What do you think?
Rate this book
globalization: n. the irrational fear that someone in China will take your job
In Globalization , authors Bruce Greenwald and Judd Kahn cut through the myths surrounding globalization and look more closely at its real impact, presenting a more accurate picture of the present status of globalization and its future consequences. Page by page, they uncover the real facts about globalization and answer the most important questions it raises, Will globalization increase or diminish in economic importance? Do higher living standards depend more on global or local conditions– and What are the actual implications of globalization for financial markets?
186 pages, Hardcover
First published November 1, 2008
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
July 30, 2011
Extremely weak book even if it makes some relevant points here and there. The premise for most part is simple: most economies are local economies and are influenced only at the margin by global forces. Whether one agrees strongly with this or not, the examples given to prove this are laughably trivial most of the times and too irrelevant at others. The author makes no effort to balance the arguments on the other side and appears to willfully stay away from topics that would contradict the basic conclusions.
However, it is towards the end that the book becomes almost painful. The book takes the tone that since things existed in certain ways, they were right. That everything in the world pre-2008 (when the book was written) existed for good and they implied that any theory that tried to prove all could go wrong were wrong.
Even without hindsight, the book appears totally absurd. It is akin to someone writing a book in mid-eighties praising everything Japanese (something this book vehemently criticizes). Essentially, the book creates its own strawmen to bring down initially and falls prey to arrogantly taking pride in US successes until the point. It misses balanced analysis and assumes that every system outside the US is sort of stupid.
However, it is towards the end that the book becomes almost painful. The book takes the tone that since things existed in certain ways, they were right. That everything in the world pre-2008 (when the book was written) existed for good and they implied that any theory that tried to prove all could go wrong were wrong.
Even without hindsight, the book appears totally absurd. It is akin to someone writing a book in mid-eighties praising everything Japanese (something this book vehemently criticizes). Essentially, the book creates its own strawmen to bring down initially and falls prey to arrogantly taking pride in US successes until the point. It misses balanced analysis and assumes that every system outside the US is sort of stupid.
October 24, 2011
I really did not like this book and almost stopped half way. I was intrigued by the title since I’ve been looking for a way to rebut Joe Camisa’s constant claims that Chinese companies are taking over our manufacturing jobs and hurting our economy (now and for the future). I also wanted to revisit some of the info I learned in Econ (I seem to remember learning trade always benefits both parties). Unfortunately I got neither. I thought the main point- local factors are more important than foreign influences so we should ignore factors to do with globalization- sort of avoided the issue. Plus, a lot of the arguments used to back up the main points were just general anecdotes/stories. When data was used it was far from convincing. “Hey here’s a random table with one number slightly higher than another so we must be right”. Anyway, I was left unsatisfied so I’ll have to look for a better book. These guys also seem to have something against Thomas Friedman. And thought I’d throw in a quote from the book:
“Now (in 2008) that we are more than six years into what Thomas Friedman called Globilization 3.0, the dire consequences of competition from hundreds of millions of highly productive, low-wage workers in China and India should be visible in the condition of workers elsewhere. But what the data actually reveal is how little those workers have been affected en masse. Unemployment in the US stands at around 5 percent, near its historic lows for the period after WWII. Unemployment in Europe is declining. Employment prospects in Japan are improving after more than a decade of stagnation. Wages have not been measurably affected. Previous wage trends in developed countries have either continued or improved slightly. Something else must be at work to counter these gloomy predictions about the consequences of globalization for workers outside of India, China, and a few other developed countries.”
“Now (in 2008) that we are more than six years into what Thomas Friedman called Globilization 3.0, the dire consequences of competition from hundreds of millions of highly productive, low-wage workers in China and India should be visible in the condition of workers elsewhere. But what the data actually reveal is how little those workers have been affected en masse. Unemployment in the US stands at around 5 percent, near its historic lows for the period after WWII. Unemployment in Europe is declining. Employment prospects in Japan are improving after more than a decade of stagnation. Wages have not been measurably affected. Previous wage trends in developed countries have either continued or improved slightly. Something else must be at work to counter these gloomy predictions about the consequences of globalization for workers outside of India, China, and a few other developed countries.”
July 12, 2012
Presumptuous intellectual wanking. I should have been warned by the trite title that this would be so narrowly focused on the Greenwald's definition of globalization as to be useful only as text for an exploratory econ class (which I'd bet it was written for). Fly-by-night MBA's looking to brown nose their up-line executives will find it provides very good fertilizer for office bull sessions.
Not saying there's no good information just that it's written with blinders - the authors even point out that it is written with tunnel vision, in fact the last chapter explains just how little this book bears on the the very broad, civilization changing reality that the topic encompasses.
In fact, if they'd left "Globalization:" out of the title and not even pretended to be defining the term even for the one category of economics I'd have given it a second and third star.
Not saying there's no good information just that it's written with blinders - the authors even point out that it is written with tunnel vision, in fact the last chapter explains just how little this book bears on the the very broad, civilization changing reality that the topic encompasses.
In fact, if they'd left "Globalization:" out of the title and not even pretended to be defining the term even for the one category of economics I'd have given it a second and third star.
December 28, 2014
Since B. Greenwald is the main and only (?) academic professor of value investing I figured I'd take some notes on his thoughts about the world.
He advocates that we need to embrace a service focused economy and let go of manufacturing jobs because of the lower value added content. Many services are about local interactions based on tailored processes, local needs, individual credibility. They cannot be outsourced. Multilocal is the new global. I wished he had more expanded on the social cost of such transition and its likely undesired consequences. My guess is that, yes these are the right solutions but at least in Europe, such a plan would create massive social unrest by those unable to adapt, and sink the countries even deeper. Probably the only solution is to talk a generation into thinking differently. Or rethink capitalism globally.
I liked his point on long term vs short term state planning focus. Long term economic country dominance is all about long term excellence in education and innovation. We all know that. But short term productivity growth is the key to adequatly finance these long term ambitions. It comes from improvement in managerial efficiency in what we already have. Education or innovation will not help in the short term.
I think my great takeaway from this book, whether you agree with the thesis or not that globalisation isn't to be feared, is that local services consummed and produced locally have a strong moat. Indeed how to keep competitors out ? It comes from economic advantages. Not law. Not entrepreuneurial talent. Not special access to capital. But among others high switching cost or high search cost.
He advocates that we need to embrace a service focused economy and let go of manufacturing jobs because of the lower value added content. Many services are about local interactions based on tailored processes, local needs, individual credibility. They cannot be outsourced. Multilocal is the new global. I wished he had more expanded on the social cost of such transition and its likely undesired consequences. My guess is that, yes these are the right solutions but at least in Europe, such a plan would create massive social unrest by those unable to adapt, and sink the countries even deeper. Probably the only solution is to talk a generation into thinking differently. Or rethink capitalism globally.
I liked his point on long term vs short term state planning focus. Long term economic country dominance is all about long term excellence in education and innovation. We all know that. But short term productivity growth is the key to adequatly finance these long term ambitions. It comes from improvement in managerial efficiency in what we already have. Education or innovation will not help in the short term.
I think my great takeaway from this book, whether you agree with the thesis or not that globalisation isn't to be feared, is that local services consummed and produced locally have a strong moat. Indeed how to keep competitors out ? It comes from economic advantages. Not law. Not entrepreuneurial talent. Not special access to capital. But among others high switching cost or high search cost.
January 16, 2009
Well-researched and balanced, this book sheds light on the fact that globalization is really not that new or different. Tracing globalization's roots to trends in the 20th and preceding centuries, I liked this book because it provided me with hope and optimism for the future. By avoiding all-or-nothing thinking, the author points to both positive and negative aspects of globalization as a continuum that is actually probably in decline. In some disagreement with mainstream authors and journalists, Greenwald points out that success in the 21st century, just like the previous centuries, is going to require flexible thinking and rapid adaptation to change.
December 4, 2010
Easy to understand book about the effects of globalization on the world's economy. Certain jobs are not able to go to China, while others are and have already gone there and why! The authors talk about currency imbalances and how those effect world trade. Interesting!
May 11, 2009
I learned a lot about globalization from this book. Reading The World is Flat should be an interesting companion book to it.
May 30, 2012
For Micro Economics...
December 2, 2013
A very good informative book.
Go read it!
Adopt SDRs now.
Go read it!
Adopt SDRs now.
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews