Another day in the Universe
https://www.onthenatureofthings.net/forum/
https://www.onthenatureofthings.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4139
Abstract
It has become common to note the failure of neoclassical economics to explain economic divergence between countries and regions. In recent years this has frequently been attributed to some countries developing or capturing industries with increasing returns; i.e. that the agglomeration effects typical of increasing returns industries are sensitive to slight differences in initial conditions that over time lead to further agglomeration and thus increasing divergence rather than convergence between regions and countries (Romer 1986, Krugman and Venables 1995, Fujita and Thisse 2002).
Just as the lack of short-term convergence among modern economies can be attributed to the capturing of increasing returns-to-scale activities, many believe Europe (and its settler colonies) did this on a long-term, global scale as well, in a global division of labor at the state and regional level. In the economic history literature this process is sometimes explained in other language, i.e., that Europe deindustrialized its colonies e.g., in dependency theory in general, and works such as Amin 1976, Forbes and Rimmer 1984, and Alam 2000. This long-term, increasing returns perspective is interesting because it can be seen as (regarding reasons proposed for the ‘great divergence’ in levels of development that economic historians now tell us happened mainly in the last few centuries) merging or at least compatible with both many recent mainstream economic observations related to regional economics, agglomeration, and increasing returns-to-scale activities (‘new’ trade theory) and aspects of important heterodox arguments (Marxist/dependency theories, some Austrian economics, and much evolutionary economics - related to competition, for example). How, then, did European states rise in the international division of labor?
Most consumer goods bought in the US that are classified as “durable” – from smartphones and bicycles to appliances and clothes – are manufactured overseas. Go into a Walmart and try to find some durable goods that are still made in the US. On Amazon, foreign vendors are now direct-selling their products to US consumers. And even if the product is assembled in the US, such as cars and trucks, many or most of the components are designed and manufactured overseas and then imported.
This is now the pattern: After decades of rampant offshoring of production, US consumers get free stimulus money in the hopes that they will turn this taxpayer money – or rather future taxpayers’ money since this is borrowed money and will have to be dealt with by future taxpayers for all times to come – into a big-fat stimulus for the manufacturing economies in other countries.
Seems like all the exports are basically raw materials and all the imports are retailColonel Sun wrote: ↑Fri Jan 15, 2021 5:18 am Visual Capitalist | Top U.S. Companies by Import and Export Volume
top-us-import-export-companies-3.png
Seems to be an asymmetry between basic and value added products.
Anecdotally, a friend from China told me that there's now a serious shortage of cargo containers in China as containers are arriving in the US but are not being sent back due to the COVID-19 lock down.
Update: Freight Week | Inside California’s colossal container-ship traffic jam
It's an interesting visualization but neither surprising nor reflective of corporate power. The most interconnected companies, unsurprisingly, are financial services companies. That does not imply they are particularly powerful or even valuable. The most valuable company in the world is Apple -- its services are used directly by most Americans and its innovations have transformed our lifestyle in the past 20 years more than any bank. Facebook and Google have far greater control over the information you consume and know far more about you than Barclays. Barclays ranks #1 yet Apple, Facebook, and Google don't even crack the top-50.Nonc Hilaire wrote: ↑Mon Sep 09, 2019 6:22 pm It looks like someone has done the research and mapped exactly how all the global companies are interconnected.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg ... the-world/
That's because this figure is by volume. It doesn't give any sense of what the economy looks like by value. High-value-add technology exports don't occupy a lot of volume. The top 10 exports by category and value are:Colonel Sun wrote: ↑Fri Jan 15, 2021 5:18 am Seems to be an asymmetry between basic and value added products.
The top exporters are:Machinery including computers: US$182.6 billion (12.8% of total exports)
Electrical machinery, equipment: $162.9 billion (11.4%)
Mineral fuels including oil: $155.1 billion (10.8%)
Vehicles: $105.2 billion (7.3%)
Optical, technical, medical apparatus: $83.4 billion (5.8%)
Aircraft, spacecraft: $80.9 billion (5.7%)
Plastics, plastic articles: $60.2 billion (4.2%)
Gems, precious metals: $60 billion (4.2%)
Pharmaceuticals: $53.9 billion (3.8%)
Organic chemicals: $34 billion (2.4%)
In other words, we export our thoughts. China exports its sweat.Apple (computer hardware)
Exxon Mobil (oil, gas)
Johnson & Johnson (medical equipment, supplies)
Chevron Corporation (oil, gas)
Procter & Gamble (household, personal care items)
Pfizer (pharmaceuticals)
The Coca-Cola Company (beverages)
Merck & Co (pharmaceuticals)
Qualcomm (semiconductors)
Philip Morris International (tobacco)
Intel (semiconductors)
Schlumberger (oil, gas)
PepsiCo (beverages)
Cisco Systems (communications equipment)
Boeing (aerospace)
ConocoPhillips (oil, gas)
AbbVie (pharmaceuticals)
Occidental Petroleum (oil, gas)
Eli Lilly and Company (pharmaceuticals)