Globalism Post 9/11

September 11 is transforming our notions about a raft of subjects, from economics to technology. Thanks to our myopic and narcissistic media and opportunistic, short-sighted politicians, we are only beginning to grasp the ways in which computer networks are changing, even radicalizing much of the world, sometimes in great, sometimes horrific ways. Six months ago, most Americans were stunned to discover how differently others in the world regard us from the way we see ourselves. Globalism is a major reason. Invasive American culture -- from movies, music, fast-food -- have highlighted political and religious differences, from Europe to the Middle East and South Asia. So have networked, hi-tech economies based on information and tech, argues a new book by George Soros.

We seem to be running away from the world, and much of the world hates us for it. Such forces make America not only the world's leading superpower, but probably its most feared and hated nation. As the U.S. evolved rapidly from an industrial to a data-based economy, much of the world hasn't come along, or doesn't want to.

Our technology is running away from the rest of the planet, from genomics to supercomputing to bio-tech research to weaponry. Globalism, arguably the single most significant political issue on the planet even before 9/11, is even more critical now, even though there is little consensus on what it is or how we should feel about it or even define it. Deep-thinking billionaire philanthropist Soros jumps in with a significant new book -- George Soros on Globalization -- in which he advances some exciting and startling ideas about the future.

Anti-globalization protests have become a staple of international summit meetings, Soros points out, a sort of "fragmented potpourri of laments about life in the modern world." A ferocious advocate of open societies, he takes on what's good and bad about globalism, and how we might put it to better use. We'll take up that discussion here.

As Soros points out, 'Globalization' is a much overused term with a wide variety of meanings and contexts. Soros uses it to mean the development of global financial markets and the growth of trans-national corporations, along with their increasing power over national economies. "I believe that most of the problems that people associate with globalism," writes Soros, "including the penetration of market values into areas where they do not traditionally belong, can be attributed to these phenomena."

One could also blame the globalization of information and culture; the spread of television, Internet and other forms of communication; and the increased mobility and commercialization of ideas.

But Soros understandably concentrates on economic issues. Globalization as he defines it, is new. At the end of World War II, most countries strictly controlled international capital transactions. International capital movement accelerated in the early 1980s under Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, and financial markets became truly global only in the early 1990s, Soros says, after the collapse of the Soviet empire.

That period also happens to coincide with the most explosive growth of the Net and the Web, perfect engines for the new data-driven economies and systems for the rapid movement -- literally -- of capital.

By contrast, as we can see on the evening news most nights, while governments may not be able to restrict the flow of capital, they're still fairly effective at controlling the movement of people. (Although even there, the Net ultimately makes that more difficult, at least in terms of intellectual property and ideas. This kind of content is liquid, no longer confinable within territorial boundaries.

Since capital is the essential ingredient of contemporary production and economies, countries compete to attract it. It's no accident that nations who can't or won't are also incubators for political discontent and terrorism. Globalism has transformed our historic economic and social arrangements. Since capital can move anywhere in seconds, any nation-state's ability to exercise control over an economy has been radically undermined. This was a huge club the British held over the Chinese government during negotiations over the transfer of Hong Kong. The Chinese were forced to be somewhat more democratic when, with the stroke of a key, billions of dollars in capital could have fled Hong Kong in a micro-second, even if its people couldn't.

"The globalization of financial markets," argues Soros," has rendered the welfare state that came into existence after World War II obsolete, because the people who require a social safety net cannot leave the country, but the capital the welfare state used to tax can."

This was no accident, he explains, even if few Americans had any idea it was happening. The Reagan administration (along with Thatcher) was determined to reduce the state's ability to interfere in the economy and, helped enormously by globalization's rise, it succeeded.

So, exuberantly costumed demonstrations aside, globalism is not about to evaporate or even weaken, not any time soon. Quite the opposite: nation-states and their constituents now have to choose between globalism (and its attendant prosperity) or religious fanaticism. This leaves us with the central question:

Next: Is Globalism good or evil?

Comments

America is better.

[glrotate]

What we are seeing is that fair, open systems with industrious citizens are much more successful that corrupt or backward regimes with lazy citizens. Much of the world resentment is derived from this success. It's obvious that the Muslims see it as invalidating their religeon. The United States exists as a refutation of Islam. Additionaly much of Europe restents us for our work ethic, they refer to it as "ruthless efficiency" on the BBC. Italy is the perfect example of how a generaly "lazy" culture that encourages unemployment and low levels of output is falling futher and further behind the rest of the world. The message to these other ultures is clear, their reaction hasn't been paticularly prudent.

Thank You

[Ars-Fartsica]

Thank you for pointing out that what lefties in the West perceive as grass-roots poltical banter out of the Middle East is simply the same message they have promoting for decades: the destruction of Israel, the destruction of the West, the imposition of autocracy.

Now why the Islamic cultures despise the West is obvious - their culture is in decline, their dictatorial and dogmatic structures cannot withstand open examination, and they seek to villify what they see as the agent of change, instead of recognizing and adapting to change itself.

Re:Good to see misinformation is alive and well.

[cavemanf16]

As a 17 year old, I get enough of this "They hate us because we have all this good shit" on the news and at school.

As a young 17yr old you should probably be doing a little more learning about the world at large, the good, the bad, and the ugly about it. Ever wonder why you've heard the phrase: "Respect your elders."? It's because they've lived through more, learned more, and seen more than you have, and therefore, have a much better insight into how the world works. Please don't presume to have all the answers at this stage of life.

You do remember the events of Sept 11, 2001, correct? Good. 19 psycho's gave their lives to kill thousands of people...probably even more than a handful of people that could've sympathized with their struggle. Random acts of destruction do absolutely nothing to "build up" an ideology or a nation, for that matter. Just look at the death rates for Palestinians vs Isreali's... sure the suicide bombers take out a few people or more with each suicide, but so many more die in Isreal's retaliation against those random attacks that it makes suicide absolutely pointless! Statistically, the Arabs get their butts kicked every time they've tried to beat on Isreal. It would behoove them to rethink their strategies about how best to conquer their enemy, because guranteeing the loss of one "soldier" with every suicide attack is a pretty poor tactical, and strategic, decision when trying to run a country. In fact, Japan sent hundreds of kamikaze pilots towards American warships late in World War II, and look what that got 'em: Two nukes that killed hundres of thousands of people.

But then again, the Islamic nations aren't interested in co-existence and peace, just the complete irradication of the Jews. Hmmm... Sounds a lot like Hitler, doesn't it? And that regime didn't go over too well with the rest of the world...

Think before you speak next time, munchkin...

Re:a little nonsense, but hey - it's near April Fo

[operagost]

I have never seen someone successfully defend their right to arms. Your NRA statistics are wonderful, but flawed. It is also worth noting that Florida has some of the nations' worst road rage and violent crime rates.

They also have the most Cubans, and a large population of senior citizens. Care to blame the problem on either of those groups. No, because it would be politically incorrect, right? And stupid... please don't misuse any more statistics here, mmmkay? Buh bye now.

We may have the most relaxed gun laws. I'm not sure, it depends on which state you're in. However, we also have the largest population over the largest land mass in the FREE WORLD (India is not free, thanks to the caste system). Law enforcement is difficult, unless you have your populace under the boot-heel of the military as in China. Wonderful China, the most politically correct genocidal, oppressive, reactionary regime in the world.