by fuzzfactor | 2025-05-19 22:15:40+00:00
>Globalization is generally considered to have begun in the 1700's

Yup, because you can't have very extensive globalization without bigger ships than you had beforehand, and more of them.

And historically the ships have always needed to be welcome in ports around the globe more so than not.

When you think about it, the USA was founded by multi-national corporations for the benefit of multi-national corporations. They were the ones who could best afford to send ships this way consistently enough.

>maybe that's not the right unit when measuring jobs.

Yeah I think you still need to first measure cargo by the tonne. And then some. The jobs required are already completed by the time the vessel is loaded. What you really have is different cargoes in different amounts at different values in different currencies in disparate locations. The value earned by the manufacturer and trader may represent the work of a wildly different number of jobs or "equivalent" "man"-"hours" exchanged between global operators, even when the balance of trade is considered neutral by one party or another. Then further in some type of job-number terms, different numbers of jobs have different impact on different locations and at different times, even if the currency involved is agreeable to all parties over the long term. So there are a number of moving-target variables other than just dollars or any one currency, and beyond jobs or even absolute tonnage. One thing's sure, any one currency alone is not a very realistic measure of trade balance by long shot.

And different amounts of tonnage may benefit some locations more than others, while also not capable of being well-correlated with any currency value assigned, therefore difficult to account for using financial balance. You do have to also consider that all kinds of trades are made where at least one party is not actually getting their money's worth, sometimes all parties, and trades are still made willingly because they will all still make money in the end anyway, just maybe not as much as they had originally hoped for. Then how do you compare ship after ship of things that may be cheap and fly off the shelf in one currency but still not be worth the money and/or any hidden exchange deficit by far? Against return vessels of a full-value commodity at fair market prices, where everyone gets their money's worth almost every voyage? Time after time different things are bound to add up in different ways.

Now by 1973 the opportunities for prosperity were receding noticeably faster than the previous couple years and it looked like the dollar would be down to half its purchasing power like nobody ever dreamed and there was nothing that could be done about it. There did turn out to be no avoiding that milestone which was reached by about 1976, because basically under Nixon the fox had been in the henhouse longer than people were led to believe.

This set millions of working people back a decade or two, quite a few of them back a few generations. Plain & simple, if you could almost afford a car in 1971, by the time 1976 came around, you could almost afford half a car. If you were among the lucky ones to still have a job. Things were not only stagnant with fewer jobs for workers of all types, but there was no end in sight for anybody.

People just had to accept that nobody would be able to afford anything like they did before, especially employers offering decent-paying jobs, until things returned to normal. But years went by and there was still no sign that things would improve even for those who retained employment. Every year for the rest of the 1970's and well into the "belt-tightening of the '80's" people had to become accustomed to the fact that if "normal" was ever going to come back, it was so many years beyond the horizon that it would be difficult to know if you were really moving in that direction or not any more.

You think that was bad for working people? If you had a decent-paying career underway at the time earning about $40,000, and had to start over at entry-level of $20,000 that's only a $20,000 setback per year. Basically for the rest of your life but who's keeping score? However on a different scale if you had $100 million in liquid assets (regardless of whether there was any excess that was illiquid or not) you likely could barely make the purchases that merely cost $50 million only a few years earlier. That kind of $50 million loss of purchasing power as it nosedived along with everybody else was way beyond the scale suffered by average working people. So the very rich were "devastated" in a league of their own after much bigger dreams had been dashed than a working person can realistically muster no matter what. But at least they were still rich.

And realistically some of them were so well-heeled and so powerfully connected that they might be able to recover their lost purchasing power, if they pulled out all the stops in the most selfish and greedy way possible, most likely if it was at the expense of the greatest number of the financially weakest workers possible, and it still might not happen during the rich patriarch's remaining lifetime. But if everything went well, and if the earnings of capital from labor could be made more disproportionate, better in line with the mid-19th century for instance, they ought to be back at the top of their game by the 21st century at the latest. By that time it would surely require a significant multiple of what the "lost" $50 million would buy in 1971, which was already made impossible to calculate very realistically before the end of the '70's. Due to all the manipulation of sentiment over the years trying to stoke a consumer recovery which ended up existing only in the statistics but not on the ground. So the most financially powerful really had to pull out all the stops and not hold back ever since.

Anyway that's the vibe I got from the yachting community at the time.

And here we are.