As the recession deepens in Europe, and as the price of natural gas continues to weigh on businesses, industrial facilities across Europe are doing what at one time would have been unthinkable: shutting down production entirely.
With Europe shutting down, it's not the "competition" that's going away, it's pretty much EVERYTHING.
If Europe deindustrializes (a possibility), then the potential outcomes for the rest of the world fall along two broad trajectories, neither of which is very good.
1. Civilizational collapse: Europe as a whole is a big part of the global economy. Turn that portion off and the rest of the world economy could easily collapse as a direct consequence. An economic calamity of that magnitude would shred the rest of civilized society. Essentially, everything ends.
2. Global isolationism: Europe shutting down would at the very least force most other economies to localize their supply chains, reversing the past few decades of globalism. Global trade would largely halt, and human society would fracture into a myriad of largely closed off and not very prosperous local economies and trading alliances.
If the "Empire" intends either outcome, the "Empire" is intending its own destruction.
This is such a complicated issue. On the one hand, we seem to have midwits in the U.S.running foreign policy, centered on destroying the Russian state, and willing to do anything, even destroy the EU, to accomplish that goal. If the Empire has demonstrated anything over the past several decades, it is the utter disdain for the consequences of its destructive and malevolent actions. Nothing is more important than maintaining global domination. The destruction of Europe may not be part of any plan to achieve domination, but it certainly could be viewed as an unintended consequence of seemingly random actions designed to destroy Russia.
That said, one other aspect of maintaining world hegemony is ensuring that there are no other entitles capable of threatening that domination. Hence the effort to destroy Russia and, lately, the efforts to turn more strongly against China. In that sense, if the midwits thought for an instant that a stronger EU, potentially partnering with Russia and China in efforts to decouple from the West and form their own alliances in the Asian continent, it stands to reason that the midwits would view a strong EU as an enemy, and we clearly know what the Empire does when it perceives it has enemies at the doorstep.
And then we have to consider who is pulling the strings of the Empire and all its satellites. Clearly it's not the morons in government; it may also not be the mega-corporations who own everything and control every aspect of government. So, if we really do have a cabal of ultra-wealthy bankers and supranational actors calling the shots, we need to discover if the destruction of Europe plays into their hands, or not.
Let's hope these scenarios you mentioned don't come to pass. But it is pretty clear (to me at least) that we don't have any adults in the room capable of making rational decisions that benefit anyone other than themselves. We little people are on our own.
Much of that involves trade with other parts of the world, chiefly industrial products, including intermediate goods which are then used in producing finished goods.
If Europe deindustrializes, then one-fifth of the world economy is at once removed, as are the industrial products and intermediate goods which power parts of the rest of the world's GDP.
Developing economies, which includes places such as India, would not be able to fully replace the loss of goods and GDP that Europe shutting down would represent. Not only is there not enough spare production capacity in the world, but the shortages of essential goods would send prices through the roof, and developing economies would not be able to afford the increase costs. Which means that losing 1/5 of global GDP is only the first of many dominoes to fall, with developing economies comprising the next several, as their economies collapse in turn, either from lack of imports of essential goods or bankruptcy trying to pay the vastly increased prices.
Somewhere in this mix China's economy--which is also heading down even now--goes belly up, with Zero COVID and economic contraction withdrawing even more industrial output from the world economy.
The contraction of industrial output outside the United States will be the mother of all exogenous supply shocks to the US economy, first causing inflation to surge and then the economy to contract.
The countries that can will build out local supply chains, or perhaps at most regional ones. For the US, that means Canada and Mexico become supremely vital, while the rest of the world becomes supremely irrelevant.
The long and short of the situation is that if Europe's economy crashes, the ultimate outcome worldwide WILL be some variant of either the Civilizational Collapse or Global Isolationism trajectories.
There will be no world hegemon in these scenarios. There will be no world domination. Those outcomes are not part of the possible result set.
Re: the "adults in the room"--everyone is well advised to understand that ALL people make decisions based on their own perceived self interests. Our choices are reflective of our personal desires, and nothing more. This is true of government leaders as well.
I am beginning to think there is nothing ironic regarding the sanctions on Russia or the unbridled support for all-our war in the Ukraine - irony requires an unexpected / unintended outcome. More and more, it looks like the outcome (the destruction of Western Industrial Society, the destruction of the economic and societal structure which ensures peaceful relations with our fellow citizens as well as between nations) was the desired one.
Haven’t the self-proclaimed “environmentally-conscious” been demanding an end to Capitalism and a reduction in global population by 80-90% (in order to “protect the climate”) for the past several decades?
What better way to achieve that outcome than to foment war & chaos, the destruction of civil society as we know it?
The irony will be that the countries which contribute the most to that 90% population decline will not be Western Industrial nations, but the developing countries which have been propped up with imports of food and essentials, and which will suddenly be deprived of both.
The countries that will survive, albeit in reduced form? Western Industrial Society.
Capitalism itself will survive, for the simple reason that capitalism has always been far more descriptive than prescriptive (that was Marx' specialty: saying what people "should" do). If you read Wealth Of Nations you quickly realize that Adam Smith was describing how economies work in the real world, as the result of various real world forces, not how he thought they "should" work.
People being the self-interested, self-motivated creatures that we all are, capitalism itself will endure. If anything, it will experience a resurgence, as the weakening of governments will spell the end of the toxic cabal between Big Government and Big Business that always seeks to expropriate the wealth of the world for itself.
I hope you’re right, but the opposite may also be true. An “emergency” may lead to appropriation by the state of “essential” production leading to Totalitarianism.
Ask Xi Jinping or Vladimir Putin how well that works out.
Appropriation by the state of "essential" production invariably leads to less production. The only exception to this principle is when a nation is committed to a state of total war (e.g., Germany in WW2), and even then industrial output eventually suffers (e.g., Germany in WW1 and WW2, Soviet Russia during the Cold War).
Totalitarians might like to think they can make an economy work by decree, but that concept has never worked at any time in modern history, not since political leaders stopped being worshiped as gods.
Seems like that was the plan; the Empire wants to shut down all competition and all independent thought/economies.
That's not a plan. That's complete idiocy.
With Europe shutting down, it's not the "competition" that's going away, it's pretty much EVERYTHING.
If Europe deindustrializes (a possibility), then the potential outcomes for the rest of the world fall along two broad trajectories, neither of which is very good.
1. Civilizational collapse: Europe as a whole is a big part of the global economy. Turn that portion off and the rest of the world economy could easily collapse as a direct consequence. An economic calamity of that magnitude would shred the rest of civilized society. Essentially, everything ends.
2. Global isolationism: Europe shutting down would at the very least force most other economies to localize their supply chains, reversing the past few decades of globalism. Global trade would largely halt, and human society would fracture into a myriad of largely closed off and not very prosperous local economies and trading alliances.
If the "Empire" intends either outcome, the "Empire" is intending its own destruction.
This is such a complicated issue. On the one hand, we seem to have midwits in the U.S.running foreign policy, centered on destroying the Russian state, and willing to do anything, even destroy the EU, to accomplish that goal. If the Empire has demonstrated anything over the past several decades, it is the utter disdain for the consequences of its destructive and malevolent actions. Nothing is more important than maintaining global domination. The destruction of Europe may not be part of any plan to achieve domination, but it certainly could be viewed as an unintended consequence of seemingly random actions designed to destroy Russia.
That said, one other aspect of maintaining world hegemony is ensuring that there are no other entitles capable of threatening that domination. Hence the effort to destroy Russia and, lately, the efforts to turn more strongly against China. In that sense, if the midwits thought for an instant that a stronger EU, potentially partnering with Russia and China in efforts to decouple from the West and form their own alliances in the Asian continent, it stands to reason that the midwits would view a strong EU as an enemy, and we clearly know what the Empire does when it perceives it has enemies at the doorstep.
And then we have to consider who is pulling the strings of the Empire and all its satellites. Clearly it's not the morons in government; it may also not be the mega-corporations who own everything and control every aspect of government. So, if we really do have a cabal of ultra-wealthy bankers and supranational actors calling the shots, we need to discover if the destruction of Europe plays into their hands, or not.
Let's hope these scenarios you mentioned don't come to pass. But it is pretty clear (to me at least) that we don't have any adults in the room capable of making rational decisions that benefit anyone other than themselves. We little people are on our own.
One has to start by looking at the numbers.
In 2015, the EU comprised roughly 21% of global GDP.
https://foreignpolicy.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/world-gdp-41ff.png
Much of that involves trade with other parts of the world, chiefly industrial products, including intermediate goods which are then used in producing finished goods.
https://www.worldstopexports.com/european-unions-top-10-exports/
If Europe deindustrializes, then one-fifth of the world economy is at once removed, as are the industrial products and intermediate goods which power parts of the rest of the world's GDP.
Developing economies, which includes places such as India, would not be able to fully replace the loss of goods and GDP that Europe shutting down would represent. Not only is there not enough spare production capacity in the world, but the shortages of essential goods would send prices through the roof, and developing economies would not be able to afford the increase costs. Which means that losing 1/5 of global GDP is only the first of many dominoes to fall, with developing economies comprising the next several, as their economies collapse in turn, either from lack of imports of essential goods or bankruptcy trying to pay the vastly increased prices.
Somewhere in this mix China's economy--which is also heading down even now--goes belly up, with Zero COVID and economic contraction withdrawing even more industrial output from the world economy.
The contraction of industrial output outside the United States will be the mother of all exogenous supply shocks to the US economy, first causing inflation to surge and then the economy to contract.
The countries that can will build out local supply chains, or perhaps at most regional ones. For the US, that means Canada and Mexico become supremely vital, while the rest of the world becomes supremely irrelevant.
The long and short of the situation is that if Europe's economy crashes, the ultimate outcome worldwide WILL be some variant of either the Civilizational Collapse or Global Isolationism trajectories.
There will be no world hegemon in these scenarios. There will be no world domination. Those outcomes are not part of the possible result set.
Re: the "adults in the room"--everyone is well advised to understand that ALL people make decisions based on their own perceived self interests. Our choices are reflective of our personal desires, and nothing more. This is true of government leaders as well.
I am beginning to think there is nothing ironic regarding the sanctions on Russia or the unbridled support for all-our war in the Ukraine - irony requires an unexpected / unintended outcome. More and more, it looks like the outcome (the destruction of Western Industrial Society, the destruction of the economic and societal structure which ensures peaceful relations with our fellow citizens as well as between nations) was the desired one.
Haven’t the self-proclaimed “environmentally-conscious” been demanding an end to Capitalism and a reduction in global population by 80-90% (in order to “protect the climate”) for the past several decades?
What better way to achieve that outcome than to foment war & chaos, the destruction of civil society as we know it?
The irony will be that the countries which contribute the most to that 90% population decline will not be Western Industrial nations, but the developing countries which have been propped up with imports of food and essentials, and which will suddenly be deprived of both.
The countries that will survive, albeit in reduced form? Western Industrial Society.
Capitalism itself will survive, for the simple reason that capitalism has always been far more descriptive than prescriptive (that was Marx' specialty: saying what people "should" do). If you read Wealth Of Nations you quickly realize that Adam Smith was describing how economies work in the real world, as the result of various real world forces, not how he thought they "should" work.
People being the self-interested, self-motivated creatures that we all are, capitalism itself will endure. If anything, it will experience a resurgence, as the weakening of governments will spell the end of the toxic cabal between Big Government and Big Business that always seeks to expropriate the wealth of the world for itself.
I hope you’re right, but the opposite may also be true. An “emergency” may lead to appropriation by the state of “essential” production leading to Totalitarianism.
Ask Xi Jinping or Vladimir Putin how well that works out.
Appropriation by the state of "essential" production invariably leads to less production. The only exception to this principle is when a nation is committed to a state of total war (e.g., Germany in WW2), and even then industrial output eventually suffers (e.g., Germany in WW1 and WW2, Soviet Russia during the Cold War).
Totalitarians might like to think they can make an economy work by decree, but that concept has never worked at any time in modern history, not since political leaders stopped being worshiped as gods.
I agree. The total war part is what worries me. That’s why I say “emergency.”
It might not have to be total war, maybe just a “convenient emergency” is all that is required.
Total war or "convenient emergency" makes no difference. The end result is the same: economic disaster.
Germany under the Kaiser in WW1.
Germany under Hitler in WW2.
Soviet Russia during the Cold War
China under Mao Zedong.
China now under Xi Jinping.
Total state control of an economy is the surest way to ensure the economy ceases to function.
Sanctions are like taxes.
Voters love taxes... on someone else
Voters love sanctions... on someone else.
So what do politicians give voters? Both.
By the time the pain of taxes and sanctions hits all--I said all--voters, they shall have forgotten what they had wrought.