(answer to the question "Is globalization a good thing?")
The XXth Century is well over, but some people feel like going back to the XIXth (Adam or Carlito, pick your fave). I'm confident about the emergence of a XXIst century approach more adapted to what's at stakes.
"Thanks" to key globalization enablers (communications, information, travel...), time and space have dramatically shrunk, allowing what I call "instant players" to grab the bulk of the value worldwide. Finance grew omnipotent and blind, means becoming aims. But obviously, the party is almost over : there is far too much greedy money and players around, and disruption niches grow thinner and thinner. Our economies definitely need to adopt a sounder tempo and I guess it won't take as much time as people think. I'm sure a general consensus will soon emerge on the diagnostic, just like it did for global warming. Well beyond the financial dimension, Economy (human activity) shall regain some decency.
Most anti-globalisation protesters are purely "anti", most "altermondialism o/ altermondialization / alterglobalization" labels only recommand the end of economics (and ultimately the end of mankind as a global parasite). Only a few propose sound and pragmatical approaches.
I believe in a regulated and fair market economy. Open, but sustainable. Global, because globalization demands the switch towards a comprehensive approach of the whole ecosystem, humans and nature included. WTO is not bad in itself, it is just as necessary and fragile as the UN.
In this transitional period, protectionism is definitely back, and well beyond what is needed (because some countries, among the weakest, do need some protection), and sometimes a rather subtle way. For example, Bush pushes a multi-bilateral, US-centric globalization, refusing all international / multilateral approaches : less WTO, more FTAs (NB : same logic as "less UN, more Abu Ghraib" or "less Kyoto, more Alaska drillin'"). All these "Free Trade Agreements" have some kind of protectionist and unbalanced flavor. They may sound positive for the US economy, but only in the short term, and only for Dubya's base of "Haves and Have-mores".
Paradoxically, this strategy reflects a denial of globalization = the refusal of a global approach of globalization.
Showing posts with label marxism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label marxism. Show all posts
20070303
The end of financial safe havens - Red blogule to speculation
Shanghai sneezed, Tokyo coughed, the whole world panicked... but avian flu had nothing to do with it. According to Ben Bernanke, Chief Futurologist Officer at the Fed, this week's small bump on the eternal path of glory of the World's greatest stock exchanges doesn't mean the big naughty R will strike anytime soon.
Yet it shows how nervous investors are, globally. There is a lot of greedy money everywhere and not only from your usual suspects (the so called developped countries) : everybody is well informed and almost free to invest almost anywhere anytime. Speculation remains good business but demands better nerves than ever. Hedge funds were the first to collapse under their own weight and now, even traditional players struggle. The money is there, growth is there too, but the place is so crowded with both experts and beginners that nothing is guaranteed.
There is no such thing as a financial safe haven anymore, and this greedy money will somehow have to focus on tasks more useful for a larger community. No wonder some people have been rediscovering The Capital lately. But with a fresher look.
I like to compare Karl Marx with Louis Pasteur : both were great observers and could deliver pertinent diagnosis, but Carlito couldn't go all the way of experimentation and would often wander too far along the path of interpretation, coming back with irrelevant prescriptions and leaving to other doctors the honor of delivering counterproductive treatments.
I know this is the kind of excuses used in the past by the Supreme Soviet or the CPC (Communist Party of China), but I do think the time has come for the cast of pure speculators to feel the heat and join the Hall of Shame : you have a right to sell weapons, tobacco, alcohol, casino chips, and to make a lot of dough with it, but don't expect to be respected for that.
Yet it shows how nervous investors are, globally. There is a lot of greedy money everywhere and not only from your usual suspects (the so called developped countries) : everybody is well informed and almost free to invest almost anywhere anytime. Speculation remains good business but demands better nerves than ever. Hedge funds were the first to collapse under their own weight and now, even traditional players struggle. The money is there, growth is there too, but the place is so crowded with both experts and beginners that nothing is guaranteed.
There is no such thing as a financial safe haven anymore, and this greedy money will somehow have to focus on tasks more useful for a larger community. No wonder some people have been rediscovering The Capital lately. But with a fresher look.
I like to compare Karl Marx with Louis Pasteur : both were great observers and could deliver pertinent diagnosis, but Carlito couldn't go all the way of experimentation and would often wander too far along the path of interpretation, coming back with irrelevant prescriptions and leaving to other doctors the honor of delivering counterproductive treatments.
I know this is the kind of excuses used in the past by the Supreme Soviet or the CPC (Communist Party of China), but I do think the time has come for the cast of pure speculators to feel the heat and join the Hall of Shame : you have a right to sell weapons, tobacco, alcohol, casino chips, and to make a lot of dough with it, but don't expect to be respected for that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Search my personal portal :
