The J-curve for accepting globalisation?

Ian Bremmer of the Eurasia Group, a political consultancy, has talked of the “J-curve”. His point is that as countries open up they become more volatile before they become more stable. Perhaps Britain’s debate on Brexit reveals a second J-curve towards the top of the development path: where folk feel safe enough to challenge the globalised establishment but not rich enough to be part of it. Hence it is the lower-middle class of wealthy and sophisticated societies, rather than citizens of poorer ones, who seem to be the vanguard of populist politics. It is notable that in Britain, as in other northern European countries, this is storming ahead a few years after the economic crisis, once some growth has returned and unemployment has fallen. It takes a dab of security to rebel against the system.

But, as with developing countries on the J-curve, the country will one day emerge from its limbo. In Mr Bremmer’s scheme, growing openness powers countries through the bend. For this new J-curve it is growing economic and cultural confidence about globalisation among the majority. Increasing numbers of Britain’s young people are going to university. Its immigrant population is growing and integrating successfully. The prevailing conception of nationality is becoming more civic (a function of values, not background) and less nativist. With each generation, the world’s integration is becoming steadily less controversial.

That is from Bagehot at The Economist.  Here is my previous post on related topics.


"With each generation, the world’s integration is becoming steadily less controversial."

Look how second generation Omar Mateen introduced global values to provincial Orlando, Florida.

If we kicked all the muslims out, this would not be an issue.
There's the "integrating successfully" moronic liberals like you should be praising. "Integration" through separation. It's what has worked consistently throughout human history.

OK I've got my first data point. No disappointment so far.

In other words, if we kick all the Muslims out who's gonna do the gay-killing?

The upside of open borders: Billion dollar bills lying on the street!!!!

The downside: Some of them are lying under the bodies of gay people murdered by people who got in with open borders.....

Never grow up msgkings. You are a classic. I know there have to be times when you tromp up from your parents basement where you think- is it worth should I maybe just act like an adult? Ignore it- that's pride talking. Keep being you. You do more for the conservative movement than you could ever imagine with your feckless, lazy leftism.

We should restrict the right to vote for those people on the lists while we're at it.

Social conservatives seems to be handling changes in society fine, or at least peacefully.

Isn't the obvious question, rather, how a modern secular state will handle a rapidly growing population of people who believe things like homosexuality and apostasy require the penalty of death.

It's not you have to speculate. Jews have largely abandoned Malmö, gays are being bashed in Amsterdam and thousands of girls are being genitally mutilated in the UK, where the official response has been to allow almost 100 sharia courts to adjudicate family matters in which the woman is given less equality under the law than men.

Face it, the left is scornful of emasculated christians, and deathly afraid to draw a cartoon about Islam.

"I’ll be curious how the social conservatives handle this one."

I think the more interesting story will be the reaction of the left. A Muslim of Afghani background just killed a bunch of Latino homosexuals. It's almost like diversity isn't our strength because none of these diverse groups actually like each other.

Reminds me of the time blacks in California voted against gay marriage, or when Asians killed the return of Affirmative Action.

There are two competing "simple" narratives here. One is "he's a Muslim!" The other is "he was on a watch list and bought an AR-15 days before using it!"

If we have a problem in America, it is that those simple narratives are politically mutually exclusive. They don't connect, so there is no change in policy.

If it turns out the guy in Hollywood was just a "normal" American with weapons, hundreds of rounds of ammunition, and explosives in his car, what does that say?

And who just happened to be interviewed by the F.B.I. three times before the tragedy took place.

It turns out, you know actually, not in our fevered imagination, that the guy in Florida worked as in security in Federal buildings, had been looked at by the FBI, his co workers had reported his unhingedness.

An Isis inspired guy pulled off the difficult feat of killing 50 people alone by using his exquisite American security training techniques.

They have excellent gun control in France don't they. What they lack is the programs to train your own enemy terrorists.

It is possible that the other guy is just going to be released with a fine for having the wrong kind of magazines. When other folks walk around town with an AR-15, they may be patriotic 2nd amendment supporters. Pull the trigger and in that second they become a terrorist.

We have a very thin line here, which is different than France. The missing middle ground in this conversation is that no one wants to talk about how to change that. It's like we've decided, idiot Americans that we are, that everybody can gun-up, walk or drive around, and then decide what kind of gun owner they want to be.

What is the relevance of buying it days before using it?

Which constitutional rights do you support revoking without due process of law as a result of being on a "watch list"?

We could easily combine the two narratives, especially considering that muslims are over-represented on the watch list. "He's a Muslim that was on a watch list and bought an AR-15 days before using it."

What change in policy do you suggest - banning muslims from owning firearms? Banning muslims on watch lists from owning firearms? Introducing a waiting period for muslims who want to purchase firearms?

I have shot lots of guns, I have hunted. I own no guns currently. I could live happily under the Australian system of gun categories and uses. To be completely honest, I think that anyone who thinks the Australian system is tyranny, has a screw loose.

From the little I've read, Australia appears to require having both a license and a "genuine reason" to own even low-capacity hunting rifles and shotguns. I don't know if "exercising my constitutional rights" counts as a genuine reason. But I think extending licensing requirements and requiring reasons to own such firearms is an unacceptable abrogation of individual liberty, and defeats a primary purpose of the right to bear arms.

Even in NY, I can own my simple rifles and shotguns without a license and for whatever reason. I firmly believe that every non-felon adult US citizen has the right, and should have the right, to own such weapons without the government's permission.

But I am not an absolutist gun nut. Yet when people talk about "reasonable regulation," they usually disregard the potentially ugly details. Namely, that if our criminal justice system is racist, then the implementation of such regulations will surely fall disproportionately on minorities. Or, alternatively, if we do checks into people's "mental health," it involves a significant invasion of privacy, and there are a whole lot of "mental health issues." How are we going to settle on a limited number of such issues that warrant restricting their freedoms, and why are we okay with doing so, even though they have not yet done anything wrong?

I guess the crux of it is that if we think it is normal and American to drive around with an AR-15 and a few hundred rounds of ammunition, then we just accept it is the "user's option" to get out and shoot.

I say I could live under the Australian system, but I'd be open to really anything that makes walking/driving armed less normal. I'd be happy with anything that made owning an AR-15, less of an American icon.

I know people who bought them so that Obama couldn't take them. Wrap your head around that.

How about a compromise that allows non-felon adult US citizens the same firearm rights as our domestic police forces (state and federal), with a floor level of ownership that can't be abrogated (i.e., cops and citizens at minimum have the right to own low-capacity shotguns and standard-hunting-caliber, low capacity rifles). Then if we want to ban citizens from owning high capacity weapons, we ban the police as well. You don't like the average guy driving around with a bunch of ammo and an AR-15, I don't like the 100 cops standing around the perimeter similarly armed. A collective disarmament seems in order.

I wouldn't be surprised if a considerable percentage of Muslims with origins in places like Afghanistan, Iraq, ect, have been "watched" in some way by the government. They must be doing something with all that Homeland Security money.

No, simply false. You are trying to impose the left's narrative which includes (a) those intolerant right-wingers just hate Muslims and (b) it's too easy to get a gun - we need commonsense gun control. The left cannot admit that Islam is intolerant of other religions and ways of life. Most Muslims in the west do not try to kill infidels, because they just want to get along and they ignore certain parts of their creed. But the beliefs that motivate Muslim killers are there in the Koran and the teaching of the clerics. Where are the "moderate" Muslims who say that this is against their teaching? Once Muslims are in control of a country or become the majority in a district, there is a strong tendency to enforce their own codes, which are in opposition to the liberal societies in the West. There can be no compromise.

As far as guns go, several other commenters have answered.

A lot of words to pretend that all American shooters are Muslims.

Muslims are over represented especially in recent years. There were 81 people killed in mass murder by Muslims in the US since 2013 even though they are only 1% of the population. Gun control did not save the victims of the Bataclan in France or at the airport in Brussels. Anyway those guys can blow themselves up. 70% of french men in prison are Muslim even though they are ~ 10% of the population.

in France one Muslim with allegiance to IS killed a police commander and his wife with a knife today

The writer seems to get the brexit movement exactly backwards
at least according to Brexit The Movie ( )
The argument for exit is that britain joined the EU believing that it is a way to expand its trade but ended up locked in Fortress Europe and denied global free trade
So the working class and the middle class aren't challenging globalization
They are challenging the local elites trying to stop globalization

That doesn't seem right, many pro-Brexit people know that leaving the EU will be challenging economically, they just want their sovereignity back.

How would analysis of Brexit change if viewed from a perspective of political systems optimization rather than a referendum on globalization, a referendum on Brussels not on free trade? (I thought that many Leave supporters actually want free trade?) Given that free trade (and even free migration) require only a treaty not a government, and not even a treaty if done unilaterally, what is the purpose and function, if any, of a supra-national government like the one in Brussels? As an admittedly not particularly well-informed observer, I understand the Leave side's discomfort with loss of sovereignty, but I have not heard any argument from the Remain camp about the advantages, if any, of supra-national government.

What if Leave supporters are not rejecting globalization, just loss of sovereignty? The two are not synonymous, even if both ultra-nationalists and internationalists have reasons for conflating them. For example, NAFTA does not seem to require an NA government in Saskatchewan, nor have open border advocates called for one.

> I have not heard any argument from the Remain camp about the
> advantages, if any, of supra-national government.

Excellent point.

"The prevailing conception of nationality is becoming more civic (a function of values, not background) and less nativist."

The Economist and the rest of the faggy elite dreaming up visions of a multi culti utopia seem really not to have any idea what normal people think and feel.

Indian immigrants seem to do OK, but again Muslim immigration is failing. The Bangladeshis and the Pakistanis are not integrating, They live in ethnic colonies in the UK.

This shoudl be Clfif's law (someone else may have thought of it first but I can't find it because - hey, I don't want to look)


Find two populations of people that are matched as closely as possible in all parameters but religion.

If one of those groups is muslim, they will perform worse than the other in terms of economic and academic achievement and will be overrepresented in most measure of social dysfunction.

You're welcome.

If you're doing economic matching as part of the matching, seems a bit circular. Nethertheless, matching African American Muslims and Christians and irreligious could be a subject of interest.

Is this anything more than my freshman econ thesis: incomes will tend to equalize globally under a globalization regime? Of course the people who occupy a privileged labor space will rationally oppose a redistribution of their position to the third world. Ethically, globalization is the right choice but Peter Sinfer and Tyler Cowen won't be losing their wealth and statis under that ethical regime.

Let's talk redistribution of executive, intellectual, and political positions to see the real devotion to ethics of our leaders.

Singer*, status*

Its immigrant population is growing and integrating successfully.

The Economist has to double down on their anti-British pro-multicultural self loathing. It is a shame. They need this sort of clever disguised sneer at people who disagree with them. If they accepted that sensible people have sensible reasons for opposing the abolition of the West, their self-righteous feelings of moral superiority would disappear.

Britain's immigrant population is not integrating successfully.

Counter theory: People only got upset when they realized Islamic immigrants were a growing force and not an avoidable novelty.

No, no, that's not a counter-theory, it's part of the same one.

I'm sure there was a J-curve for accepting Nazi rule in Germany. A J-curve for accepting sharia law in Armenia, Anatolia, Syria, etc. A J-curve for accepting socialism in Venezuela. In other words, sometimes Bad ideas become strong enough to suppress dissent. That's when the J-curve starts. (good ideas generally not require suppression to take root)

Once the avalanche has started, it is too late for the pebbles to vote. Don't begrudge the people from reacting, because they feel they're trying to stop an avalanche. Provide solid evidence and reasoning to reassure them and they will be on your side--sow fear, uncertainty, and doubt, and you are starting a fire you cannot control.

The Economist back in the late 1980s and early 1990s beat the drum for the original "J-curve" for free trade, but it never materialized. I suspect this one won't either.

Brits are looking at the millions of third-world barbarians pouring into Germany and saying "No thanks". It looks like Merkel will be the person to destroy the EU.

I've yet to see a plausible explanation for her reckless decision. Drink? Drugs? Cognitive decline? Onset of madness?

More reckless than W invading Iraq. Reckless to the point of Godwin's Law: the equivalent of marching on Moscow.

Invading Iraq was like sticking your hand into a hornets' nest. Merkel's open borders policy is like taking dozens of hornets' nests and festooning them throughout your house and encouraging them to breed, so you can collect their delicious hornet-honey.

Racial integration works great until there is an honest disagreement and the threats of racism come out or a terror attack. Young people are going to university, to engage in campus activism or take out loans they can't pay back.

It's conventional wisdom that opposition to globalization is bottom-up, a grass roots effort of mainly white, lower to middle class, blue collar workers. Of course, conventional wisdom is usually wrong, and it's wrong about opposition to globalization. During the first phase of globalization, which I will call virtual globalization, American firms moved production of their products to low cost developing countries (mainly China), engaged in creative if questionable tax avoidance practices, and reaped the rewards of lower costs, higher profits, and lower taxes. That phase is coming to an end. In its place is actual not virtual globalization, in which firms in China (and other countries) develop, manufacture, and sell their own products for their own reward to compete with the American firms. American firms see this phase on the horizon and are preparing for a round of protectionism to insulate their products and their profits from actual (as opposed to virtual) globalization. Of course, having sold out American labor by shifting production of their products overseas, the hypocrisy of seeing American firms pleading with Congress to protect their low cost, low tax, and high profit ways would have caused even Congress to blush. So instead we get the conventional wisdom that the new-found protectionism is a bottom-up, grass roots movement. Wars, including trade wars, are top-down not bottom-up events.

Luton is a great example of successful integration in the UK; here is a lovely video of the free exchange of cultures at a cultural festival:

You have to be a real hate-in-your-soul racist to have a problem with this.

I think Tyler betrays his biases more blatantly here. He speaks about this as if it were no different from the general trend to globalization over the last hundred years. But much of that change -- at least in the Anglo-American liberal sphere occurred earlier in a time of strong Western norms and the spread of improved political institutions. Many of us in contrast, see the last twenty or thirty years as a debasement of Western authority and liberal norms while the liberal West free rides on the innovations of a more tradiitonal generation. Improvements in technology and some of the benefits of Asia modernizing have helped to paper over the cracks. But as recent research has shown, the benefits of free trade were never as widely distributed as the chattering classes liked to believe, in a period when the Social capital built up from the Victorian period through the 1950s was being debased to make way for multiculturalism, and unilateral disarmament with respect to cultural struggle has been foisted on the public as both progressive and inevitable. Moreover, to ensure that these changes are not easily reversed, immigration policy since the 1960s and even worse the willful non-enforcement of the restraints that remain are designed to import a demographic that will make it increasingly harder to reverse. No more melting pot or assimilation. The cultural left likes to tell all to just lie back and enjoy it. The push back from the middle and the blowback suffered in attacks by Muslims make clear that these changes are not so very good, even if you feel you're cloistered in Silicon Valley or Manhattan. And just wait till China really throws its weight around and starts moving the goalposts for war.

Multiculturalism works great for everyone, white children were raped and authorities deliberately turned a blind eye so as to not be accused of racism.

In a parallel universe globalization could just mean free trade between many high wage nations. Comparative advantage would rule, and everyone would be happy.

When we, in this timeline say globalization, we mean a billion Chinese dumped on a global labor market. That is a one time event with huge consequences. I don't think abstract arguments about general trade or general globalization apply.

For many years it was kind of uncouth to talk about Foxxcon and $1/hr hour wages. I still is, I guess. We get one group talking about globalization and the populists talking about China cheating us. From what I can see very little serious discussion of a global wage down around $1.

Could add that most of the populists don't want to talk about China and one billion workers, they want to talk about ~11 million illegal immigrants. One billion is much bigger than 11 million, people. It's impact on incomes is much higher.

There are three things happening that each in itself would create foundation shaking challenges.

1. The billion Chinese. Not a one off, there are a billion Indians. And 1.1 billion Africans as a whole. I figured out long ago that I'm in direct competition with my labor against 3 billion people willing to work for 1/85 of what I charge. I'm lucky because I have a locally necessary and valuable skill.

2. Immigration. This becomes the face of the change. Although it also means direct competition for low skilled workers. And high skilled workers. And mid skilled workers. And the odd time one of them decides to shoot 50 gay people.

3. Technical change. There is a real division in the market between those who can cope and those who can't. Hillary can call upon her hordes of hangers on and apologists to cover for her lack of technical wherewithal. If I can't fix the black box buggy and inscrutable thing that doesn't work, spending hours tracking down documents or someone who knows more than 'try unplugging and plugging it in', I don't get paid. In my industry we are facing extraordinary change, everything I know from years of experience is changing. I'm training people, and it is very very difficult to keep up. Many quit. The 80/20 rule that exists in almost every occupation essentially ends up meaning that the 20 are the only ones who can operate and produce. What happens to the other 80? It isn't education, or training; the educators and trainers can't keep up, and you can't teach 'how to troubleshoot a black box where the documentation is a rough chinese-english translation that is woefully inadequate, or where some stupid intellectual property lawyer thought that any hint of how it works would be counterproductive'.

One would be challenging, but all three are ridiculous. The exquisitely educated elite may need lessons on how to heal pitchfork wounds.

"Could add that most of the populists don’t want to talk about China and one billion workers, they want to talk about ~11 million illegal immigrants. One billion is much bigger than 11 million, people. It’s impact on incomes is much higher."

Uncertain. The 11 million illegal immigrants, plus all the legal immigrants, can compete much more effectively with American workers than can 1 billion people on the other side of the planet.

Here's my mental model: If you go into Walmart there is maybe 1 floor worker per 1000 different products on the shelves. Each of those thousand products has maybe an average of 100 manufacturing workers you don't see. To be fair, maybe the Walmart floor worker is backed by 5 or 10 you don't see. That makes a ratio of 10 American workers you see to 100,000 (often Chinese) workers you don't see? Kind of like an iceberg.

My numbers may be off, and probably not every department at Walmart is equally "made in China," but I think most people just ignore the part they can't see.

Actually it goes further than that. You don't see small engine repair shops any more. The reason is because it is cheaper to buy a new lawn mower or chainsaw than get the year and a half old one fixed.

The same is true of household appliances. The last local shop closed last year.

We are seeing it with commercial appliances. It is more expensive to fix a $1800 appliance than to replace it. They last 3-5 years. The stainless steel cabinets will last a couple millennia, and future generations will marvel at the insanity of the age.

It is the convergence of three trends; cheap immigrant labor, cheap oversees production, cheap manufacturing processes.

It is easiest to throw a rock at the mexican who is selling tacos on the street corner.

The Saudi embassy recommends tourists to obey the Swiss law to avoid fines.

Don't forget that this Christian vs Muslims story is less of a tragedy a more of a farce. Enjoy the play.

Adjusting to globalization can probably be reckoned to setting a bone. Painful but probably necessary.

So the story goes. I told a friend the other day that we are witnessing the end of globalization. He wasn't sure, and listed all the advantages. All real and true.

But you cannot have a functioning country where 10% are productive and competitive, 40% lives off government or benefits, the other 50% seeing their lives get worse year on year.

RIght now we have a situation where the mixed up Chinese market is moving vast amounts of cash into real estate into Vancouver. For every one person whose property is bought up at ridiculous inflated prices, there are how many who can't afford a place to live, how many companies are getting squeezed trying to afford employees who can't afford housing, etc.? Historically when the ill winds blew everyone, or almost everyone had to tighten, even the wealthy. Now there are a small number of people making off with riches with the majority losing.

This isn't about a cheap Iphone. That is the benefit of globalization. A real one. That was the result of the upside curve. We are on a neutral or downside.

Maybe the J curve is actually what we are seeing, but invert it.

I have posited here that Greece, Spain and other debt ridden catastrophes are the natural consequence of a vendor financing scheme gone awry. Germany primarily, financed the purchase of their economic output to these countries, and the whole thing hit the wall.

The rich western countries may be in a similar situation. Essentially the US and to a lesser extent Britain has a role in the world economy as consumers. The wealth was accumulated by being a source of production, but globalization moved much of the production and innovation elsewhere. The curve essentially is describing a very large increase in consumer goods produced elsewhere, with vast amounts of trade occurring. But as the wealth gets depleted, the pace decreases and levels off, and as these economies no longer can simply borrow their way to prosperity, for a large percentage of their people the curve turns downwards.

My hope for globalization was that it would force the stupid and lazy politicians and businesses to sharpen up. Competition is essentially accountability. But what has happened is that they managed to escape the accountability by essentially removing themselves from the fate of their country. Kerry says that the future world will have no borders, and the current political situation has puzzled the ones who usually know, there is almost another country out there. I suspect it is similar in Britain.

Thankfully in the US the ones losing out are armed to the teeth and cannot be ignored. The political system will be forced to reckon with the reality of the situation. In Europe, like in the medieval countries of the Middle East it is easy to ignore those scum, until the whole place turns into Syria. As usual the vigorous political street fight in the US is deciding how this real issue will turn out.

I have no idea how it will go.

"Thankfully in the US the ones losing out are armed to the teeth and cannot be ignored."

A small import duty, directed to social services, would be effective and a bit saner than counting on these folks.

Sure. So where is it?

You are utterly missing the point. The political class, the business class, the financial class all would happily continue doing what they are doing. They are profiting from the current system very very well. They are a small number of people, and have access to the levers of power, the means of communication and the handy Federal Reserve to bail them out when things go sideways.

The same in Europe.

The rest of the populace are using the peaceful means of protest, democracy. We are seeing this with Brexit, Trump, Sanders. As well as the rise of the forbidden thought in Europe. I predict Brexit will win the referendum, and nothing will be done. Their will be anger, and the BBC will moan about how bad the political discourse has become, blaming the 'right wing extremists'.

The US with their vigorous political discourse (street fights really) as well as an armed populace will lead the way to sorting out a path to make this work. Europe and Canada will tut and sniff, but then in private thank the US for having these debates in the open, and come up with a similar path.

I trust politicians to make very wise decisions when they feel the end of a double barrelled shotgun poking them under the ear. Otherwise they will do utterly stupid things that cause harm. Because they can get away with it.

"Hence it is the lower-middle class of wealthy and sophisticated societies, rather than citizens of poorer ones, who seem to be the vanguard of populist politics."

Is it only "populist" when it's in the opposition? Japan and China both have unfree trade and little in the way of immigration. Evidently, their elites haven't swallowed the kool-aid the way ours have. They see globalization as a one-way street.

"It is notable that in Britain, as in other northern European countries, this is storming ahead a few years after the economic crisis, once some growth has returned and unemployment has fallen. It takes a dab of security to rebel against the system."

Maybe it was the European Union's total failure in handling that crisis that inspired the opposition.

A lot of truly evil, horrible, terrible, people are using this discussion to try to crack Proposition 13, too. It would be awful if I were forced to move from my home that I paid $250,000 for because some idiot next door paid $2MM for the same house (this is exactly my situation) and all of a sudden my property tax went from $5,000 to $30,000/year.

Your house has appreciated 1.75 million dollars? Well cry me a river. Recent buyers already have disproportionately high mortgage payments, but you want them to carry a disproportionate share of the property tax burden as well.

Increasing numbers of Britain’s young people are going to university.

The obligatory Marginal Revolution comment here is that this is of decreasing or negative value. There are enough posts here on the matter for it to not be worth pushing.

The prevailing conception of nationality is becoming more civic (a function of values, not background) and less nativist.

If people are changing at all in Britain, they're just becoming more globalist cosmopolitan. People decreasingly believe in any kind of shared British civic values, or understand any kind of British constitutional law. That's not civic nationalism. Civic nationalism and "nativist" nationalism are going down together, not too surprisingly, as they're actually interlinked.

Really, where is this notion of an increasing sense of civic nationalism, of engagement with the constitutional law and civic obligations of British citizenship, actually shown in British life? Where are the surveys that shows this? (Preferably believable surveys by non-partisan organisations, thanks).

Çelikermakina Firmamız Hakkında
Kaldırma ve Taşıma Ekipmanları sektöründe hizmet vermek üzere kurulan firmamız, kurucuların meslek ve bilgi alanları nedeniyle ağırlıklı olarak Kaldırma ve Taşıma Ekipmanları, Çelik Halat, Zincir ve Deniz sektöründe siz değerli müşterilerimizin ihtiyaçlarını karşılamak amacıyla Tuzla yarı akülü istif makinası

Ülke çapında kaldırma ve Taşıma Ekipmanları,Çelik Halat, Zincir ve Deniz sektöründe öncü olmak ve liderliği hergün daha da büyüyen bir organizasyonla sürdürmek, Siz müşterilerimizin ihtiyaçlarını, geniş ürün yelpazesine sahip stoklarımızla karşılamak , Fiyat uygunluğu ve dürüst çalışmayı kendisine ilke edinmiş olan firmamız, bölge bayisi olduğumuz, dünya çapındakendini kanıtlamış markaların sanayinin önde gelen firmaları tarafından tercih edilen üstün nitelikli, kaliteli ve sertifikalı ürünlerini tecrübeli personelimiz ile tarafınıza en hızlı şekilde ulaştırılmasında tüm enerjimiz ile çalışmaktır. hidrolik asansör
Kaldırma ve Taşıma Ekipmanları,Çelik Halat, Zincir ve Deniz sektöründe müşterilerimizle uluslararası kabul görmüş standartlarda en iyi hizmeti sunarak lider firma olmak, tüm çalışan- larımızla sürekli kalite kavramını çevreci bir anlayış içinde tatbik etmek şirketimizin politikasıdır.

Comments for this post are closed