Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
I think that the Globalization 2.0 is dead as the dodo.

I agree.

My analysis, in case you didn't know, is:

Globalization 1.0 - Decentralised but Disconnected, with "market presence" being physical;

Globalization 2.0 - Centralised but Connected, with market presence through intermediaries;

Globalization 3.0 - Decentralised but Connected - with market presence being a "network presence".


But there is to be no such thing as society.

Nope. It's as our Conservative leader "Dave" said, contradicting Thatcher:

"There is such a thing as Society; but it is not the State".

There is to be no connection between individuals that occurs outside the context of the market.

Correct.

But "Peer to Peer" markets - without intermediaries extracting value, but with service providers adding value - will not be Markets as we know them, Jim.

Imagine a Market without Profit - because within a consensually agreed Partnership framework there is no Profit and No Loss.

Imagine a Market where it is in participants' interests to be transparent, and to cooperate, because they know that they will thereby create more value for themselves while also creating more for others.

A Pipe Dream?

I don't think so: I believe the basis of a new Globalization 3.0 is already emerging, because it is in fact "What Works", and those enterprises - whether "Public" = "State" or "Private" = conventional Corporate - who do not use these methods and frameworks are at a disadvantage to those who do.

When it comes down to it, I think the truth is that "Ethical is Optimal".

"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Fri Aug 15th, 2008 at 10:19:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't know if Globalisation was ever decentralised - it was always directed from Imperial, Colonial, Neo-colonial or corporate centres.

And there were always intermediaries - be they traders, local puppet regimes doing their imperial master's bidding but also extracting "value", banks etc. - wherever there were large scale or remote transactions where it was not easy for parties with complementary interests to do direct business with each other and have that business guaranteed in some enforceable way.

That is perhaps what the internet HAS changed - the ability to cut out the middleman by enabling greater access to information and greater direct connectivity - although some kind of enforceable contract law is still required where these direct relationships break down.

There have also always been social/family/local relationships that were not mediated by money or zero sum calculations of self-interest.  These were generally on a smaller, less organised scale, and could be subordinated/destroyed by the use/abuse of power.  Thus Thatcher had to get rid of the unions because they were often based on social, political and ideological relationships and "distorted" the market.

However it could be argued that the EU is an attempt to express such relationships on a larger scale in an attempt to avoid total domination by the economic.  What is so corrosive about the US political culture is that even politics has been subverted by the primacy of the private profit motive.

It's time I got out of this game....

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Sat Aug 16th, 2008 at 08:11:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series