![]() |
|
Sunday, June 25, 2006
previous entry | main | next entry | TrackBack (0)
Capitalism 1, Nationalism 0
One of the great things about capitalism is that when there is enough money at stake, national prejudices fall by the wayside. Which brings us to Mittal Steel's latest acquisition. Heather Timmons and Anand Giridharadas explain in the New York Times: A new steel giant is being created out of a bitter battle, after Arcelor agreed today to a merger with its rival Mittal Steel in a deal valued at 26.8 billion euros, or $33.5 billion.Timmons and Giridharadas also raise The Big Question in the closing paragraphs: The fight for Arcelor was closely watched around the world, as it evolved into a clash between two major forces shaping the world economy: the ascendancy of India and China as sources of new business models and ambitious new companies, and a rising tide of protectionism in the West, fueled by anxiety that new competition will erode a way of life.
Comments: Well, except that no one I know in the steel industry can figure out exactly what Mittal are going to DO with all their acquisitions. Operating in third world countries is one thing, but you can't just improve your results by turning off all of your pollution control equipment in Belgium. Nor can you just assume that a $60 billion steel company will be more efficient than two $30 billion companies; experience says it might well be LESS efficient. Cranky posted by: Cranky Observer on 06.25.06 at 05:16 PM [permalink]Another way of looking at this deal: one can often convince someone with too much money to pay too much. The only sensible thing Mittal can do with Arcelor is shut it down. That may very well work out quite well for Mittal. Of course net exporters with surpluses will make direct investments in net importers. But let's not kid ourselves that the process will be elegant or pleasant. One might want to consider the substrates of global capitalist triumphalism: Calvinist elitism, teleological corruptions of evolutionary theory, and so on. Lots of people seem to be underestimating the number of dead ends globalization will entail. And Singaporese diploids saying "ain't" for pithy emphasis doesn't help. posted by: CS on 06.25.06 at 05:16 PM [permalink]Cranky Observer, Mittal steel's strategy is to enable the consolidation of the steel industry, and this merger might just about stimulate this consolidation. Steel is risky business because of the highly fragmented nature of the industry, which means steel companies have little control. Further mergers and acquisitions of this kind would ensure greater stability. posted by: vkri on 06.25.06 at 05:16 PM [permalink]I'm sure Mittal's strategy is "consolidation" of the steel industry, leading to greater "control" and "stability" for leading suppliers. Sounds like a pending antitrust train wreck. posted by: CS on 06.25.06 at 05:16 PM [permalink]yes, this is greater stability and price control for the steel companies-i.e more money for Mr Mittal, among others. He is clearly in this for the money after all. posted by: vkri on 06.25.06 at 05:16 PM [permalink]Um, right. And the impulse to "greater stability and price control" is exactly why the US, EU nations, etc have well-developed antitrust law. The intent is to limit any seller's, or group of sellers', price control. Globalization is deemed good when it increases competition and decreases price control by sellers. Attempts at global consolidation of sectors will collide with national antitrust doctrine. posted by: CS on 06.25.06 at 05:16 PM [permalink]Correct me if I'm wrong, what connection does he actually have with India or its economy. I'd venture to say nothing. Much ado about nothing. And by all appearences it was a bad deal for Mittal. Some might argue that the score board should read Nationalism 1, Capitalism 0 Actually, Nationalism 0, Capitalism 0. posted by: CS on 06.25.06 at 05:16 PM [permalink]And meanwhile, a Russian oligarch, Alexei Mordashov, walks off with $140 million of Arcelor's money as a kiss-off from their failed deal. Hats off to the Arcelor managers. They may have sounded like a bunch racists, but in the end they got a really good deal for their shareholders. posted by: SteinVT on 06.25.06 at 05:16 PM [permalink]Post a Comment: |
Politics, economics, globalization, academia, pop culture... all from a
Main home page Reviews of DanielDrezner.com: "Sharp but informal commentary on politics and foreign policy." -- The New Republic "Dan Drezner is terrific.... Excellent blog." -- Andrew Sullivan "Dan's stuff is always worth reading." -- Eugene Volokh "One of the essential weblogs." -- Gawker.com "Old battle horse of the blogosphere." -- Jewcy.com "Soft porn." -- Amitai Etzioni "Spawned grave atrocities and vast destruction." -- Glenn Greenwald "Monday morning quarterback... conservative robot... the very foundation of troubles in this country." -- not-so-random readers Contact me at: ddrezner@gmail.com (But click here to read my e-mail policy) Search the Site TNR's Open University Jacob Levy Glenn Reynolds Andrew Sullivan Mickey Kaus Virginia Postrel The Volokh Conspiracy Josh Marshall Crooked Timber OxBlog Real Clear Politics Kevin Drum Across the Aisle Economist's Free Exchange TNR's The Plank NRO's The Corner TAP's Tapped America Abroad Duck of Minerva Opinio Juris Brad DeLong Jeff Jarvis Mystery Pollster Mark Kleiman Meryl Yourish Megan McArdle Marginal Revolution Michael Munger Chris Lawrence Matthew Yglesias Hit and Run Cold Spring Shops Stephen Green Outside the Beltway Pejman Yousefzadeh Laura McKenna (11D) Elected Swineherd Phil Carter Joe Gandelman Winds of Change Andrew Samwick Greg Mankiw Dani Rodrik Roger L. Simon Tom Maguire Greg Djerejian The American Scene Post Global Democracy Arsenal Recent articles online "Foreign Policy Goes Glam."The National Interest, November/December 2007 "Rise of the Hipster Statesmen." Newsweek International, November 1, 2007 "The New New World Order." Foreign Affairs, March/April 2007 "Mind the Gap." The National Interest, January/February 2007 "The Grandest Strategy Of Them All." Washington Post, December 17, 2006 U.S. Trade Strategy: Free Versus Fair Council on Foreign Relations Press, September 2006. Complete online article archive Blog Archives June 2008May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 December 2002 November 2002 October 2002 September 2002 Academia Area studies Book club culture economics fence-sitting from Blogger globalization homeland security international relations law Mediasphere My very important posts New Republic outsourcing personal politics Sports The blog paper the blogosphere thesis ideas Trade and Development U.S. foreign policy website maintenance See full archives listing Recent Entries • Someone keep Fleet Street away from Bill Clinton• It rivals Buckley vs. Vidal, I tell you • So.... are the Clintons morons? • The New York Times didn't ask me, but then again, that's why I have this blog • Monica Crowley's jet black pot • Al Qaeda is losing • Speaking of karma.... • The blog post that writes itself • What made me laugh today • Where should Hillary go? Site Credits |