Doug Henwood questions "the globalization mania" in the latest LBO [#77] with statistics that show that intrafirm (imports + exports) trade slightly decreased from 1977 to 1994 (from 30% of U.S. trade to 29%). He cites other statistics which show some types of intrafirm transfer increased, but only slightly, confirming his contention that the current fears of "globalization" are inflated (and misplaced). My questions are regarding the definition of globalization and trying to figure out why people are so concerned with it. Suppose I operate International Business Company (IBC). I decide that IBC is not smashing its workers quite enough to boost profits ever higher, so I build new capacity in, say, China. Now, instead of any "intrafirm" transfers of goods, I simply start supplying the Chinese market from the Chinese side (perhaps with a small amount of intrafirm trade occurring, but assume we get most of our "raw materials" locally, or import from other firms). Now, the total market that IBC grows, but the US side of the production fence shrinks since no exports are going to China (though capacity stays roughly the same). Intrafirm trade stays about the same, but "globalization" has struck the U.S. workforce, and this won't show up in Doug's statistics. Now, my questions are: First, is this scenario reasonable and relatively important (or, can it be corrected easily to be so)? That is, can one do this sort of thing without significantly affecting intrafirm trade? Second, if this phenomenon is what is behind the globalization mania, how would it be measured? By global excess capacity? I know that William Greider contends that excess capacity has indeed gone up world-wide. Third, how important is this sort of shifting in capacity relative to domestic efforts to destroy working people, and could this indigenous effort be somehow confused with "globalization" (either intentionally or not)? Bill
