Globalisation & Trade
Why Your T-Shirt Has Visited More Countries Than You Have
The cotton in your shirt may have been grown in one country, spun in another, woven in a third, dyed in a fourth, and stitched into shape in a fifth — before being shipped to a warehouse you'll never visit, sold through a server farm on a different continent entirely.
The Idea
Most people think of trade as one country selling a finished thing to another. Country A grows wheat, ships it to Country B, done. But the reality of modern global supply chains is far stranger and more intricate than that. What actually moves around the world isn't usually finished goods — it's fragments of goods, each fragment optimised to be made wherever on earth it can be made most efficiently. Economists call this 'vertical specialisation' or the 'global value chain.' The idea is that a product's production process gets sliced into discrete tasks — raw material extraction, component manufacturing, assembly, finishing, quality control, distribution — and each task migrates to wherever it can be done at the best combination of cost, skill, and speed. A smartphone might have its processor designed in the United States, fabricated in Taiwan, its rare earth minerals mined in the Democratic Republic of Congo, its screen made in South Korea, and its final assembly happening in China or Vietnam. What makes this genuinely surprising is how recent it is. Until containerisation made ocean freight cheap and reliable in the 1970s and 80s, this kind of fragmentation was mostly impossible. A supply chain spanning fifteen countries was too slow, too risky, too expensive to coordinate. The shipping container — arguably one of the least glamorous objects in history — made it viable. Then digital communication made it manageable. The result is a world where 'Made in X' is a polite fiction: almost nothing is made entirely anywhere.
In the World
In 2011, a magnitude-9 earthquake struck off the coast of Japan, triggering a tsunami that killed nearly twenty thousand people and crippled the Fukushima nuclear plant. It was a human catastrophe. It was also, unexpectedly, a catastrophe for car factories in the American Midwest. A small town called Hitachinaka, home to a factory run by a company called Renesas Electronics, was badly damaged in the disaster. Renesas made microcontrollers — unglamorous chips the size of a thumbnail that manage tiny functions inside cars: window motors, seat adjusters, airbag sensors. Their global market share for these specific chips was around forty percent. There was essentially no one else who could supply them at scale on short notice. Within weeks, General Motors, Toyota, Ford, Chrysler, and dozens of other manufacturers worldwide began halting or slowing production lines — not because their own factories were damaged, but because they couldn't get a chip the size of your fingernail that cost a few units of local currency to produce. Car plants in Ohio and Michigan sat idle because of a factory in coastal Japan that most of their engineers had never heard of. This is what supply chain economists call a 'single point of failure' — and the 2011 disaster revealed just how many of them were quietly buried inside the global system, invisible until they snapped. The same dynamic played out again during the pandemic, when a global chip shortage idled car production lines across three continents for the better part of two years.
Why It Matters
Understanding supply chains reframes how you think about fragility and price. When the cost of something you buy suddenly spikes — electronics, cars, building materials, medicines — it's rarely simple greed or incompetence. It's often the visible symptom of a hidden knot untangling somewhere far away in a network nobody fully mapped. It also reframes how you think about resilience. Governments and companies are now actively trying to 'reshore' or 'friendshore' critical supply chains — bringing production of key goods back home or to allied countries. This sounds sensible, but it comes at a cost: the efficiency gains that made global supply chains attractive in the first place were real. Redundancy and resilience are expensive. Someone pays for them, usually the end consumer. Personally, this knowledge is useful when you're making decisions that depend on stable prices or product availability. It's also useful as a corrective to simple narratives about trade — both the triumphalist version ('globalisation lifts all boats') and the protectionist one ('bring it all back home'). The truth is a dense, interdependent web that nobody fully controls and everyone depends on.
A Question to Ponder
If the efficiency of the global supply chain depends on nothing going wrong, and things always eventually go wrong somewhere, what would you actually be willing to pay — in higher prices or reduced choice — for a world that was less efficient but less brittle?
Get a new one of these every morning.
Start learning with Thinkable