Tom Barnett contends that they improve. I contend that they fall: to the minimum necessary for interconnection. Here's an interesting quote from the currency chief at HSBC that backs the later:
The whole picture of risk-reward for emerging market currencies has changed. It is not so much that they have risen to our standards, it is that we have fallen to theirs. It used to be that sovereign risk was mainly an emerging market issue but the events of the last year have shown that this is no longer the case. Look at the UK – debt is racing up to 100pc of GDP.
I'm not quite sure what globalization means but as long as failure isn't allowed and the currency is constantly manipulated to the benefit of the Bankstas nothing will work. This includes a non globalized economy.
Posted by: EN | September 24, 2009 at 01:44 PM
The problem is the narrowing down of markets to mono-industries reduces employment to the best ten players in the room with a million unwanted on the sidelines. Like NBA wanna-be's or Hollywierd's struggling actor market. Like blogs. There may be 10,000 out there but I only have 4 hours in the day to dedicate. So me and everyone will just gravitate to the top 10. And then there will ONLY BE 10 after a while. So mono-production, like everyone buying an i-Pod, will result in one factory with reasonably paid workers to churn out the killer-prod and a million unemployed unable to buy the damn thing. And that's the flaw with meritocracy. You end up with a very small pool of big earners. That's what fragmented cottage industries prevent. The Balkanization of a giant economy into many small pieces allows for many market leaders and their entrained following of people employed in support. It's less efficient than a mega-provider, but at least everyone has a job.
Posted by: hidflect | September 24, 2009 at 02:25 PM
"So me and everyone will just gravitate to the top 10."
True, but who do the 10 follow?
Posted by: Larry Dunbar | September 24, 2009 at 05:36 PM