Urban planning community | #theplannerlife

+ Reply to thread
Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: The globalization of the economy.

  1. #1
    Cyburbian michaelskis's avatar
    Registered
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Somewhere between the mountains and the ocean.
    Posts
    18,116

    The globalization of the economy.

    200 years ago, economies were regional at best. There was some economic interaction with surrounding communities or regions, but most of the money made stayed within the region.

    In the past few years several articles and books have discussed how Governments have become less and less of a factor in the economy as globalization has started to take more of an influence. Do you think that this is true? Additionally the US Dollar is used as a standard of currency more than any other currency, and of these, there are more transactions done without the US being part of it, than with the US.

    Is the roll of government going to be limited to interest rates and one of many consumers, or will governments around the world loose all control of economy as they become more and more as globalization increases?

    What will the future bring in regards to where your money goes?
    If you want different results in your life, you need to do different things than you have done in the past. Change is that simple.

  2. #2
    Cyburbian wahday's avatar
    Registered
    May 2005
    Location
    New Town
    Posts
    3,968
    Quote Originally posted by michaelskis View post
    200 years ago, economies were regional at best. There was some economic interaction with surrounding communities or regions, but most of the money made stayed within the region.
    I'm not sure I entirely agree about the state of the world economy 200 years ago, though I would agree we are more interconnected today than ever. I have been interested in the parallel between current discussions of a "global" economy and what occurred during the age of colonialism, for example. I think a lot of times, this kind of economic expansiveness is seen as a recent phenomenon. However, as Europe (and to a lesser extent the US) was seeking to control vast territories around the world from the 16th to 20th centuries, they managed to establish some truly global networks. Raw materials and forced labor from South America, Africa and Asia were used to feed the the metropoles of the colonizers, concentrating their wealth with resources from far afield and creating networks that criss-crossed the globe. This was mostly a one way street, though - materials flowed from the colonies to the metropolitan center - and so little of this could really been seen as "trade relations" between sovereign governments. Still, the economies of these former colonies are often built on the infrastructures and economies forged during the age of colonialism.

    Even earlier history shows that places around the world were not nearly as isolated as we might think. China reached the coast on Africa with the intention of establishing trade in the 1300s. Archaeologists have discovered Celtic weavers living in China and Turkey 2000 years ago - part of the silk Road trade route in its early manifestation. The ruins of Zimbabwe have artifacts that came from as far away as Indonesia. Much of the gold and ivory in ancient Rome was traded across the Sahara desert from outposts like Timbuktu. Global economy, indeed.

    Quote Originally posted by michaelskis View post
    In the past few years several articles and books have discussed how Governments have become less and less of a factor in the economy as globalization has started to take more of an influence. Do you think that this is true? Additionally the US Dollar is used as a standard of currency more than any other currency, and of these, there are more transactions done without the US being part of it, than with the US.

    Is the roll of government going to be limited to interest rates and one of many consumers, or will governments around the world loose all control of economy as they become more and more as globalization increases?

    What will the future bring in regards to where your money goes?

    It is interesting, though, that at the time of colonialism there was a lot of conflation between government and commerce. Thus the British East India Company became an official emissary of the crown after it was granted a Royal Charter by Eliz. I in 1600. Their flag also incoporated the Union Jack.

    If the current trend is toward a minimalized government role in this economy, what would that look like? Rollerball?

    In the year 2018, corporations have taken over the globe, which is divided into several zones controlled by different companies working together in mutual cooperation. To keep the populace from demanding a say in their own governance, executives have invented Rollerball, a new sport which is a cross between roller derby, motorcycle racing and hockey.
    As much as the trans-national corporate economy seems frighteningly independent of any given government, it still seems to me that governments retain a great deal of control over who trades with who and under what conditions and so they are still an integral factor in all of this. NAFTA and the EU are trade agreements among governments, for example, and for the most part multi-national corporations still abide by the rules of the game. If they weren't, they would be considered black market and I expect governments would do a whole heck of a lot to curtail it. In fact, I would say this is exactly what the drug trade is - unregulated and tax-free commerce operating without official government oversite or regulation.
    The purpose of life is a life of purpose

  3. #3
    Cyburbian michaelskis's avatar
    Registered
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Somewhere between the mountains and the ocean.
    Posts
    18,116
    Quote Originally posted by wahday View post
    I'm not sure I entirely agree about the state of the world economy 200 years ago, though I would agree we are more interconnected today than ever. I have been interested in the parallel between current discussions of a "global" economy and what occurred during the age of colonialism, for example. I think a lot of times, this kind of economic expansiveness is seen as a recent phenomenon. However, as Europe (and to a lesser extent the US) was seeking to control vast territories around the world from the 16th to 20th centuries, they managed to establish some truly global networks. Raw materials and forced labor from South America, Africa and Asia were used to feed the the metropoles of the colonizers, concentrating their wealth with resources from far afield and creating networks that criss-crossed the globe. This was mostly a one way street, though - materials flowed from the colonies to the metropolitan center - and so little of this could really been seen as "trade relations" between sovereign governments. Still, the economies of these former colonies are often built on the infrastructures and economies forged during the age of colonialism.

    Even earlier history shows that places around the world were not nearly as isolated as we might think. China reached the coast on Africa with the intention of establishing trade in the 1300s. Archaeologists have discovered Celtic weavers living in China and Turkey 2000 years ago - part of the silk Road trade route in its early manifestation. The ruins of Zimbabwe have artifacts that came from as far away as Indonesia. Much of the gold and ivory in ancient Rome was traded across the Sahara desert from outposts like Timbuktu. Global economy, indeed.




    It is interesting, though, that at the time of colonialism there was a lot of conflation between government and commerce. Thus the British East India Company became an official emissary of the crown after it was granted a Royal Charter by Eliz. I in 1600. Their flag also incoporated the Union Jack.

    If the current trend is toward a minimalized government role in this economy, what would that look like? Rollerball?



    As much as the trans-national corporate economy seems frighteningly independent of any given government, it still seems to me that governments retain a great deal of control over who trades with who and under what conditions and so they are still an integral factor in all of this. NAFTA and the EU are trade agreements among governments, for example, and for the most part multi-national corporations still abide by the rules of the game. If they weren't, they would be considered black market and I expect governments would do a whole heck of a lot to curtail it. In fact, I would say this is exactly what the drug trade is - unregulated and tax-free commerce operating without official government oversite or regulation.
    I think that you bring up many great points, however the scope of economy over time has only truly been limited by access to a market. As transportation opportunities have changed over the years, markets have expanded, and now with the internet the market for products and services have surpassed any boundaries that the access has.

    A recent article in Business Week explained how for the first time in history, an election is not going to be able to have a significant influence on the national economy in that it is no longer national.

    LINK
    If you want different results in your life, you need to do different things than you have done in the past. Change is that simple.

+ Reply to thread

More at Cyburbia

  1. Replies: 1
    Last post: 13 Apr 2009, 3:04 PM
  2. Replies: 2
    Last post: 16 Apr 2008, 12:48 PM
  3. Cities and globalization
    Economic and Community Development
    Replies: 13
    Last post: 31 May 2006, 6:51 PM
  4. Replies: 4
    Last post: 27 Oct 2005, 12:13 PM
  5. Globalization of the Heartland
    Perry's Cantina (archive)
    Replies: 1
    Last post: 09 Jul 2005, 4:47 PM