I read an interesting article - well, the article wasn't interesting or good at all, but what it was about is. Essentially, the Australian government, after driving pretty much all of the manufacturing off shore has come to realize that,
"Hey, if global supply chains are disrupted, we're screwed mate".
And over the last couple years, that is what has happened with Covid and on top of this, there are trade disputes with China and more recently, the impact that the current "operation" (war) in Ukraine is having. So, the Prime Minister has outlined seven products that Australia should start manufacturing itself, at least for emergency needs.
• Semiconductors
• Agriculture chemicals
• Water treatment chemicals
• Telecommunications equipment
• Plastics
• Pharmaceuticals
• Personal protective equipment
Australians are becoming Industrial Preppers!
When working well, globalized supply chains can be highly efficient in many ways, but considering they are spread all over the world, they are very much centralized in the same way a production line is. You can have many stations along the line, but they are all part of the same chain, which makes them prone to the "weakest link" problem. The weakest link is more often than not, not the stations on the production line, but the centralized authorities that control them. Take away that authority and the market decides how it operates, keep the authority and the central hub decides, compounding one problem area systematically through the entire ecosystem.
As I have written about several times over the last year or more, the coming "war" is going to have a clear division between sides - the centralized and the decentralized. This is going to take many forms and touch on everything that is important to us as a species in the coming decade or so.
Using the current war fought in Ukraine currently as an example, it is pretty clear to see that this is a war of centralized control and given the option, the majority of people on either side wouldn't fight it without coercion. However, due to the centralized narratives and the potential for centralized punishment for non-compliance, people just "follow orders" and do what they have been told. If however Russia was "people owned" meaning a far greater degree of decentralized ownership and decision-making, they would never have organized any serious offensive against anyone - because decentralized systems are very hard to align and unify into one direction.
This inefficiency is a blessing and a curse, as while it going to war is highly unlikely when people have to finance and organize it themselves, it is also hard to organize anything that requires a lot of people to work together, doing many diverse tasks in order to meet a common goal.
But, this is also a strength of the design, because when that alignment does happen and the majority by in, each participant in the aligned group feels that they are not only participating, but also owning their decision to be part of the movement. Being an individual and choosing to cooperate, coordinate and collaborate is empowering. This is why when decentralized movements are successfully developed, they will move mountains.
But again, there are pros and cons here, as if the centralized narrative is able to push the masses into acting in a single way or, acting in a predictable way, that mass can be used to create all kinds of conditions that are sub-optimal for the benefit of participants. A lot of the internet movements have been commandeered in this way, hijacking the message and influencing the decision-making of participants and bystanders alike, creating division, rather than the conditions for collaboration, development and human excellence.
It looks disorganized, but it is incentive driven with centralized powers having the ability to control the narratives they target enough, that they are able to maintain and gain more power and control over the masses, whilst bleeding them dry of ownership. People think it is about money - it is not - it is about ownership of resources and they come in many forms.
It is great for a country like Finland to ramp up their education system and create a nation of knowledge workers like much of the western world has done, but the fact is that knowledge work only goes so far in the supply chain. At some point, manufacturing work has to be done, mining work, farming work, packing work. You can design the best chip in the world, but it is all theoretical until it is able to be produced and only useful to the designer if once it is produced, there is access to it.
When manufacturing and material supply chains are spread globally and often through high disparity of conditions, there are bound to be problems. When under centralized control, coercion (physical and economic) can be used to ensure supply, but eventually, after the continual process of "optimization" progresses that force increasingly poor conditions on suppliers of goods, service and labor, rebellion starts, coups become an option. At a single country level, we have seen this many times, where a government has been overthrown by force, but what is starting to happen now is the overthrowing of centralization as a concept itself.
What is happening in Australia is the realization that "renting" critical resources globally is fast becoming an unviable option and instead, ownership needs to return to Australia of key products and industries. While this looks like a centralization into a country (which it is) the ownership itself is decentralized throughout the country. This mitigates the risk of collapse through the loss of some points, as others can pick up the slack and as a whole, the entire network benefits. And even though there are a range of outcomes for individuals, the chance of a single individual becoming insanely wealthy is low, as in order to be successful, collaboration with other owners is needed, not renting just employees.
Decentralized ownership fundamentally changes the economy, as it gives everyone some skin in the game, making them responsible for their own outcomes to a far greater degree - from an economic decision-making perspective at least. When people control their own resources, in order to survive, they will look to cooperate with others locally and only once they have sorted themselves out to the point they can manage, they will look to do more than just survive and organize to work on larger projects. However, rather than forming a government of control, the move is made to form governance structures, where people can have ownership and make decisions for resource allocation and collaborative efforts still.
We are accustomed to this on Hive and whilst rudimentary and imperfect in many respects, it is a model that is going to be replicated and adjusted into many different iterations so that people have power over their resources, not the centralized authorities of today. As soon as people want to make a change in what they support, they can - meaning that the governance participants do their job, or get cut off economically. Of course, ion order to do this, information needs to be decentralized too, otherwise, those that control the communication networks, start to shape the narrative to serve themselves and influence owners to sell their stake and rent instead.
The war between centralized control and decentralized ownership isn't going to be fought in another country, it is going to be fought globally and like it or not, we are all participants on one side or the other. At some point, we are going to have to very actively choose which.
The supply chains of centralized financial control, are going to be broken by blockchains of decentralized financial ownership.
Taraz
[ Gen1: Hive ]
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
Here is a real story from a recent personal experience. Wife wanted to buy a new dining table 'recently' (early January). We went to store and she chose one with matching chairs. It was not available in their warehouse, and they mentioned the supply chain issue, which I am well aware (some ships are waitng at Long Beach, CA 21 days to dock!). So I wasn't surprised when they said it will be delivered in March 1. However, that date came and gone so we contacted the store. They said, now they don't know when will it be. May not be even May!
We cancelled the order!
Yep - I heard a story from @galenkp the other day that his friend was told that his Toyota Landcruiser will be delivered... in 4 years!!! By then, Elon Musk will be mining Mars.
My wife and I are thinking about doing our kitchen (enquiring at this point), but what are the chances of getting all the bits we need? Pretty slim. Though, perhaps now that IKEA is pulling out of Russia, some can be diverted this way :)
I understand that they don't really know the timeline, but I wish they would say, that way you can look elsewhere. it is the giving of a concrete date and then changing it that sucks.
You would think the choice is obvious. I would much prefer a decentralized outcome. Yes it is global and each of us must participate if we want to achieve this result.
You'd think it is - but I suppose that most people don't really understand what decentralization is. A friend of mine the other day said that some "crypto" she was looking into decentralized, by giving governance to 30 business leaders around the world... that is not decentralization. At least not in terms of ownership.
This is the right call as having your own manufacturing industry has to be good. I find it crazy they gave up on them in the first place. Wish every country would do this as this is the only answer.
There used to be a lot of car manufacturing in Australia. Not sure if there is any anymore.
I see it like core competencies, if you have to rent them, they aren't yours. When it is food production and raw materials needed, it is like having a river that runs through a pormtential enemies territory upstream, they can piss in it all they like at the border, or dam it up.
Jesus why didn't my country think of that! It's amazing. Seems so simple but it makes complete sense for countries to start focusing on what they need to import the most as the sector to invest in. Those Australians have heads on their shoulders.
I think it is because the Irish do things Irish ;D
They can't do everything of course, but why give up so much of what they can? Other than a little more money. It is like the fear of China - the reason they are a superpower is because we outsourced most of the world's manufacturing to them because there was more profit in it.
What is your thought on the fact that more and more countries are moving to Protectionism rather than global industrialization and trade?
I am not a fan of protectionism, but it raises an interesting question. I think that doing locally doesn't necessarily mean protecting locally, competition is still there. Then on top of that, very few countries can actually be self-sufficient with the resources they have, so collaboration is needed globally still. Then, if ownership is decentralized, the entire idea of "nations" starts to disintegrate, especially when a lot of the interaction is borderless. There is a difference between producing locally and nationalism in my opinion. I am not a fan of nations - they get in the way of us being our best selves.
During the COVID situation we saw a lot of countries harbor the vaccines for their citizens even when other nations begged for it until some got bad. That's just a case of this.
Protectionism in terms of technology and information sharing has been gradually increasing the last few years.
I read recently that China takes advantage of some African countries by getting infrastructural contracts and still use Chinese skilled and unskilled labour along with minerals gotten from the Chinese state expressly for the contract.
I dunno if I'm getting my point across.
Dear my friend @tarazkp , It is difficult for an East Asian person like me to understand your wonderful thoughts. However, I understood you argued that Australia should grow manufacturing.
I want to talk about Australia from the perspective of East Asians.
I hope you understand my awkward English first.😅
Perhaps, You may remember the fact that the Japanese Empire invaded Australia during World War II.
At the time, to the Japanese, Australia was perceived as an agricultural country without heavy industry. Because Australia could not build its own carriers, warships and submarines, the Japanese thought that Australia would fall to the Japanese invasion.
In particular, from the Japanese point of view, Australia was expected to be used as a bridgehead for the United States, so it invaded Australia with the aim of severing the network between Australia and the United States.
From the point of view of East Asians, including Japan, Australia is now recognized as an agricultural country as a bridgehead for the US domination of the Pacific Ocean.
My awkward English expression may be appropriate, but from the point of view of East Asian countries like China and Japan, Australia would be understood in a similar position to Finland.
Perhaps, From the perspective of powerful Asian empires such as Japan and China, Australia will be understood as a Finnish-level country with weak self-defense.
I hope my kind friend @tarazkp will understand my awkward English expression!
They didn't get very far. Got a bit stuck along the way. though a couple subs were destroyed in Sydney harbour I think.
By agricultural countries, do you mean they just grow stuff? I am not sure that is the case since the 50s for either Australia or Finland. Finland definitely not now, since the paper industry is much smaller, but the tech industry is large.
Perhaps. But Australia also hosts the early-warning missile system for the US, so if it would come at a heavy price for whoever attacked it, as it would draw the US immediately into battle. And, Australia does have a professional army, so they could likely hold their own for a little while.
In Finland, there is a small professional army, but pretty much all men are trained. Also, if the attack came into Finland, it would be seen as a move against the "true" West, so would draw others into battle from Europe at least. It would be WWIII once the border was crossed.
Yeah, I understnd! Dear my friend @tarazkp, I will write an article on the perspectives of the East Asian overlords in their evaluation of Australia in the next.
I hope your health and happy!😄
What’s the feeling in Finland, do you think Russia will go there next?
I don't think so. If they did, it would be WWIII, as Finland is EU and I am pretty sure there is a directive to protect EU. The ex-Ukrainian president stopped them joining the EU.
Also, if they attack Finland, it would be a move against "the west" as Finland is definitely not Eastern Bloc. And on top of that, other than trees, water and engineers - there is not much for them here.
Oh, and some people are "scared" but they are always thinking Russia is coming for them.
I'm pretty sure this was a foreseen problem but as much money as possible right this second is infinitely more important than pointless things like long term problems XD
Still trying to nut this particular problem out x_x infrastructure is stupid expensive.
It was foreseen, it has been spoken about for years where it will lead. But I wonder, perhaps not having major conflict for so long has made us complacent.
Even after the infrastructure, if all of the news is coming from a handful of sources and they are also the ones who verify, what chance is there?
Once upon a time a very long time ago, I watched a news segment get something I knew a lot about so incredibly wrong that they had to have done it deliberately because even the fasted seearch 5min before the segment would have made them get it more right than they did.
And that was on something unimportant (so much so I literally can't even remember what it was about, just the memory of me being really mad because of how WRONG they were stuck with me XD).
That was the event that made me question how much this "reputtable" and "reliable" source of information that people seem to believe infallible got wrong (deliberately or otherwise) and both statistically and demonstrably it seems I'm not the only one that thinks like that, so I'm not that worried in the grand scheme about news from only a handful of sources staying as the one true authority.
perhaps I should be but I am an optimistic idealist, or an idealistic optimist, I'm not sure which one
Infrastructure that can be shut down on a whim on the other hand >_<
We say keep a thing seven years and you'll always find a use for it for such conditions. Relying on the global supply chain for what you can produce is not sensible. Australia is a developed country can produce personal protective equipment.
7 years seems to be a thing - maybe it is the 7-year itch issue, where supposedly, all the cells in our body are changed over 7 years, meaning we are completely new people. Not sure if that is true or not :)
I prefer decentralized outcome but I know people still do not understand the true meaning of crypto but it is spreading little by little and this is good.
Keep reading :)
Congratulations @tarazkp! You have completed the following achievement on the Hive blockchain and have been rewarded with new badge(s):
Your next target is to reach 51000 comments.
You can view your badges on your board and compare yourself to others in the Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPTo support your work, I also upvoted your post!
Check out the last post from @hivebuzz:
decentralized blockchains have come to the rescue to set individuals lose from the controlling habit of centralized financial supply chains indeed.