Tuesday, April 26, 2011


Schumpeter: The case against globaloney | The Economist

This review (as opposed to the book, which I havent yet read) is very selective in the issues it chooses. Most of the statistics quoted didnt surprise me (e.g. some time in the 90 it was said that only 10% of Americans had passport), its the absence of others that do (surprise me).

For example, how unique (in historical terms) is, the percentage of the global markets, some of the conglomerates hold. Take Windows, Intel, Playstation, Apple, top 5 designer labels, etc.; Look at the Franchisees: the companies are national but the brand are global & tightly controlled: MCDonalds, Starbrucks, Coke, Pepsi, Guinness, Hotel chains, Lever Brothers (or P&G), etc,

And what about Economic Unions? Everything has been standardised which along price competition leads to mass production. There maybe as many producers today, but 99% of them are manufacturing for niche markets.

Add to that the environmental threats, global health threats, etc., and the book begins to seem very selective indeed.

Its hard to think of something that I use everyday that isnt branded, designed, controlled, built, or linked to a multi-national.

Number of people working or studying abroad is not indicative of globalization. Read the opening chapter of Matt Ridley's book, The Rational Optimist' if you want to understand the reach of globalization.

One other point, before we all start becoming anarchists: isnt this rush to standardization & mass production, only in response to consumer demands?

While I will read the book with interest, I suspect that they chosen statistics are aimed at a globalspin.

No comments: