/int/ – No shittings during wörktime
„There is no place like home“

File (max. 4)
Return to
  • Allowed file extensions (max. size 25 MB or specified)
    Images:  BMP, GIF, JPG, PNG, PSD   Videos:  FLV, MP4, WEBM  
    Archives:  7Z, RAR, ZIP   Audio:  FLAC, MP3, OGG, OPUS  
    Documents:  DJVU (50 MB), EPUB, MOBI, PDF (50 MB)  
  • Please read the Rules before posting.
  • Make sure you are familiar with the Guide to Anonymous Posting.

No. 6905
259 kB, 1366 × 768
252 kB, 1366 × 768
176 kB, 1366 × 768
238 kB, 1366 × 768
Economy-related stuff is big enough to have its own thread, such studies about economic/social stuff are constantly being made and it would be interesting to have a thread to share such articles. Let the history & sciences thread be a history-anthropology thread, since this is what is almost entirely being discussed there, and in the future if someone feels the need to create hard sciences specific stuff they can go ahead. Plus, the kind of discussion that this causes is different from history-related stuff, it is kind of news, but it's not news, it's still academic in the end. Economy, political science, sociology, geography, business stuff, urbanism, urban issues in general, infrastructure etc, all of this now belongs to the social sciences thread.

Rate this brave new world of services economy, globalization and increasing rural exodus where everybody flocks to some few global cities while the rest of the country dies.

No. 6906
103 kB, 861 × 735
No. 6914
>everybody flocks to some few global cities while the rest of the country dies.
This hit Russia especially hard. I have seen with my own eyes many people leave Siberia and the Far East for a supposed better life in the European part of the country. And I may come off as a tourist from /pol/ due to saying this but I honestly hate the migration from central Asia and China that has been going on since the 1990s. Many parts of my city have become giant slums where I would never dare set foot. Hell, I doubt any person who "works" there actually speaks Russian as a first language. And this has led to a sharp increase in ethnic tensions. Last year someone set fire to multiple gypsy-owned mansions since the police failed to deliver any justice to the durg dealers who lived in the houses that were set ablaze.
No. 6929
Much of Russia became a gigantic rustbelt after communism due to bad transition. Russia is a particular case due to that, but even in countries with no recent economic/politic shocks, countries that are actually spearheading new economies, such as USA with california, are suffering with this. Automation empties the countryside because it kills the jobs in the extraction and processing industries (agriculture, mining etc) while creating highly specialized services-related jobs in a few cities, specially stuff related to IT and financing. Example: in BR we had a movement contrary to what happened in USSR thanks to agrobusiness, thanks to modern technologies lots of land (specially in the cerrado area of the country) that were seen as useless before became attractive to agroindustry, entire cities were created and states received a lot of migration in general. But then comes automation, telecom and services stuff, allow for increase in productivity in the farms while hiring less people, and the people that they hire are more specialized, and often they aren't even present in the farm anymore but rather provide the consultancy services by means of telecomunications, communicating through cellphones and notebooks while looking at satellite and drone images, all the while comfortably sitting in an office somewhere around São Paulo city.

It's a brave new world of city-states with vast expanse of colonial territories that they call "the rest of the country". They're the new Romes: big cities controlling lots of territory full of much smaller and less economically developed cities, from where they drain resources and population (in Rome's case it was slaves, not it's low paid migrant waged work).
No. 6935
Yeah the cities catch it all, rents are exploding all over the world, even in my town its going up. Around the bigger cities like Hamburg and Munch rents are also rocketing. I came to talk to somebody at a party who bought a house+land near Hamburg some years ago to renovate it and live there but now the price has going up so much that selling is the better option.

Makes me think of Singapore as a role model: clean authoritarian ruled city states where capitalism celebrates its new evolution. Experts of information and skilled service built on low payed dirty service caste
No. 6939
My understanding is that São Paulo and Rio have their growth limited by geography, thus they have to become ultradense cities. Is this accurate?
No. 6948
Singapore is a special case because of its location and its size, it can't be reproduced elsewhere and the question of what to do with the dying countrysides, full of resources but diminishing population. Watch this vid
...he talks about how USA brain drains germany (and other countries) from its CEOs. He's discussing precisely this issue about services economy, because it's not just about big global (but national) cities draining the rest of their own countries of their resources and people, it's also about more competitive countries draining people and money from less competitive countries, and he shows that USA is the most attractive to people that are attractive (the CEOs). It's a pretty pessimistic worldview, where every countryside dies to its capital, and then every other country dies to USA, and you'd think that USA would never complain about it since they are supposedly profiting from it all, but looking at Trump's election they seem to have been the very first country to snap (against something that they created just three decades ago), and I've been trying to find articles about why this is the case. The guy in the vid talks about it, he says that Trump's elections is due to the bad effects of globalization, services economy, etc, bad effects that were already predicted when all of this was put in practice decades ago with the beginning of globalization, but he says that "we predicted it, we talked about it, but we didn't do anything about it, so now we have Trump", which doesn't explain much about why USA was the first country to riot against its own politics.

They do suffer local geographic problem that limits their sprawl, but that doesn't keep people from migrating there, it only keeps proper neighourhoods from developing, with proper infrastructure and with the latest urbanistic concepts and economic needs. Plus, in the case of São Paulo that just simply caused some businesses to migrate to Campinas region, which is now a metropolitan region on its own, growing fast, with one of the most high tech and specialized economies in the country (it's the "br silicon valley"), but still closely economically linked to São Paulo city.

Global cities tend to suffer with geographic problems because they are usually coastal cities, many of which located in river deltas, bays and other natural harbors that made them important in the past, but that never keeps them from growing, look at Hong Kong.
No. 6952
Interesting, I was watching other vids of that channel and in this one
he says that tax havens are typically a thing of countries of anglo heritage because of privacy laws, which keeps journalists and investigators from discovering who's behind certain accounts and companies.
No. 6954
You already basically answered your own question in the post. Regardless of which foreign forces backed Trump to begin with and who benefits, a large part of his voter base are precisely those countryside people revolting against the financial capitals like LA, NYC, and DC (by...electing the personification of NYC crookedness)

This isn't just the rural red state areas. It included places like Michigan and the Rust Belt. See the thing is oligarchs like Trump have been draining those resources into a few very heavily concentrated areas such as London, NYC, and so on and it affects not just the rest of the planet but the countryside hosting them as well. So while "USA benefits" USA doesn't benefit as a whole, rather, a smaller and smaller proportion of the country benefits. Like the rest of us really don't see any of these perks and regardless of what people like Obama and Trump want to say we've all especially been left behind since 2008. I haven't seen jack shit. The problem is that those idiots then vote for exactly the worst kinds of societal parasites as part of their "revolt".
No. 6955
Yes but other countries are profiting even less or nothing at all from this new globalized services economy. I'm well aware that this shift has its toxic sides to all national economies, including USA, but USA in the end supposedly still loses less. One would expect economic impoverishment and even political instabilities to happen in other countries before this issue becomes a national issue in USA.

It's specially weird if you compare it to other anglo countries, because they were all pretty enthusiastic about letting their industrial bases die and embrace globalization so that their cities could become global financial capitals, yet you don't hear much about problems of impoverished countryside in these countries becoming national political issues that turns into a major aversion to globalization and deindustrialization. I know that such problems do exist in England for example, brexit can be seen as an anti-globalization movement too, but London is so strong in finances that it can actually compete with NY (the only city that can do it), so in the end England also got its trade-off building a strong financial global city while losing an industrialized countryside, meanwhile other anglo countries didn't manage to be so successful in building financial or IT centers. So the pattern here seems to be more about the countries that were actually successful at building a post-industrial economy but for some reason decided to revolt against globalization.
No. 6958
Well I mean you're still forgetting two things, one of which is the massive entitlement complex of Americans (meaning their mentality of feeling entitled) and the second being that we have massive wealth inequality here.

So the question to ask is, which Americans are actually benefiting? Because the poor in this country aren't really benefiting. We've all be totally shafted. Like I said all that wealth is only being concentrated in fewer and fewer hands here. It's like confusing raw GDP with PPP. The national average does look good, but most Americans aren't making those figures. It's the super rich treating the whole country like their personal playground that pisses us off. I mean yeah, for the super rich everything's just fucking dandy. Meanwhile the rest of us aren't making much money and have fewer opportunities. It's tied into the same problem as us having this huge wave of opiate addiction.

The real measure of stability is honestly the health of a middle class. We do not have the same healthy middle class we once did and it has steadily been getting worse. This really doesn't jive well with people who grew up being told they'd be astronauts and movie stars either which is why that affects white people so much worse and why things like white suicide rates have been rising.

Like I really don't think you understand just what's going on in my country right now. Globalism did indeed serve us well in the 90s, I'll grant you that. But ever since Reagan we've just been getting angrier and more unstable and a lot of that has to do with class and ownership. People try to bring up race and frankly the racial tensions (which are nothing new at all) are just an extension of and intertwined with class tensions. So I will say it again, the people you are talking about benefiting are not ordinary Americans. Ordinary Americans are sitting in bathtubs with a shotgun in their mouth and ODing on heroin right now. Any sense of optimism we had evaporated with the budget surplus in the mid-00s. Most of us haven't seen that recovery yet as upper class continue looting the country and lining their pockets. Is it like Russia? No it's not as bad as Russia. But it keeps reminding me of it. You keep acting like those gains are being shared and distibuted around society--they are not.

And the thing that you always see in truly unstable societies is massive wealth gaps with surging unemployment particularly in youth populations, which was one of the biggest precipitating factors behind the shitshow that Arab Spring became. We have a not entirely disimilar situation here, in that a few megarich oil sheiks who own everything says fuckall about the average Arab benefiting from economic gains.

Also the thing to keep in mind is this is a big country. Like if London becomes a huge hub, that's for one small island. All of the UK is as big as one of our Northeastern states. So we end up with a few places like NYC, LA, San Fran, Houston, Chicago etc. Then you have the issues within those cities like now iirc the poverty line in San Francisco is $100,000. So if you make only like $40,000 a year in SF you're living in a shack someone built in their living room that they're renting out. So there is also that situation. I think that some of what you said was spot on but you don't seem to realize far enough that Americans generally aren't seeing the same type of gains and when you talk about it "benefiting the USA" you're really ultimately only talking about one class of people. The rest of the country is answering the calls and serving food to that class even with advanced degrees.
No. 6960
>Singapore is a special case because of its location and its size, it can't be reproduced elsewhere

I'm not so sure about it. You could very well transform important cities into a kind of private states for whatever reason, it might be unlikely know but maybe not in the future. They would still drain the countryside around it. It's just that it's not old national territory anymore.
Or lets think about half private zones at least like special economic zones. You could push these into a more authoritarian direction if it is needed.
No. 6975
No. 20452
No. 20484
City States like Tringapore or Liechtenstein mainly profit from the fact that those are autonomous entities jurisdically, so they can attract companies to settle there as letterbox branch and save a huge amount of taxes and since the population is so little the few % taxation do not seem like much in global comparison, but really matter gdp per capita wise.
You can not reproduce this model on the scale of countries like lets say China or Russia. But, those entities have cities that have first world status and a countryside that has third world status.
Arguably I would say that the US is a special case, since it is not a nation that grew and developed organically.
Also Urbanisation is a thing, in the future all of our children will probably live in megapolis. Even in Germany, which is very contra-polis itself. Even our biggest cities look more like small towns stretched out over a large area. Munich for example even forbids the construction of skyscrapers, a silly thing if you ask me.