Globalization, which is not just about trade in goods and services, but also about flows of capital, labor and ideas, has facilitated and accelerated technological progress and the commercialization of life.

Simply put, globalization means that everyone everywhere is a potential customer for the businessman. For the prophet, it means that everyone everywhere is a potential believer and for the politician that everyone everywhere is a potential subject.

Of course, globalization is nothing new. Columbus could basically sail away, because his Queen wanted cheaper pepper from Asia. And the silk routes network was started back in 200 BC, even though these routes were very small compared to what we have today, especially online.

Incidentally, what is going to happen to globalization as we know it today, once 3-D printers can print anything anywhere?

A major problem of globalization is that trade, despite numerous agreements, is often neither fair nor free.

The general and military theorist Carl von Clausewitz once said that “war is a mere continuation of politics by other means”.

Isn’t trade also a mere continuation of politics by other means?

Or is it the other way around? Is politics a mere continuation of trade by other means?

If it is, war would be a mere continuation of trade by other means as well, wouldn’t it?

Haven’t you ever wondered, why in Ancient Greece, Hermes, the messenger of the Gods, was also – among other things – the god of invention, trade and … thieves?

Grasping the effects of globalization can be difficult, because humans intuitively associate causality with geographical and temporal proximity, which isn’t necessarily the case in a globalized world. Therefore, we often only recognize risks, once they become reality, i.e. too late. By the way, in Germany, the saying “a sack of rice fell over in China” use to be quite popular in order to describe something that was totally irrelevant.

Another important point that I will come back to later is that globalization won’t lead to one global society with only one culture, although many would welcome one from a business and political perspective. After all, it would be quite efficient.

Remember microeconomics and the economies of scale?

Comments are closed.