Globalization 2.0

One comment

The implementation of globalization has not been without its major flaws, but advocating against it completely is paramount to anti-socialist behaviour or looking inwards – a concept that is utterly against the tendencies of human nature.

If you look up on any definition of globalization , you will observe that the intention was always one of a genuine need to integrate, collaborate and for the mutual benefit of nations.

This, like any product (including knowledge), can be exploited out of selfish desires and lead to heavy exploitation. Of course, it also doesn´t mean that globalization must apply to every sector of an economy, some inward investment is always healthy and it also certainly does advocate the loss of national identity.

The problem, like many others, lies in the hands of politicians who are controlled and dictated to by a handful of large corporations – with the one and only self-interest of profit, power, and control. So, according to the aforementioned, giving up or sharing one´s technological, innovative or manufacturing secrets to other countries would supposedly expose vulnerabilities. The real problem then is simply a lack of trust – leading to the notion : “I will not let you know how I do it because you may use it against me – in trade or war”.

Other than the human element, that is, next to the policy-making and the creation of supposedly organized trading blocs and free trade areas such as NAFTA, EU, ECOWAS, SADC and so on, the rate of globalization has sped up due to boundless advances in information technology as accurately predicted by Neoclassical Growth Theory.

Information technology has now given individuals, consumers, investors, and businesses – of all economic class, race, and gender, valuable new tools to identify and engage in economic opportunities, including faster and more informed analyses of information, easy transfers of assets, and collaboration.


In the financial sector, a globalized world means that with the aid of technology (via Fintech and mobile-banking), one can buy and sell shares (online on any of the major stock exchanges) in an Italian pharmaceutical firm or Australian telecommunications company from a desktop in Namibia! You would then only deal with the commissions and transaction fees (including capital gains tax) locally.

And think about it, on a micro-level, if globalization is entirely a bad concept then no-one should be using Amazon, eating MacDonald’s or watching Netflix in protest – hard to imagine, isn’t it? We must praise its positive outcomes and work hard against the negative impacts – which are also giving rise to a new era of extreme nationalism or populism.

One can only do one’s bit by promoting and backing policy-makers that can enforce good trade laws, and force both local and international competitors to play by the same rules. The penalties for financial misconduct should be a lot greater to deter exploitation and not simply give perpetrators the proverbial slap on the wrist.

The creative destruction of the financial system with which some unscrupulous multinationals have used to wield power through the financial and economic exploitation of labour, will be fostered by the advent of the cryptocurrency and its underlying blockchain technology.

Depending on its uptake, and whether the authorities can regulate its legality, we can in the future have not just individuals but who governments (especially of developing nations) using decentralized currency types to engage in trade. The Venezuelan president for example, is investigating the concept of a national cryptocurrency dubbed ´Petro´ to use for trading and to alleviate dependency on (heavily interest-ridden) funding. There are also rumours that a large Indian national banking is looking into the usage of Ripple cryptocurrency.


1 comments on “Globalization 2.0”

Leave a Reply

Your e-mail address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.