To Charles et al.:
I'm repeating myself so I'll try to shut up after this.
> Here are a few sentences early in an essay on globalization
> available at http://www.LaborRepublic.org/Essay44.htm.
>...
>
> ---
>
> Globalization is about what is happening to economies on a world
> scale.
This seems, on a quick scan, to be the most precise definition offered
in this essay.
Why not say: "I am going to write an essay about what is happening to
economies on a world scale."
There. Has any meaning been lost?
I bet we could go through the whole article, edit out every instance of
"globalization," and lose absolutely no useful meaning. What new
knowledge about the world is produced by this term?
> It is often not a clear idea
But we're going to write about it anyway, as something that we assume
exists in the world?
>, but everyone who talks about
> it recognizes that the countries of the world tend to divide into
> two groups: ...
Clearly not "everyone." And if we are talking about differences between
countries, why do we need this vague notion of "globalization" to do
that? We need to apply Occam's razor more assiduously.
> Furthermore, the economic relations of globalization are
> fundamentally about big capitals of the developed countries that
> operate around the world. Sometimes called multinational
> corporations, ...
What does this add to the older analyses of international capital and
MNCs? Note the extreme vagueness of "the economic relations of
globalization are
fundamentally about ..."
> Globalization exists within the framework of big capital in
> developed countries and its activity in the developing countries.
Does this add anything to our understanding of the world? Again, note
the vagueness of "Globalization exists within the framework of big
capital."
> However, this economic division existed for over a century, while
> globalization arose in the last one or several decades.
If it's not a clear idea (in the first quoted paragraph) what it is, how
the author make this statement?
Best, Colin
