| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
LongShiKong
Joined: 28 May 2007
Posts: 1082
Location: China
|
 Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2012 3:05 pm Post subject: Globalization began in the ancient world. Will it end there? |
 |
|
The headlines these days are pretty grim given the global repercussions of Greek's 2nd bailout and other EU states anxious to get their first. China's the only major market left on the planet but for how long?
In the grander scheme of things, are we looking at an unravelling of the great globalization experiment? What are your thoughts? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Matt_22
Joined: 26 Feb 2006
Posts: 193
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2012 1:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Globalization is a repeated, cyclical phenomenon that peaks in unipolar worlds and dips in times of multipolarity. Once China is firmly established as the worlds leading economic power (or flames out somehow) there will be renewed liberalization of global trade. At least that's what one of my term papers said three years ago. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LongShiKong
Joined: 28 May 2007
Posts: 1082
Location: China
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 25, 2012 1:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Matt_22 wrote: |
| Globalization is a repeated, cyclical phenomenon that peaks in unipolar worlds and dips in times of multipolarity. |
I'm sure few would agree with you. What historical evidence are you basing that on?
| Matt_22 wrote: |
| Once China is firmly established as the worlds leading economic power (or flames out somehow) there will be renewed liberalization of global trade. At least that's what one of my term papers said three years ago. |
As counter-intuitive as it sounds, you might be right about that. Wen Jiabao pressed Canada's prime minister last week to sign the free trade deal they've been working on for quite some time apparently. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Matt_22
Joined: 26 Feb 2006
Posts: 193
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 26, 2012 5:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| LongShiKong wrote: |
| Matt_22 wrote: |
| Globalization is a repeated, cyclical phenomenon that peaks in unipolar worlds and dips in times of multipolarity. |
I'm sure few would agree with you. What historical evidence are you basing that on? |
Which part are you referring to? I'm definitely not an expert on globalization, and I doubt many posters on Dave's are, but there are voices out there (not trying to defend them, necessarily) that say that the forces of globalization rise with the emergence of a hegemon, and fall in times of multipolarity. One easy piece of evidence here would be global trade in the 20th century - where protectionism ebbed with the emergence of the US as global hegemon. I'm not saying that's sufficient evidence, but I remember it brought up in one of my graduate-level classes on globalization a few years ago.
| LongShiKong wrote: |
| Matt_22 wrote: |
| Once China is firmly established as the worlds leading economic power (or flames out somehow) there will be renewed liberalization of global trade. At least that's what one of my term papers said three years ago. |
As counter-intuitive as it sounds, you might be right about that. Wen Jiabao pressed Canada's prime minister last week to sign the free trade deal they've been working on for quite some time apparently. |
Better evidence might be currency wars between the US and China, growing concerns over outsourcing/offshoring, concerns over the treatment of foreign labor (Foxconn, for instance), and the possible collapse of the Euro. The western world has transferred a large amount of wealth to developing countries through manufacturing losses, fossil fuel imports, etc. A middling middle class might start seeing free trade in a different light. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LongShiKong
Joined: 28 May 2007
Posts: 1082
Location: China
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 26, 2012 2:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Back in 2002, upon seeing the title of Noam Chomsky's Hegemony or Survival, I knew that America's days were numbered as the globe's sole supercop. Some feel we're not just entering but already inhabit an era characterized by a decentralization of power. No one doubts the power of multinationals, lobbyists, rights groups, fundamentalists, rogue dictators nor the economy to influence American foreign policy these days. I don't question the fact that globalism may have peaked within the past decade but I wouldn't attribute it to the world having a single superpower just as I wouldn't attribute the growth in trade centuries past to the dominance of one European country--were they not in competition to colonize the world? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
