What is Globalisation to you?

[SeleucusNicator]

Of course it does.
You're right when saying that in the worst possible case, US can be self-sufficient. Yes, probably it can, at least in food production and the most of industrial production. But the costs of being self-sufficient is enormous, it would decrease the living standard of population many times - that's why the countries which are trying to be self-sufficient are the poorest ones.

The "trade peace theory" works if the interdependence is enough high and both countries have governments which need public support to remain in power. Yes, it doesn't work entirely, there is always possibility that one or another government will simply act irrationally, but in general, I think the more trade exist between two countries, the lesser is the probability of war between them.

I don't think your example with Britain and Germany before WW1 is correct. The trade exchange before WW1 is nothing comparable with today's trade volume. Also, both Germany and Britain weren't democracies in today's standards.

This is an open debate in academica, so I doubt we'll get anywhere on a webforum. There aren't any real test cases either, which makes it more difficult.

But, some points:
- Nations show a high tolerance for difficulty at home during a war, independent of government type.
- Great Powers, by definition, have a strong domestic resource base. I think you overestimate the difficulty, if not the costs, of going without the cheapest source of such and such good for a while.
- You seem to argue that choosing national security over trade is "irrational". I disagree; one cannot make profit without being alive.
- You seem to believe that a nation's form of government makes a significant difference as to its behavior in the international system. That is a whole nother argument we could have, but for the sake of thsi discussion just know that I dispute it.

 

[Kozmos]

Culture,people,trade I`m fine with that,its the corporations and governments that worry me.

 

[stormbind]

I beg your pardon?

You are making me repeat myself

Out of the blue, with no explanation, you claimed that Britain was less of a democracy.

In what way was it less of a democracy, and how is this relevant to the thread?

 

[chomsky]

"Economic globalization constitutes integration of national economies into the international economy through trade, direct foreign investment (by corporations and multinationals), short-term capital flows, international flows of workers and humanity generally, and flows of technology."
-Jagdish Bhagwati

 

[BasketCase]

Globalisation is simply a case of drawing the borders differently.

Take a look at the United States. The U.S. isn't a monolith, it's divided up into fifty separate regions, all of which have different rules. Yet most other entities in the world refer to, and interact with, the U.S. as a single unit. In 2004, there was nothing stopping other nations that were dismayed by the election results from establishing unofficial relations with the Blue States and ignoring the Red States.

The use of nations, as the units with which we should work, is simply an artifice chosen by us. The people of the world don't even completely agree on which pieces of land constitute nations; that's one of the reasons we have wars.

Globalisation is something that has existed as long as the world has, and has increased due to exactly one factor: improved communications.

Corporations and governments are simply another part of the artifice. A government is simply an agency of a nation, and a corporation is simply a group of people who chose to call themselves a corporation. A problem with a corporation, a government, or globalisation in general is, in reality, a problem with the people in it.