Mr. Bhagwati says many, many words (perhaps too many…but hey it is a speech right), to make one clear point economic growth through globalization can in fact minimize social injustices and through appropriate governance, timing out policy with economics (at the correct pace), and the promotion of trade liberalization in poorer protectionist countries.
I found myself thrown in a rather tangential manner to think about those who are in favor of anti-globalization. Bhagwati splits these individuals up into two different groups the protectionists and the anti-globalization folks that are in the streets whom you see protesting those who find the maladies of globalization ethical injustices.
What always makes me raise my eyebrows at these groups is the sheer amount of globalization they use to make their points. I think that there should be an effort to organize an anti-globalization rally where the organizers are not allowed to text on their phones, use their computers to send emails, or in any way use any techniques or tools from other countries. I have a feeling that they would not be so successful.
The Protectionists: These guys they make sense right. All they have to say is “DON’T TAKE OUR JOBS” and followers will gather swiftly at the door. They just don’t want to be the losers; it makes perfect sense there’re just acting rationally in their own self-interest.
The others: These are the ones that I have trouble understanding. Stating riots in Seattle and causing a ruckus. None of them know what a live would be like without trade yet they advocate for it. When it comes down to it these guys are have more of an internal conflict with living in a prosperous country an have not experienced real economic hardships of the third world they feel that by protesting trade some who people will all of a sudden not be exploited. Like I said though the motive behind this group seems more unclear, as there are many reasons why people take this side.
About the imagery: Globalization “has a face”. I’m unsure of this…I think that the term globalization is probably one of the most miss used buzz words of the 21th century. I think it’s simple I like Thomas Friedman's definition of globalization as the flattening of our globe in his book, “The World is Flat”. As a visual person I see the benefits of trying to connect the idea with a human face. Perhaps, though like we discussed last week about the invisible hand metaphor that there will always be a group whom will miss interpret the imagery which is intended use is for another point. When I think of globalization I simply think of a tangle networks streaming everywhere wrapping its self around the world. From here one can realize all of the benefits which everyone gains from when we trade openly and the world becomes flat…transaction costs diminish and it become easier to find what we need or provide what we wish to give. Mr. Bhagwati writes 3.5 pages about giving globalization a face however, I am still unsure if he effectively did so through his few examples.
Sorry about the randomness of all of these thoughts…question if this post makes me $15 dollars richer and some person whom likes reading random thoughts $100 dollars richer will this counter balance all of your losses by reading it? IF soooo yah globalization if not…sorry about the rambling of random thoughts guys ;-)