Group Three.

I have to admit something. Chapter 5 of Hanson's book made me feel a little sick. As in nauseous. Why, you might ask? Was it the idea of the global divide? The fact that while the internet and everything that comes with it has benefited so many while leaving others behind, perhaps for good? Nope, that wasn't it (although, to be fair I am concerned with those things and will be returning to them presently). I simply don't understand economics, trade (global or otherwise), banking, MNCs, off-shore banking, you name it. And every time I think about it I get queezy because I know I really ought to get it. How can I study international anything without this practical knowledge? It's honestly driven me to search out books like "Economics for Dummies" and "The Complete Idiot's Guide to Global Economy"- although I couldn't actually get myself to purchase them. Let's face it. I'm still not going to get it.

All of this being said, I have to add (in the interest of fairness) that Hanson does do a stand up job of explaining most of these things fairly well. It's not her fault I'm a dunce. And that being said, I do understand that the point she is making with this chapter is not to try to teach her audience how companies operate internationally or how governments try to control their economies (apparently more and more unsuccessfully? Which I also don't get). She is making the point that with the Information Revolution, internet included, the world has made a shift into more integrated economies and technologies, and that very few things are actually contained within one nation state anymore. This, I can understand. The question we must ask ourselves is, what is this doing to the idea of the nation state? Does all of this flow of information, money and goods somehow undermine the authority of the state?  I honestly have no idea. I am a little ashamed to say it, but I just don't know. I get that all of these things are happening, but I have nothing to compare it to. How did businesses function in the "old days" before Al Gore invented the internet? Wait... what's that you say, Elizabeth C Hanson? It was actually some computer geeks who made something called ARPANET? Oh. Still though, I just don't see that the world was ever a collection of isolated, financially independent nation states. I mean, if you're going to go that route, couldn't colonization also be a part of globalization? Hanson defines globalization as, "widening, deepening and speeding up of worldwide interconnectedness in all aspects of social life." (p 139). I mean, you could really fit a lot of scenarios into this definition. Columbus wiping out entire populations of native peoples in one foul swoop? Doesn't get much speedier than that.

Hanson, while discussing the ICTs efforts to bring the internet and connectivity that comes with it, describes people as either "optimists" or "pessimists" about the potential benefits of the programs to the have-nots of Indian society. I don't like just generalizations. I believe that they certainly exist, but I feel that distinctions must be made between optimists and idealists, and also be pessimists and realists. Hanson should know better. That being said, I think it would be interesting to see what the current data would tell us about these initiatives. This book was written in 2008, but already seems outdated in some ways. I hope Globalization for Idiots is a little more up to date. I'll let you know.