Why Globalization is Good (and Bad)

Read two articles on the benefits and pains of globalization.

One article in the Wall Street Journal about how Alan Blinder, a former vice chairman for the Federal Reserve Board, was commenting on some of the downsides of free trade. He was big proponent of free trade, but has recently changed his tune on the matter saying that there are real short term risks. One of those is the loss of certain types of jobs. At the top of the list are (of course) computer programmers. Good list of jobs to avoid I suppose.

On the flip side of this article, I read another article in Forbes entitled "Why Globalization is Good". This one seems to focus more on why globalization is good for other countries though. Some examples

In the 1990s, as Vietnam's economy grew 6% a year, the number of people living in poverty (42 million) fell 7% annually
In Uganda, when GDP growth passed 3%, the number fell 6% per year, says the World Bank.
Per-person income in China has climbed from $16 a year in 1978 to $2,000 now. Wages in factory boomtowns in southern China can run $4 a day--scandalously low in the eyes of the protesters, yet up from pennies a day a generation ago and far ahead of increases in living costs.

India, who lagged behind trade reforms (only starting in 1991), hasn't advanced quite as far. Some results:

77% of Indians live on $2 a day or less, the Asian Development Bank says, down only nine percentage points from 1990.
A third of the population is illiterate.

Comments

gnp said…

In the context of biofuels, people talk a lot about how there is a global market for crude oil - and even a lot of the feedstocks that go into biofuel production (like corn, palm oil, etc). And there's talk of eliminating the import tariffs on ethanol to allow in ethanol from Brazil. Definitely more of an interconnected world than it ever has been.

April 15, 2007 at 7:55 PM

Nine Prescriptions for Building the Duke Entrepreneurial Community

I think Duke can have one of the strongest entrepreneurial communities in the world. Are we there yet? Well, not yet. But there's a tremendous amount of momentum that I saw build in just the past two years while I was getting my MBA at Duke. While leading Duke's 10th annual business plan competition, the Duke Start-Up Challenge (DSC) , last year, I witnessed a near doubling of participation on campus in just a single year. The interest on the ground was clearly there and building rapidly. But now that I'm an alum, I'm looking back and wondering ... how do we rev-up the Duke entrepreneurial community even more? I read a great article by Daniel Isenberg, a professor of management at Babson, called " How to Start an Entrepreneurial Revolution " in the June edition of the Harvard Business Review. Isenberg outlines nine prescriptions for governments that want to create entrepreneurship ecosystems in their countries. Although he was focused on governments an...

Dancing on the Edge of a Volcano

I found this opinion piece ( Democrats aren't innocent bystanders ) interesting on how both Democrats and Republicans share responsibility for polarizing the electorate and undermining some of its faith in democracy. It references two other posts that were pretty good as well: The Disease of Delegitimization The Weimarization of the American Republic The second article is really long and heavy on history. But given all of the comparisons people make between the current times and those of post-WWI Germany, I found it interesting to dive in to understand where the comparisons are coming from and how close we really are. The short answer is that we aren't that close (phew). Seems like post-WWI Germany was incredibly fragile. This was a good excerpt that summarized it: So, unlike the 60s, you have a dynamic in which both sides are behaving like radicals, in which the establishment isn’t yelling “stop,” and in which oikophobia is more evenly distributed, relative to its Boo...

The Fortunate 400

So there's rich, and then there's super rich. I recently read an article in the WSJ about the top 400 taxpayers based on income. Pretty incredible statistics. Those top 400, or what they call the "Fortunate 400", pulled in $85.6 billion in income in 2005. That's over $200 million each ... in one year! Here's a quick graphic to drive that home: Very impressive. There's all the obvious jaw-dropping statistics to go with that. For instance, to make the cut to be in the 400 you had to pull in at least $100 million. With an average of $200 million, that means there's people pulling in well over that number. Obviously, quite crazy numbers, and generally speaking not necessarily anything to be concerned about. I'm all for capitalism. But one of the more disheartening statistics was that adjusting for inflation, the minimum income to make the cutoff into the Fortunate 400 has nearly tripled since 1992. That's probably not a good sign as I imagine that...

Power Pal

Search This Blog