The end of globalism

[whirlygigspin]

John Ralston Saul ©2004 Harper's Magazine


Grand economic theories rarely last more than a few decades. Some, if they are particularly in tune with technological or political events, may make it to half a century. Beyond that, little short of military force can keep them in place.

The wild open-market theory that died in 1929 had a run of just over 30 years. Communism, a complete melding of religious, economic and global theories, stretched to 70 years in Russia and 45 in central Europe, thanks precisely to the intensive use of military and police force. Keynesianism, if you add its flexible, muscular form during the Depression to its more rigid postwar version, lasted 45 years. Our own Globalisation, with its technocratic and technological determinism and market idolatry, had 30 years. And now it, too, is dead.

read the full text: http://afr.com/articles/2004/02/19/1077072774981.html#top

[orwell]

1. Great article. Thanks for posting it. n/t

[rwenos]

2. So, Will it Be "Negative" or "Positive" Nationalism?

This is a VERY interesting article, with a controversial major premise: i.e., that Globalism as an economic paradigm is ending, about 30 years after its commencement, and that in Globalism's place a new, virile nationalism is emerging.

Only trouble is, this writer does not really say which side of Nationalism will emerge -- will it be the "dark side" (apologies to Darth Vader fans) or the "light side" (apologies to Luke Skywalker and Yoda).

The writer does a great job of identifying the villains of Globalism (i.e., the moneylenders). I wish he had gone further, however, in positing a macroeconomic paradigm for the great democracies to follow.

On the other hand, I felt cheated the same way when I finished Herman Hesse's masterpiece, Siddhartha. Whaddya mean -- you aren't going to tell me the secret of the Universe?!

[Kenneth ken]

3. very interesting article

I think the author does a good job of defending his theory of the death of globalization. Unfortunately for us in the US, the US seems to be one of the bastions of pro-globalization adherants, so the death throes here will continue for a while longer.

We do have the example of New Zeland; we can push through the election of an anti-globalization government, and help to speed our way into the next phase of history. We as citizens have ceded a great deal of power, and it will be difficult to wrest it back. Moreso because a large portion of our populace don't even truly understand who their opponent is.

As the author says, there is a period where those who realize their opportunity can seize it and make remarkable advances toward their goals. That would be us, if we want to live in a nation and world that cares about its people more than it cares about profits for the few.

[NJCher]

4. The writer must be crowing over Spain

Interesting that he did not tap into the arguments of some scholars that the U.S. is in decline.


Cher

[bemildred]

10. Noticed that too, he stayed inside the box. nt

[Centre_Left]

5. From what I understand..

Globalisation is based on principles such as the benefits of the free flow of labor and capital (i.e., comparative advantage) that have been noted for centuries.

[54anickel]

6. The theory of comparitive advantage did not take into consideration

of the free flow of labor and capital. Those thing weren't expected to be mobile. That's one of the problems with those who espouse the virtues of "free-trade" through-out the centuries.

http://www.mises.org/fullarticle.asp?control=1420&id=65

[brokensymmetry]

8. David Ricardo.

I believe you're looking at his theory - he died in 1823 - and he was the original proponent of free trade.

Of course, the world hasn't changed a bit since 1823!

And welcome to DU! :hi:

[Centre_Left]

11. Several pre-Enlightenment scholastics...

...argued in favor of free trade as early as the sixteenth century.

http://www.acton.org/shopping_cart/details.php3?item_no=389

However, the real question is, what would they have thought of "The Passion?"

[fedsron2us]

7. Great article

Globalization is often blamed for the unemployment caused by the outsourcing of jobs to Asia. However, closer examination of the currency policies pursued by the governments of countries, such as China, reveals that they are actually following classic nationalist and mercantilist agendas. Western corporations and investors who have been pouring money into this region are only just beginning to realize that the regimes in Beijing, Seoul, Kuala Lumpar etc are only going to pay lip service to the WTO globalist agenda. The recent spats about the ownership and control of intellectual property rights for wireless technologies in China are just a taste of things to come.

[54anickel]

9. Interesting article. One thing that I consider missing is the history

of monetary policy explained along side his discussion of globalization. I think that would help to clarify the role of the US and her interactions with the world through this period. Some of the changes in monetary policy that would tie in nicely would include:
The devaluing of the dollar by Roosevelt in '34
The US$ becoming the worlds reserve currency after WWII
The creation of the BIS, IMF and later WTO and the roles they play
Nixon's closing of the gold window in 71 - why he did it and how the world responded
The push by the IMF for floating currency and the risk that involves for developing nations
The motivation behind the creation of the Euro, why they were looking for a type of Bretton Woods II back in 99 based on a basket of currencies and commodities (they actually hoped Shrub would help in this area - heh-heh)

Seems that to gain an understanding ecomomic and political policies it is always best to follow the money.

Still a great article though.