I didn't forget and not ignoring the earlier questions, I will come back to them later.

Had to double check this one, you phrased your question for a specific
reason and intent. That was obvious.

I think what you are referring to is:
1) the Underwood-Simmons Tariff Act of Oct 1913.
2) the assassination of Ferdinand which resulted in the dash for cash in July 1914. The markets remained closed through the end of the year
3) The US response to war was to remain neutral and the same day the US signed a Treaty with Nicaragua giving Americans the right to build a canal. Cost $3,000,000. Dollar Diplomacy. Policy proposes to substitute dollars for bullets.

Is this your frequency?

Stumbled across this op-ed: Sinking Globalization

Also interesting to read "Europe's Last Summer" by David Fromkin.

Globalization
 

I thought this thread was one of the best I have ever read –

This Tuesday, I happened to see Charlie Rose (PBS) doing an interview with Tom Friedman on Globalization ---Friedman was promoting his new book – The World is Flat ---- Most of the talking points from the interview were covered in this thread – but Friedman did hit hard on one point --- War is less likely with a country when their economic interests become at risk, and with Globalization, more countries (i.e. India / China specifically) have a vested financial interest in maintaining a “peaceful marketplace.” Friedman maintains that the India / Pakistan crisis was tampered down by the technocrats who feared losing business, and forced the politicians to a reasonable settlement. He also maintains that China, which receives billions in revenue from the “Global supply chain”, is less apt to start regional problems if it interrupts – even temporarily—commerce !! It seems that capitalism may be more powerful than WMD

************************************************** *

The World Is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century
by Thomas L. Friedman

Product Description from Amazon
When scholars write the history of the world twenty years from now, and they come to the chapter "Y2K to March 2004," what will they say was the most crucial development? The attacks on the World Trade Center on 9/11 and the Iraq war? Or the convergence of technology and events that allowed India, China, and so many other countries to become part of the global supply chain for services and manufacturing, creating an explosion of wealth in the middle classes of the world's two biggest nations, giving them a huge new stake in the success of globalization? And with this "flattening" of the globe, which requires us to run faster in order to stay in place, has the world gotten too small and too fast for human beings and their political systems to adjust in a stable manner?

----- With his inimitable ability to translate complex foreign policy and economic issues, Friedman explains how the flattening of the world happened at the dawn of the twenty-first century; what it means to countries, companies, communities, and individuals; and how governments and societies can, and must, adapt. The World Is Flat is the timely and essential update on globalization, its successes and discontents, powerfully illuminated by one of our most respected journalists.

Amazon Customer Review --
----- Friedman not only writes well, but does so on an important subject- globalization. "It is now possible for more people than ever to collaborate and compete in real time with more people on more different kinds of work from more different corners of the planet and on a more equal footing than at any previous time in the history of the world."

He claims, "When the world is flat, you can innovate without having to emigrate". But, how did the world `become flat'? Friedman suggest the trigger events were the collapse of communism, the dot-com bubble resulting in overinvestment in fiber-optic telecommunications, and the subsequent out-sourcing of engineers enlisted to fix the perceived Y2K problem.

Those events created an environment where products, services, and labor are cheaper. However, the West is now losing its strong-hold on economic dominance. Depending on if viewed from the eyes of a consumer or a producer - that's either good or bad, or a combination of both.

What is more sobering is Friedman's elaboration on Bill Gates' statement, "When I compare our high schools to what I see when I'm traveling abroad, I am terrified for our work force of tomorrow. In math and science, our fourth graders are among the top students in the world. By eighth grade, they're in the middle of the pack. By 12th grade, U.S. students are scoring near the bottom of all industrialized nations. . . . The percentage of a population with a college degree is important, but so are sheer numbers. In 2001, India graduated almost a million more students from college than the United States did. China graduates twice as many students with bachelor's degrees as the U.S., and they have six times as many graduates majoring in engineering. In the international competition to have the biggest and best supply of knowledge workers, America is falling behind."

Friedman sounds the alarm with a call for diligence and fortitude - academically, politically, and economically. He sees a dangerous complacency, from Washington down through the public school system. Students are no longer motivated. "In China today, Bill Gates is Britney Spears. In America today, Britney Spears is Britney Spears -- and that is our problem."

Customer Reviewer ---Questions I wish Friedman had explored in further detail are:

1. When should countries do what benefits the global economy, and when should they look out for their own interests? (protectionism, tariffs, quotas, etc.)
2. What will a `flat world' mean to the world's poor? (those living in Haiti, Angola, Kazakhstan, etc.)
3. What cultural values (or absence thereof) are contributing to the West's loss of productivity, education, and excellence? (morality, truth, religion, meaning, hope?)
4. How will further globalization effect cultural distinctions? (Are we heading towards a universal melting pot?)
5. What will a `flat world' mean environmentally - particularly for those countries on the verge of an economic explosion? -----

************************************************** ***
Thought some might find his book interesting – I ordered my copy today

SnT

USA Today - Myths of globalization
By Ralph Peters
Posted 5/22/2005 8:15 PM

I like Friedman. I've watch a couple of his documentaries on the discovery channel which were really good, and I almost bought his book on Sunday. However:

Does he base this on historical example or condition or is he just theorizing? Sometimes folks don't act the way we think they will.

Just a side note, one of his specials dealt with interviewing American students in France. The subject was how are Americans treated in France. He also interviewed some French students who were not favorably disposed towards Americans. It was funny because they bitched about Americans beleiving that we are the liberators of the World. He said, "What if we didn't liberate you from the Germans?" The look on their faces was priceless.

How soon we forget.

China: Containment Won't Work
By Henry A. Kissinger in the Washington Post
Monday, June 13, 2005; A19

Please see link in above post instead.

Have you guys seen the poverty statistics for China?

Looking for some or have some to share? :munchin

Does anyone remember about 20 years ago when we were afraid that the Japanese were going to buy up the US and become our masters?

TR

not as well as i do thirty or so years ago when the Saudis were going to buy up everything and become our masters...

Yes, and I misspent several years of my youth studying Japanese in response! Not falling for that one again... :D

That was a well needed laugh after reading the preceding posts on this thread. Thank-you! That was very therapeutic!

I think that competition through globalization is a good thing and is not a reason for overly protective measures, although I don't see anything wrong with favoring your own country in certain aspects.

What I think brings China into a murky light is its strategic positioning and posturing, in parallell to the rabid anti-Americanism reported from the country.

I don't believe in playing fair, but that doesn't mean that we should lay down on our backs. If China doesn't float their currency, through a careful transition, and does not allow foreigners to own parts of Chinese companies - there is no reason why we (um, you...) shouldn't use US economic muscle to create a good economic environment.

It doesn't seem unreasonable to expect a link between market opening and desire for freedom of information. Please correct and explain to me why that is wrong, if it is.

If China would open up, I wouldn't be equally worried about the current political status of the country. Which is also why I don't think we should be as much afraid of the country today, as we should be concerned about in which direction it's moving. And I am concerned.

If someone can explain why the analogy with Japan is correct, please speak up. It seems more complicated than quick reminiscing.

Couldn't that mean that they might be able to sustain an industry base next to their high tech, high income regions?

(I'm not claiming this as definitive, it is a pondering thought I think might be correct)