You are currently viewing SemiWiki as a guest which gives you limited access to the site. To view blog comments and experience other SemiWiki features you must be a registered member. Registration is fast, simple, and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
Russia's invasion of Ukraine has ended globalization as we know it, says the head of BlackRock, the world's largest asset manager.
www.cnn.com
"But some countries could benefit from focusing on building up their domestic industries, as companies onshore or "nearshore" their operations, he said."
Did Trump made the right move by forcing TSMC and Samsung to open fab in the US?
what kind of impact if globalization end? more fab in the US?
Russia is so large that there will be a disruption. Russia has natural resources, and oil but no semiconductors and countries need both. Western europe, united kingdom, France, germany, Nordic countries could give humanitarian aid and token weapons to Ukraine, the country that saved them, those countries have problems as well.
Russia is so large that there will be a disruption. Russia has natural resources, and oil but no semiconductors and countries need both. Western europe, united kingdom, France, germany, Nordic countries could give humanitarian aid and token weapons to Ukraine, the country that saved them, those countries have problems as well.
Russia is not really big in terms of GDP ( smaller than Texas) and in terms of international trade (concentrated in oil and gas, smaller than Taiwan).
Yes, Europe's oil and gas are deeply linked to Russia right now. But other oil and natural gas producing countries will be happy to step in to make money. In the long run an isolated Russia will have limited impact on global economy and trade.
IMHO, globalization won't disappear just because Russia and PRC's ups and downs. It will move between different countries and regions whenever it needs to move.
Russia is not really big in terms of GDP ( smaller than Texas) and in terms of international trade (concentrated in oil and gas, smaller than Taiwan).
Yes, Europe's oil and gas are deeply linked to Russia right now. But other oil and natural gas producing countries will be happy to step in to make money. In the long run an isolated Russia will have limited impact on global economy and trade.
IMHO, globalization won't disappear just because Russia and PRC's ups and downs. It will move between different countries and regions whenever it needs to move.
Russia won't be isolated, the Slavic peoples may hate the government but don't want to continue the suffering of the people and western Europe needs Russia's natural resources. Russia not being really big in terms of GDP is part of the reason why we're here. There's so many disruptions here that no one really grasps this.
that's probably going to be 2x the cost of oil from Russia to EU since other oil producers like US, Saudi...etc. will have to ship via sea over a long distance where Russia is right next to EU. the shipping cost along will jack up the oil price for EU.
over the long term, unless the Green energy take off and the world no longer need oil for energy. the energy cost for EU is going to be huge.
that's probably going to be 2x the cost of oil from Russia to EU since other oil producers like US, Saudi...etc. will have to ship via sea over a long distance where Russia is right next to EU. the shipping cost along will jack up the oil price for EU.
over the long term, unless the Green energy take off and the world no longer need oil for energy. the energy cost for EU is going to be huge.
In terms of transporting crude oil, nowadays the supertankers are extremely efficient and move lots of oil around the globe. Most Asian countries import oil and oil products through ocean. It might be still more expensive compare to pipelines but it's not to the degree that can cause major issues. By some estimates transport oil though oil tankers adds about $0.02 to $0.03 to the cost per US gallon.
Russia is not really big in terms of GDP ( smaller than Texas) and in terms of international trade (concentrated in oil and gas, smaller than Taiwan).
Yes, Europe's oil and gas are deeply linked to Russia right now. But other oil and natural gas producing countries will be happy to step in to make money. In the long run an isolated Russia will have limited impact on global economy and trade.
IMHO, globalization won't disappear just because Russia and PRC's ups and downs. It will move between different countries and regions whenever it needs to move.
Move where? That's the problem. I we are doing many projects moving manufacturing for big brands out of China.
The most universal reaction: "How is it n-times more expensive when salaries are 5 times less than in China?"
Unfortunately, the most stereotypical images of Western corporate high culture happened to be "more than true." A lot of inane, and outright frightened reactions about how they will "survive" without China often lead them to a decision to abort moving their manufacturing after a single trial.
It's a sick joke for BlackRock to decry globalization given that they control a double digit percentage of global GDP. Good thing their algos pivoted to neofeudalism at the beginning of the pandemic when they started buying up real estate at exorbitant markups.
I think the long term plan is Africa. Centuries of extraction and underdevelopment means they're still at pre-industrial birth rates, but because liberals feel kinda bad about it they provide basic humanitarian aid to achieve a somewhat post-industrial mortality rate. This contradiction will make for a continent of 2B people by 2040, and their labor will be available for pennies on the dollar. Unlike communist China, most of Africa is still ruled by despots and warlords working indirectly for the west. They don't want to worry about an "Africa problem" like they claim to have a "China problem" today.
It's a sick joke for BlackRock to decry globalization given that they control a double digit percentage of global GDP. Good thing their algos pivoted to neofeudalism at the beginning of the pandemic when they started buying up real estate at exorbitant markups.
I think the long term plan is Africa. Centuries of extraction and underdevelopment means they're still at pre-industrial birth rates, but because liberals feel kinda bad about it they provide basic humanitarian aid to achieve a somewhat post-industrial mortality rate. This contradiction will make for a continent of 2B people by 2040, and their labor will be available for pennies on the dollar. Unlike communist China, most of Africa is still ruled by despots and warlords working indirectly for the west. They don't want to worry about an "Africa problem" like they claim to have a "China problem" today.
Really no, I been to Africa on a few assignments when overenthusiastic clients bought into empty promises in investment prospectuses.
You can get borderline free labour in many places, you can get tons of cheap engineers in a lot of places, you can get some presence of local industrial supply chains in many other places as well.
It's not a problem as such to build a factory, equip it, and staff it as such almost anywhere with some basics present. It's just the greed, and extreme fear of risks prevents Western businesses from performing anywhere outside of China.
Especially professional hired executives are almost like a fish out of water when they have to deal with places like India, let alone Africa, or Vietnam.
Ask me anything for how real manufacturing industry works like in China, and elsewhere. If you have not researched that topic in detail, I bet you will be up to a big surprise. Almost everything what popular business culture in the West knows about manufacturing is false.
P.S. Blackrock is infiltrated by communist influence agents
It's a sick joke for BlackRock to decry globalization given that they control a double digit percentage of global GDP. Good thing their algos pivoted to neofeudalism at the beginning of the pandemic when they started buying up real estate at exorbitant markups.
I think the long term plan is Africa. Centuries of extraction and underdevelopment means they're still at pre-industrial birth rates, but because liberals feel kinda bad about it they provide basic humanitarian aid to achieve a somewhat post-industrial mortality rate. This contradiction will make for a continent of 2B people by 2040, and their labor will be available for pennies on the dollar. Unlike communist China, most of Africa is still ruled by despots and warlords working indirectly for the west. They don't want to worry about an "Africa problem" like they claim to have a "China problem" today.
China has a much deeper presence in Africa than the western world and are expanding fast for cheap labor and resources They are taking over countries by floating expensive projects with loans that are hard if not impossible to repay so they can foreclose and own the project, mostly built by Chinese labor. North Korea also does the same on a very small scale.
I mean that most "developmental efforts" in Africa to this point have been bad faith neocolonialism, and now that we've exhausted the supply of cheap Asian labor that paradigm will shift. Don't forget about Mexico. Ever since NAFTA our industrialists have been playing wine league teeball, and now that China can compete in the big leagues we're learning that we can't.
Nothing about their strategy suggests they are at all interested in abolishing class and money as the basis for human society. If it's any of the conspiracies (and by now conspiracy cranks have been proven righter than anything in the mainstream) it's definitely Klaus Schwab's "Great Reset": you'll pay us a subscription fee to own nothing and you'll like it. Their dystopian ideals are covered pretty well in Adam Curtis's documentary "Hypernormalisation".
China has a much deeper presence in Africa than the western world and are expanding fast for cheap labor and resources They are taking over countries by floating expensive projects with loans that are hard if not impossible to repay so they can foreclose and own the project, mostly built by Chinese labor.
This is the IMF's music! Why would Africa be desperate enough to engage with China's developmental ambitions? After decades of handing billions in IMF loans to corrupt despotic regimes who immediately transfer the money to Switzerland and leave the people with the bill? And if we go with the approximation that America is not so much a country as it is a business with an army, then we have approximately 30x the presence in Africa compared to China.. it's one of Obama's few "achievements" in his pivot to China through Africa.
www.cnn.com
