huge policy experimentation. The ability to engage in policy at the local and state level is necessary for the existence of democratic governance. It makes it so that policies are representative of the unique local communities, rather than being imposed from a distant central authority. Also, in order to have a vibrant democarcy you NEED local AND regional policy powers because by making large areas of eocnomic policy, fiscal policy, and regulatoons, and so on, available to be effected, its creats perpetually mobalized communites arund real material tings that arent hot button and when they are onecity and do one and the other city can do another tings. The Old Republic built vibrant democratic communities that helped generate real communities that any one from the world could come to, and they were designing and implementing public policy, people came from all over the world to be able to literally have say in their government. Now almost all people in America are stripped of almost all voice. But look how we've performed since the late 1970s economically ad scientifically: worse. And that was after a few decades of the process already working, and those decades performed worse than their prior 200 years. The last thing the Old Republic's democratic governance structures did while they were still at least mostly there was the Civil Rights revolution. By the time that was done it was on its last legs, then they began to finish it off in the 1970. And the transition of the parties from mass member parties to managed parties alongside all this heavily de-democratized the country by the late 1970s. By the time the 1990s hit we'd given up most of our democracy, that why they were able to go full steam with capital "G" Globalization the.
Thanks for the fun replies! I gotta go but I'll respond to your other replies ;later tonight.
So much to respond to. It would basically be another article. There's a lot I agree and fiercely disagree with but I don't think we'll convince each other otherwise, but I appreciated your comments Mike!
What do you mean by globalization not being in America's interest? Interests within a nation regarding globalization vary:
Consumers:
Pro globalization: Consumers like foreign firms if they can make goods at cheaper prices (e.g., Japanese cars, Korean washing machines).
Con globalization: Workers may dislike globalization because it means some lose jobs to foreign competition.
Government:
Pro globalization: Governments like foreign investment because it brings jobs and cheap goods, which help lower inflation.
Con globalization: When domestic firms go bankrupt, it causes job losses and reduces corporate tax revenue as well as income and FICA taxes from the unemployed.
Firms:
Pro globalization: Firms benefit from accessing more markets and reducing production costs.
Con globalization: Firms dislike being outcompeted by foreign companies.
Even within manufacturing, tariffs have different impacts on various firms in a supply chain. When Bush, Obama, Trump, and Biden increased steel tariffs, it was good for U.S. Steel and Nucor because it protected them from foreign competition. Foreign steel companies like Nippon Steel or Baowu found their products more expensive in the U.S. market. However, American companies that buy steel, such as General Motors or Whirlpool, were negatively impacted because they could no longer get cheap steel from Japan or China, increasing their costs.
Globalization allowed us to buy cheaper refrigerators from LG or Samsung instead of more expensive ones from GE. In some industries, Americans appreciate cheap consumer goods (e.g., TVs, computers, washing machines), but in others, they prefer protection. In the 1980s, Japanese automakers like Toyota, Honda, and Mitsubishi started outcompeting Ford, GM, and Chrysler on affordability, fuel efficiency, and reliability, leading to calls for more protectionism in the auto industry.
Hi again. I think capital "G" Globalization has been bad for America and almost all other countries. BTW, we had international trade for multiple thousands of years before it lol. The original post war system was not that, it envisioned countries doing protectionism for the benefit of their people and thus for the benefit of all. AND THE OFFICIAL BRETTON WOODS REPORT LITERALLY ADVOCATED FOR CAPUTAL CONTROLS!!!!!!!
In our current paradigm, piecemeal tariffs for one industry or against one country don't make sense because we're still in the broader paradigm. This current system's logical end state is a world that is a perfect planetary division of labor with complete financial, tax, regulatory, etc. harmonization. That would be a world where, by definition, most people in most places are locked out because there is extreme market concentration and production concentration (and thus geographic concentration). Darkly ironically, given that this world's proponents often cite increases in concentration to justify it, that world would have little to no competition. It would be a highly cartelized and mostly centrally planned (by the private sector or the government, central planning is central planning) economy.
Whereas a world with variegated regulations that sought cooperation instead of empire, where each place traded with the rest of the world but also always took steps to generate activity in their area, as diversified within their area as is practical, is a world with far wider distribution of wealth, opportunity, and decision-making. It's also a world with far, far more competition because there are far more firms in each sector (I'm not saying there'll be a million large car companies, by the way; in some sectors there'll just be more around the world, and in some sectors a whole bunch more, and in some, lots). This would be a world with far more R&D labs, far more science, far more people across a far wider and vastly more heterogeneous area engaging in innovation, research, and new ideas. This world, over time, would produce far more than a heavily cartelized world that just turned almost all people into subsidized consumers.
"How Nations Succeed and Fail" is a very descriptive title, and I almost voted for it, but I had to go with "Guns, Germs, and Cobalt." I think anyone who gets the reference will be intrigued and I'm sure they'll find the subject matter to their liking.
I want Africa in the title, but none of the titles you presented with Africa in them have appeal.
Africa: Guns Germs and Cobalt
would suit me better. Note: the only reason I want Africa in the title is that if "Yaw's Newsletter" had been entitled "Yaw's African Newsletter" I would have found it many months ago.
There has been so much debate or discussion about the real meaning of "globalization." I am looking forward to making the time for this! As for the voting, I can understand you need help, Yaw! "Beyond Colonization" sounds like it has traction ---like it will sound good over time. "Continental Exchange," No. Nobody will know what that means. There is a bank, there is hotel, there are millions of "continentals" and "exchanges" and probable several "continental exchanges" What could it mean?
Much appreciated comment. I also agree that no one knows what Continental exchange means. I probably won't choose that name even if it wins by tomorrow.
'45 was the year globalization turned. This is not a coincidence.
Intrigued to know your thoughts on institutions such as the African Union? I’m no expert, but it’s always come across to me more as a university activist’s naive attempt at pan-Africanism built more on abstract ideas like ‘solidarity’ rather than any material benefit for African people. At the very least, it seems more reasonable to draw distinctions between the more Middle Eastern North Africa, the more francophone West Africa, and the more Anglophone East/South Africa
In terms of names for the Substack, stuff like How Nations Succeed, and Fail and Africa from A to Z gives the clearest idea of what you do, but also sounds a bit like one of those YouTube channels that don’t always know what they are talking about. The Continental Exchange, Afrinometry and Guns, Germs and Cobalt are probably the most ‘professional sounding’, but I don’t know how well they’ll attract people here. Africa chips etc and Germs banter etc are both worse versions of the prior, while Beyond Colonisation sounds like the simplistic activist types you usually criticise. Global Notions Today just sounds like satire.
Maybe I'll write about the AU soon. But it has no teeth.
There are smaller regional groups ECOWAS in West Africa, the Magreb Union in North Africa..the South African development community, East African community, but they are all mainly talk shops. Many countries in ECOWAS trade more with UAE than each other (their gold as an example). The best one by far is the Southern African Customs union because Botswana, Namibia, Lesotho, and Eswatini are all trade highly with South Africa, have many people in those countries work in South Africa, and they all use the South African rand as one of their currencies of legal tender.
The WTO thing is insane. Biden's new tariffs are actually illegal under WTO charter which begs the question: why should anyone else follow it? I guess you would if you were too afraid of escaping American vassalage.
I wouldn't be surprised if the WTO is replaced, dies, or becomes modified in the future.
It's possible that the industry policy might increase trade. Because if everyone subsidies manufacturing you're effectively taking resources from the non tradeable sector to the tradeable sector.
Also it's unlikely governments will crack down on services trade simply because they're hard to track and pose no national security issues. Unless we get telesurgeries and telerobotics.
The bottom billion is the one in my opinion
Also given the shitty roads in most African countries there is barely enough trade integration within their countries, I don't know what these leaders were expecting. Besides industrialisation always begins at the ports. Although as I have mentioned before aviation innovations may change this historic pattern.
Great writing as usual! It wasn't in *Americans* (as in the people of America) interests in "the early 1990s" or for most of the rest of the world for that matter (and in both cases it wasn't in the rest of the worlds since the 1970s, it was never in *Americans" interest but most *Americans* were willing to sacrifice for a couple of decades after the war to make the world a better place but the process got hijacked by bad forces that were allowed to fester within it and likely were planning on hijacking it from its get go. If they hadn't of de-democratized so much they wouldn't have been able to do what they did in the 1990s. But I've recently learned new things and now suspect that most of the damages done to Americans are from the USA's domestic economic empire, not the international one, we essentially underwent a domestic Globalization as well.
Who are these "bad forces" you speak of?
What is this "de-democratization" you speak of? Are you talking about global de-democratization? Are you saying America de-democratized in the 90s under Clinton?
"Domestic globalization" does not make sense to me as a term. Do you mean a more integrated national economy?
HI! In reverse order:
""Domestic globalization" does not make sense to me as a term. Do you mean a more integrated national economy?": As with many concepts regarding the economy, the question is for whom, like, efficient for whom? In this case its integrated for whom? The USA had effective capital controls between states for the entirety of its whole existence (and for thirteen of the states for hundreds of years prior to their existence because our thirteen predecessor colonies had them), these capital controls were the result of different things, some direct and some indirect, all which varied over time and things came and went but there were always things there until the late 1990s, but only to a big way until the late 1970s (they were quickly greatly diminished with the advent of the so called "Neoliberal Era"). The biggest example in the late stage was the significant inhibitors on interstate banking competition that were formally done away with by the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994 (however one of its key provisions did not take effect until 1998), but in practice through a combination of some formal state level changes but mostly at both the state and federal level just a refusal to enforce the law by adapting to and regulating newly common behavior (mainly what "brokered accounts") like they had for over 200 years prior, this quickly led a 15 year process (but with a lot up front) of huge capital flights from many states, huge capital concentrations, and the implementation of "hub and spoke" systems in the banking industry. Much of this capital flight took the form of selling off firms to the first 1980s "china shock" (smaller than 2000, I think) but also (and there were other regulatory inhibitors led to the hub and spoke system being applied to a variety of industries. Much of the resulting increase in "economic integration" is really just money flows between increasingly tiny amounts of people and the actual number of physical good and services is exchanged between states is possibly less and likely at least less than it other wise would be and its very likely that geographic integration, which is what people seem to refer here, is far less because so many counties got so reduced that their participation is far lower or in some cases almost just completely cut out. So, I think its actually less integrated but I KNOW that no one can accurately say that the 1978 America wasnt deeply economically integrated (it had been for hundreds of years ! lmao)
"What is this "de-democratization" you speak of? Are you talking about global de-democratization?" How did the above happen? Propaganda, well, yeah, there was a shit ton, but the main reason (and this reason was necessary for the propaganda to happen by allowing concertation of control of the information ecosystem) is de-democratization. The Democrats and the Republicans used to be "mass member parties" under the collective control of a wide network of highly variegated local branches. This structure allowed for not only a far wider amount of voices to speak but also for local and state interests to be represented. Each local branch had a large degree of autonomy. This decentralized system went part and parcel with the broader political system of the USA's Old Republic, where power was distributed across various levels of government.
The Old Republic of the USA was a highly politically and economically decentralized space. Some major areas of the economy remained highly so until the 1980s and significantly so until the late 1990s. There was a high degree of variability in economic regulations, fiscal policy, and social policy between states and even towns, cities, and counties. Yet, all but one of its states operated within English Common Law, or more accurately, English Common Law descendant, with only slight variations. The Federal Government was always there and was never nothing.
This decentralized system allowed for a large degree of local governance and a huge policy experimentation. The ability to engage in policy at the local and state level is necessary for the existence of democratic governance. It makes it so that policies are representative of the unique local communities, rather than being imposed from a distant central authority. Also, in order to have a vibrant democarcy you NEED local AND regional policy powers because by making large areas of eocnomic policy, fiscal policy, and regulatoons, and so on, available to be effected, its creats perpetually mobalized communites arund real material tings that arent hot button and when they are onecity and do one and the other city can do another tings. The Old Republic built vibrant democratic communities that helped generate real communities that any one from the world could come to, and they were designing and implementing public policy, people came from all over the world to be able to literally have say in their government. Now almost all people in America are stripped of almost all voice. But look how we've performed since the late 1970s economically ad scientifically: worse. And that was after a few decades of the process already working, and those decades performed worse than their prior 200 years. The last thing the Old Republic's democratic governance structures did while they were still at least mostly there was the Civil Rights revolution. By the time that was done it was on its last legs, then they began to finish it off in the 1970. And the transition of the parties from mass member parties to managed parties alongside all this heavily de-democratized the country by the late 1970s. By the time the 1990s hit we'd given up most of our democracy, that why they were able to go full steam with capital "G" Globalization the.
Thanks for the fun replies! I gotta go but I'll respond to your other replies ;later tonight.
So much to respond to. It would basically be another article. There's a lot I agree and fiercely disagree with but I don't think we'll convince each other otherwise, but I appreciated your comments Mike!
Thanks, Yaw. Always appreciate the interesting posts and associated comment/replies. Have a great rest of the week! —Mike
What do you mean by globalization not being in America's interest? Interests within a nation regarding globalization vary:
Consumers:
Pro globalization: Consumers like foreign firms if they can make goods at cheaper prices (e.g., Japanese cars, Korean washing machines).
Con globalization: Workers may dislike globalization because it means some lose jobs to foreign competition.
Government:
Pro globalization: Governments like foreign investment because it brings jobs and cheap goods, which help lower inflation.
Con globalization: When domestic firms go bankrupt, it causes job losses and reduces corporate tax revenue as well as income and FICA taxes from the unemployed.
Firms:
Pro globalization: Firms benefit from accessing more markets and reducing production costs.
Con globalization: Firms dislike being outcompeted by foreign companies.
Even within manufacturing, tariffs have different impacts on various firms in a supply chain. When Bush, Obama, Trump, and Biden increased steel tariffs, it was good for U.S. Steel and Nucor because it protected them from foreign competition. Foreign steel companies like Nippon Steel or Baowu found their products more expensive in the U.S. market. However, American companies that buy steel, such as General Motors or Whirlpool, were negatively impacted because they could no longer get cheap steel from Japan or China, increasing their costs.
Globalization allowed us to buy cheaper refrigerators from LG or Samsung instead of more expensive ones from GE. In some industries, Americans appreciate cheap consumer goods (e.g., TVs, computers, washing machines), but in others, they prefer protection. In the 1980s, Japanese automakers like Toyota, Honda, and Mitsubishi started outcompeting Ford, GM, and Chrysler on affordability, fuel efficiency, and reliability, leading to calls for more protectionism in the auto industry.
Hi again. I think capital "G" Globalization has been bad for America and almost all other countries. BTW, we had international trade for multiple thousands of years before it lol. The original post war system was not that, it envisioned countries doing protectionism for the benefit of their people and thus for the benefit of all. AND THE OFFICIAL BRETTON WOODS REPORT LITERALLY ADVOCATED FOR CAPUTAL CONTROLS!!!!!!!
In our current paradigm, piecemeal tariffs for one industry or against one country don't make sense because we're still in the broader paradigm. This current system's logical end state is a world that is a perfect planetary division of labor with complete financial, tax, regulatory, etc. harmonization. That would be a world where, by definition, most people in most places are locked out because there is extreme market concentration and production concentration (and thus geographic concentration). Darkly ironically, given that this world's proponents often cite increases in concentration to justify it, that world would have little to no competition. It would be a highly cartelized and mostly centrally planned (by the private sector or the government, central planning is central planning) economy.
Whereas a world with variegated regulations that sought cooperation instead of empire, where each place traded with the rest of the world but also always took steps to generate activity in their area, as diversified within their area as is practical, is a world with far wider distribution of wealth, opportunity, and decision-making. It's also a world with far, far more competition because there are far more firms in each sector (I'm not saying there'll be a million large car companies, by the way; in some sectors there'll just be more around the world, and in some sectors a whole bunch more, and in some, lots). This would be a world with far more R&D labs, far more science, far more people across a far wider and vastly more heterogeneous area engaging in innovation, research, and new ideas. This world, over time, would produce far more than a heavily cartelized world that just turned almost all people into subsidized consumers.
I hope your having a nice weekend.
---Mike
Hi Mike,
Thanks for your comment. I’m having trouble understanding some of your points and would like to clarify them.
Here are the main areas where I’m confused or might disagree:
1.Globalization not being in America's interests
2.Globalization being "hijacked" by "bad forces"
3. De-democratization
4. "Domestic globalization"
Could you elaborate on these points?