I don't want all the 'moosers out there thinking that I believe the end is near, but things sure aren't looking good for globalization. After reading Dice's latest posts on strained Chinese/Japanese relations and about DLS's recent experience with anti-foreign sentiment in Mongolia, this seems to be a good time to have this discussion. As I commented to DLS, globalization is both bridging nations together and tearing them apart. The question I pose is what fills the vacuum if globalization goes dark? At this point it seems like increased nationalism and jingoism will rise to the fore. This recent piece in Foreign Affairs (which Kunstler lead me to today) gives us some historical perspective about the last time distance was supposedly "annihillated." Their web site only gives you the introduction, but it is enough to spark some conversation I think. I've gotten the rest digitally from the library and can send anyone who wants it the full text.
king of the hill cont'd"Today, no one can be sure how stable the international monetary system is, but one thing is certain: it is no more stable than the system that preceded World War I.
Although the United States may enjoy great influence as the "consumer of first resort," this role depends on the willingness of foreigners to fund a widening current account deficit.
Like the passengers who boarded the Lusitania, all we know is that we may conceivably sink. Still we sail."
Money = War. While each of us here can make arguments about how money can be spent towards movements that sometimes stand in sharp contrast to war, the system in which that works is based on who has the power. Power is determined by money. Once you have money you have power. From here, there are some different paths to take. You can work to make a more equitable world, or you can look for more power. It's pretty clear which path we're on. From what I've read, it seems the more power you seek the more money you need to go to war to get more money. The trick, and it seems to be workiing up until this day, is to spin the need to go to war as a minor blip in time. The majority of time this has happened, the warring country gets caught with its pants down, and it loses power. To amend his closing comment we're more like a slave on the ship, vying for a look through the telescope to see who is going to be in power next. After reading this, how can you not believe a changing of the guard is upon us?
Coffee cans and shovels ya'll. We're about to be put in our place.
Yeah, send me the full text iYeah, send me the full text if you can. Could globalization go dark? Maybe. Will it? Probably not. The intro seems to point to the possible collapse of the global economy as a function of international conflict, and this scenario strikes me as exceedingly unlikely. The row in China and Japan has been amongst angry citizens, not governments--in fact, the governments have remained fairly level headed through it all: no troop movements (at least that the media knows about), no war rhetoric. They know what's at stake economically. There will continue to be flare ups, but I don't think they'll lead to multi-national conflict. And this is the amusing part of globalization: all parties are too invested to throw a wrench in the works (note that China and Japan are largest owners of U.S debt). To do so would mean almost certain self destruction. And when the pie tastes so good, who's gonna trash it? Remember also, the U.N. hasn't seen a world war on its watch (I don't think this is a coincidence) so, as critical as people are of the U.N., it is a stabalizing force.
It seems the more likely scenario for an altered global economy is a variation of Kunstler's oil armageddon. Ok, we all (mostly) agree that energy use will fundamentally change over this century. But I think it's more likely that the landing will be soft, and not the gloom and doom catastrophe that the Kunstler camp portends; business models will change, efficiency will be forcibly improved, spending on cheap goods will be significantly scaled back (no PB G5 for me). Wal Mart has already done this and its part of the reason they've been so competititve--buy a set of silverware in Atlanta and another one is made in Shenzhen. As much as it pains me to admit it, they've got the system down AND they're willing to flex with the times and change their model when it isnt working. And when cheap oil is no longer, they'll morph again and do what it takes to profit within the constraints of the system. So, will globalization go dark? No. The bonds that have been forged in the age of instant messaging are strong. Instead, I think it'll flicker and then reinvent itself as a lava lamp. A solar powered lava lamp. From Wal Mart.
yeah DLSI hear ya, it is hard to believe, but then again no one expected it to all fall apart in 1914. I'll send the full text, which Jason has had the adv. of reading and thus his darker post. The author gets to whether the Asian banks will eventually pull the plug, and there are some good reasons they might, or might be forced too. The thing is, the whole thing is very unstable and precarious, whether we like to admit it or not. And I don't buy into the soft landing. It wasn't soft in 1914 and it took upwards of 50 years to get world trade back up and running. Ocean liners and morse code are certainly analogous to the Internet and 747s, so don't tell me the world is a different place now. It is fundamentally the same.
The war to end all warsThe closer we get to one another, the more reasons we find to fight. Wars are supposed to be over water this century, right?
Japan and China aren't really arguing over past deeds, they are really eyeing potential natural gas fields between the two countries.
Oh. My. Doomsday sentiment.Oh. My. Doomsday sentiment. Seems like the only scenario this guy left out was an influenza pandemic, which, incidentally, is probably the most likely of them all to actually occur. These seem mostly like half baked notions of apocalypse: China using an economic crisis to sever international ties and forcibly take Taiwan? Uh, ok. (And comparing Bin Laden to Lenin? How? I need something more than the propensity to throw accusations of capatalist fueled wars around and an L in the last name.)
I agree that globalization is a push-pull force. And whether you win or lose probably depends which side you're on at any given time. But I don't think 2005 is fundamentally the same as 1914. Radiologists in Delhi weren't reading your MRI's (there weren't MRIs), your payroll and taxes weren't being outsourced to the lowest tender (which may mean they're done thousands of miles away), and a garment designed in London didn't source wool from New Zealand which was then spun in Hong Kong and finished in Cambodia all within the scope of a month. Communication has changed, and changed the way business is done--cell phones and broadband are NOT analagous to morse code.
Short of multi-national conflict that ties up resources and stymies communication and transport, I don't think the global economy is coming to a grinding halt anytime soon. (Currency devaluation may also be destabalizing enough to bring it all down--I don't understand the details of this, and frankly, I'm hoping Uncle Al has our backs on that one--but probably only temporarily.) It's an evolving process, not an entity on the verge of extinction. To be sure, commerce will look very differnt a hundred years from now, but given that our international ties are so strong, I suspect it'll be an adapted global market, not a dead one.
I gotta give credit to the guy for working "economic sclerosis" into the piece. Nice. Fine work, my man. And Dice, you can throw S. Korea into the mix on the East Asian land dispute--I see they've been doing their own Japanese flag burning over the Takeshima islands.
Fatalistic OptimismDLS, I want to be optimistic, really, I do. But I think you are really more fatalistic. The "system," the "man," whatever, you seem to say is to powerful to ever relent control or collapse. And I agree that al queda may not equal the Bolsheviks, and broadband ain't the same thing as telegraphs. But the similarities are still striking. And the system and the man is a lot more vulnerable than we care to admit. It used to be that we held down the poor workers in one region or country. But it is gonna take a whole lot more American Idol and cheap beer, cheap gas, and cheap religion to placate the masses of disadvantaged across entire countries and continents. It's gonna get nasty, and it's just a matter of time.