C.E. - The Cognitive Age

[Gregory Hewett]

May 2, 2008
Op-Ed Columnist

The Cognitive Age
By DAVID BROOKS

If you go into a good library, you will find thousands of books on globalization. Some will laud it. Some will warn about its dangers. But they’ll agree that globalization is the chief process driving our age. Our lives are being transformed by the increasing movement of goods, people and capital across borders.

The globalization paradigm has led, in the political arena, to a certain historical narrative: There were once nation-states like the U.S. and the European powers, whose economies could be secured within borders. But now capital flows freely. Technology has leveled the playing field. Competition is global and fierce.

New dynamos like India and China threaten American dominance thanks to their cheap labor and manipulated currencies. Now, everything is made abroad. American manufacturing is in decline. The rest of the economy is threatened.

Hillary Clinton summarized the narrative this week: “They came for the steel companies and nobody said anything. They came for the auto companies and nobody said anything. They came for the office companies, people who did white-collar service jobs, and no one said anything. And they came for the professional jobs that could be outsourced, and nobody said anything.”

The globalization paradigm has turned out to be very convenient for politicians. It allows them to blame foreigners for economic woes. It allows them to pretend that by rewriting trade deals, they can assuage economic anxiety. It allows them to treat economic and social change as a great mercantilist competition, with various teams competing for global supremacy, and with politicians starring as the commanding generals.

But there’s a problem with the way the globalization paradigm has evolved. It doesn’t really explain most of what is happening in the world.

Globalization is real and important. It’s just not the central force driving economic change. Some Americans have seen their jobs shipped overseas, but global competition has accounted for a small share of job creation and destruction over the past few decades. Capital does indeed flow around the world. But as Pankaj Ghemawat of the Harvard Business School has observed, 90 percent of fixed investment around the world is domestic. Companies open plants overseas, but that’s mainly so their production facilities can be close to local markets.

Nor is the globalization paradigm even accurate when applied to manufacturing. Instead of fleeing to Asia, U.S. manufacturing output is up over recent decades. As Thomas Duesterberg of Manufacturers Alliance/MAPI, a research firm, has pointed out, the U.S.’s share of global manufacturing output has actually increased slightly since 1980.

The chief force reshaping manufacturing is technological change (hastened by competition with other companies in Canada, Germany or down the street). Thanks to innovation, manufacturing productivity has doubled over two decades. Employers now require fewer but more highly skilled workers. Technological change affects China just as it does the America. William Overholt of the RAND Corporation has noted that between 1994 and 2004 the Chinese shed 25 million manufacturing jobs, 10 times more than the U.S.

The central process driving this is not globalization. It’s the skills revolution. We’re moving into a more demanding cognitive age. In order to thrive, people are compelled to become better at absorbing, processing and combining information. This is happening in localized and globalized sectors, and it would be happening even if you tore up every free trade deal ever inked.

The globalization paradigm emphasizes the fact that information can now travel 15,000 miles in an instant. But the most important part of information’s journey is the last few inches — the space between a person’s eyes or ears and the various regions of the brain. Does the individual have the capacity to understand the information? Does he or she have the training to exploit it? Are there cultural assumptions that distort the way it is perceived?

The globalization paradigm leads people to see economic development as a form of foreign policy, as a grand competition between nations and civilizations. These abstractions, called “the Chinese” or “the Indians,” are doing this or that. But the cognitive age paradigm emphasizes psychology, culture and pedagogy — the specific processes that foster learning. It emphasizes that different societies are being stressed in similar ways by increased demands on human capital. If you understand that you are living at the beginning of a cognitive age, you’re focusing on the real source of prosperity and understand that your anxiety is not being caused by a foreigner.

It’s not that globalization and the skills revolution are contradictory processes. But which paradigm you embrace determines which facts and remedies you emphasize. Politicians, especially Democratic ones, have fallen in love with the globalization paradigm. It’s time to move beyond it.

Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company

[rikke]

Globalization is in many ways a good thing, because it helps the world in some significant ways. However it can also take control or let some countries take control. Furthermore, when Hillary Clinton talked about how they came to steel companies and nobody said anything, and so on. It came into to my mind that she was talking about China and India and how there economy is going up and up all the time, and how they might take more and more control because they have a lot of money. Furthermore, if they do that I do not think that it would be good for globalization, because they are still developing countries, and they have a lot of problems with their population in these counties. But not only the population, these countries India and China is often the countries who have the cheapest labor, and the ones who make out of cloths and so on. To underline this, if these to countries takes over a lot in the world because they have so much money and then refuse to make and produce the things they are today, if will have a really bad affect on a lot of companies in the world, because who will then do it? That is one reason why globalization could be a bad thing.
On the other hand, globalization is also really good for the world, and in some ways it connects the world more, so it doesn’t feel like we live in two different worlds when you just go from one country to another.

My opinion to this article is that, globalization can be a bad thing, because when people blame people from other countries for economic woes, even though it haven’t done anything to it. It makes some people realize that maybe some people don’t understand globalization, and that we have companies from other countries working and helping the economy and the globalization in that country. Furthermore, so the people shouldn’t blame the foreigners for something in that country, because then it isn’t worth helping and working in that countries. However, maybe it is because we need stuff from that country, and it gives the world something useful.

Actually what I think will happen in the future, if something major doesn’t happen, I think China’s and India’s economy and population will grow and grow still, and they will take over a lot of companies in the world, so it will be hard for the trade and other countries to be balanced.
Furthermore, if China and India do that, they can have control over where the different produces does in the world, and that can decide which countries gets what kind of products and then we properly won’t have all the products we have used to get anymore. However, hopefully that won’t happen, but if China and India gets to much power in the world it could.

[rahel]

The Cognitive Age

Globaliztion cannot be talked bad about because in many ways it has connected the world and helped countries find their place in soceity. Some countries are more developed then others because their economies are more modernized. Futhermore, I think that globaliztion also has a lot of disadvantages having to do with helping the world. However not always can we take only the good things into consideration, but we have to learn from the mistakes we make, and so do the countries also. Technology was deffinitely a step towards increasment because it has helped so much in communication and has made life for everybody easier. However, that is not the point of this current event.

We all thought that America was the best in manufacturing. However, we were all mistaken in that thought because clearly American manufacturing is in decline and that is not a good sign to anybody. India and China are taking over which is causing a big problem to all countries because I think they are both not yet ready for such a big opportunity. They don't have everything they need yet to move forward, most importantly they do not even have their own population under control yet by the government which is not a good sign. If India and China take over only because they have cheap labor then it deffinitely creates a huge amount of job losses in the near future, which is bad for those countries were it is actually happening which I think will soon be America.

In my opinion the government of all countries should look out and keep their eyes and ears open to any news or step that could happen.In this article globilization seems to be a bad process because as it looks people are blaming others who have nothing to do with this, which will not lead to a pleasant result. If nobody is going to stop India and China then their will be somthing unpleasant for everybody. Hopefully it won't go that far as to having to see the unpleasant, hopefully America or even Europe will soon realize that something is happening which concerns them and then might to something that will stop that. India and China themselves don't yet seem to know into what a mess they are leading themselves to. I think that they will get very polluted due to companies setting up all these factories in their country and therefore many people might die of lung cancer or so which is not a good sign for their economy. Hopefully China and India don't get spoilt that much and someone will catch them before that happens.

[hawklim]

Globalization becomes the driving force of the unification of the world. Nowadays, without trade or without world association, it is hard to survive by our own power or limited resources and technology. Isolation will lead to the destruction not the time for thinking because others are moving forward when we are stopped at one place. Therefore, without globalization, we cannot survive. Moreover, we should learn how to fight against the disaster what we are in right now, by get our powers together. Therefore, there are many books or theories that have been published for our future together, but we are still far away from our destination what we are dreaming for.
It is hard to expect for people to unite their mind and do some team work except when they are in danger. For example, in the short story Tolstoi wrote about the god gave people labor work and expected people to come together, but there were more argument over it. It is hard to expect something on others until, you show something. It is not blaming each other, but globalization is something what it causes the problem. Conversely, through the problem, people learn resolution and the importance of globalization. Someday in the future, the idle world will born for everybody, the society not blaming, but helping each other!

[yeeun]

Reflection:
What does globalization actually mean? For me, if I have not had this class, I would have answered as ò¢Ï¹õ½(Ji- Gu- Chon), which means the globe like a close village. But, from the time I have joined this class, I have leant pretty much, or only few things, about globalization. More importantly, I realized that the definition I had about globalization can no longer be right.
Not like its main purpose and goal, globalization has been modified into many different ways. But usually, it has been modified for the wealth not for the poor. Thus, not the whole world, but the developed countries are the only ones enjoying and benefiting from globalization. More specifically, the world is actually controlled by few people in developed countries. -The people that called government and never explain the true motive of their decisions to the citizens. If that is really the way the world works and how people in developing nations die in starvation and poverty. What could be really done to change it? What can we actually do to stop all these horrible economical cycles?
I think to change and stop the present globalization, people -citizen of one country- need to be smart. Not like all people need to be highly educated, but can distinguish what is wrong and right. Also, more importantly, not just knowing what is right and wrong, they need to try to change the incorrect situations to be correct.
Globalization, like this article mentioned, it is such a problem but very necessary. It is one made today¡¯s globe. Furthermore, it actually widened people¡¯s future vision. So, we cannot just ignore the problems it causes. Also it cannot be ignored just because we want to. But we can still change it because it does not mean anything without us. Globalization and we are reciprocal. But this reciprocal relationship can be either positive or negative according to how we use it, like the relationship with environment.
Connection:
Well, I think the most beneficial thing globalization produced is oversea ¡°import and export¡±. Having an import and an export with other countries, a bigger market can be produced. But the problem of present globalization is that the traded products are not safe for somebody. What I mean is while we are really happy about new fancy clothes, somebody in developing nations would work in a jail like company to make the clothes. While we are enjoying the sweetness of chocolates, somebody in developing nations take all the disadvantages to produce cocoa. Also while the multinational food companies count their bills, somebody in a country die because of the foods from the company.
In the past, many people did not know that the global trades were so unfair and unsafe. But today, unfortunately, they realized it. May be they should not have. However, connecting to a real situation, I would like to talk about a campaign going on in Korea.
It is very current that Korea started the importation of American cow. But actually, there were several suggestions, or forces, for Korea to import American cows in the past. The reason Korea did not accept this deal in the past is because of the worry they had about mad cow disease. -There were so many reports about high chances of mad cow disease from American cows. On the other hand, Korea might want to protect their meat companies because American meats are really cheaper than Koreans ones.
But what I want to talk about is neither the mad cow disease and nor the economical concern. It is about the consumers¡¯ worry and right. It is true that building a good relationship with a certain country requires active trade and meetings. But is it as important as the citizens need to be in fear? Today Korean consumers do not really know what to eat. They cannot just happily enjoy their dinner with their family. The first question comes before they eat is a fear about mad cow disease and an insult about Korean governments. Moreover, many people are having a candle campaign about their right as a consumer. Well, this is not only the problem of Korea. Today, the consumers over world cannot believe in the product. We cannot really trust how it is made and produced.
Globalization is built to please and comfort people¡¯s life, not to trick people, isn¡¯t it?

[eunjucho]

Even though I did not understand this article fully, I think I got the main points. Nowadays, everyone can do anything and get any information if you wanted. Everyone says it all because of globalization but it is not – it’s the technologies and skills. And I agree because these days, you have to be highly skilled to get any jobs and the jobs are decreasing because technologies require more skills but less workers. Technological changes really do play bigger role than globalization in our world today. However, I am not sure if the skill revolution is actually a ‘driving force’. If globalization has never occurred then, this whole skill revolution thing would not exist. However, David Brooks has some things right. We cannot stop anything so why not think beyond globalization? And yet, I still think we shouldn’t forget globalization, not that globalization is the best thing that is happening in this world. It caused plenty of negative impacts on our society. After reading this, I doubted more about globalization, technologies, and all that.

David Brooks uses his article to blame politicians as well and also people who believe that China is causing negative results. Perhaps he is using them as an example to why we are supposed to think further and beyond globalization. It is true that politicians blame globalization when blaming globalization is not even true anymore. It is all because of the technologies, I think.

I do not think what is happening now will do anything good for us in the future. As this article mentioned, increase in technology requires less people. That is not good because not many people are going to get jobs, then. Or maybe it is the other way around. Technologies might provide us jobs if more things are invented in the future. That is just my prediction. However, this article scares me a little because globalization and the whole technologies were kind of a non-existent stuff to me because they are part of my life and I am so used to it. Now that I realized it, it is frightening.

[yeeun]

After reading Hawk's comment,

Well, I am really impressed by your comment, and the quote you inserted. But for some reasons, I think globalization is something that isolates the world. Even though, it is built to unite the world. Also I really agree with a part of your comment;
"It is hard to expect for people to unite their mind and do some team work except when they are in danger."

I also want to ask the reason why people do not unite together in normal days. But well,,, for me, I think it is because of people's ignorance. Because they are too busy with their lives and jobs, they just ignore bad things and problems they see. Also sometimes, I want to blame globalization for the selfish characteristics of people. Because of fast development of technology, people no longer are patient. Also most people no longer write letters by their hands because they think it is boorish. Sometimes, I really feel like the world is becoming unemotional.

However, like you said, I really hope that the world can be united!

Thank you for your comment, Hawk!

[rahel]

To Rikke,
How do you think China and India can take over if their government does not have their own population under control? However, I don't think India or China for that matter can take over companies because they don't have the government power nor any sort of organization. It would therefore be sort of a miracle if they do take over companies.

But I do agree with you when you say 'something major has to be done' because that is really true. Furthermore, if nothing is done it would affect the whole world and especially them because they are not ready for any power at the moment.

Good Job, and I agree with your opinion.

[pyeonchan]

Since the Middle Ages, the process of globalization began with the trade with other parts of the earth. Nowadays, the concept of globalization has been changed into diverse ways, and the effects of it have also been complicated and unpredictable. The advent of globalization led to the fierce, extreme, and worldwide competitions for the companies as well as the nations. As it is stated in the article, it also gives another way of excuse for the politicians to justify the decline of economy or economic stagnation. I also fully agree with the writer that the globalization paradigm evolved into a wrong way, since it does not give any specific reason for what has happened in this world. It seems to be quite ironic for me.


The drastic or extreme changes in the current economy are not just because of globalized world, but the evolution in our technology. Of course, the Chinese or Indian government can get a big advantage in their future economy, since they would have the largest number of well-skilled workers in highly specialized sector considering the population. The importance of the technology and skillful workers would increase as time goes on, since the tendency will maintain continuously. The mechanization allows small number of well-skilled workers needed rather than large number of less-skilled workers. Thus, it would be very ridiculous explanations if the politicians would make an excuse of economy.


However, I came up with one question with primitive ideas on the globalization. It is very vivid that there are both good and bad aspects of globalizations. Since the globalization has developed for a long time, does that mean that globalization has more good aspects rather than bad aspects? Furthermore, what can be the connection between the evolution of technology and globalization?

[sujata]

This article brings up globalization and how it has impacted the world. It brings up negative and positive affects, but I believe that overall globalization is a positive thing. Although the article does talk about the negative impacts it has on economies, it has overall still benefitted the world. Even though some aspects of culture have slowly disappeared due to globalization a lot of people still maintain their culture and move forward with the world. Though globalization could also be considered modernization, and many developing nations aren’t modern, this is going to help them with their development.

Globalization has spread through technology and many other means, which has had a positive impact on most economies and businesses in the world. Due to this technology we can communicate better with anyone anywhere all over the world. This could be beneficial for people doing business or trying to communicate with other places for various reasons. Call centers could be a good example of globalization and technology because of how someone working in a call center located in India could be speaking with someone in the United States and could be working for a company in the United States. Outsourcing jobs, like the article brings up is due to globalization and is beneficial to big companies though this may not benefit workers. For example, a company that use to manufacture in the United States has no switched to China due to cheap labor, which obviously doesn’t benefit American workers. But this does benefit Chinese workers and the American Companies, which could help in China’s development.

Due to globalization, competition in many fields has increased; therefore giving us better products because people know that they have to live up to standards or they aren’t going to make any money. Quality is going to be more important than it ever was. Some products might also be cheaper, but like we studied in fair trade, we need know how these products are manufactured and traded.

Questions –
1. The article talks about outsourcing jobs, but what type of jobs would be outsourced and how many jobs would be outsourced? How would this affect economies of developing and developed nations?
2. What is an open economy and what are the end results of it?
3. What mistakes have countries made in globalization, and why would we consider them mistakes?

[sujata]

Response to Rahel’s post

Rahel’s response is impressive and brings up some extremely important points, but I found a few parts unclear.
1. What mistakes did the countries make in globalization that they need to learn from and rectify?
2. Why is India and China manufacturing causing a big problem to all countries and how is it true that they are not ready for this opportunity?
The fact that she brought up population as a problem is an extremely important issue that she addressed.

Although Rahel expresses her ideas and concerns about India and China manufacturing, I still don’t understand what the big problem and concern about it is.

But over all the post brings up many very important issues and she has put in a significant amount of effort and it shows.

[sohee]

When I just read this article, I was very impressed with what he has written in this article because although some people say the globalization is not really helpful for the world¡¯s development, just like what David Brooks says here, most of the people say it does help the world. I think how he expressed his thoughts with certain research and details are really good. I agree with David Brooks that the globalization is not the central force for development and the economic change of the country. But we can¡¯t ignore the globalization because although skills revolution helps the countries to develop, it has proved that the globalization helps the countries to go step forward to the development. If the globalization doesn¡¯t help the countries to grow, and what David Brooks is saying here is 100% right, then the countries wouldn¡¯t try to be globalized and find the way to be globalized, such as trying to increase the number of the free trade and to be westernized. Although I kind of agree with what the writer is talking about here, I think he is having too many negative thoughts about globalization and he should admit that the globalization helps the countries to grow.

What I predict about the future of the globalization is since it seems like the world is depending on the statement that the globalization is definitely helping the world and the countries to develop, I think the globalization will keep go as the central force for the development and economic change maybe some more years. But no one knows when it will be change because the things which are happening in the world are all unpredictable. Based on my thoughts, some years later, people¡¯s thought will be changed and they will think like what David Brooks is mentioning here. Maybe people will find better and easier way for the development and economic change, and I hope so.

[sohee]

Reply to Eun Ju¡¯s post

Eun Ju, I agree with some points that you mentioned in your post but I don¡¯t in some parts. First of all, when you said if the globalization doesn¡¯t occur at all, then the skill revolution would not exist, I agreed with what you said and I thought it was a good, deep thought.

But still, I think the globalization gives positive impacts more than negative impacts, just like what I said on my post. I don¡¯t think what David Brooks is mentioning in his article is not totally right and I pretty disagree with him, although I know that there are lot of negative impacts on the world by the globalization. It is just what I think.

In addition, you mentioned that technology might provide more jobs to people in the world and that was the thought that I haven¡¯t though when I read this article. I liked that point.

I began to think once more about this topic and this article after I read your post. Thank you for great ideas. Good job, Eun Ju. ;D

[sam]

The Cognitive Age, Response:
Sam Vannette, May 11, 2008

My thoughts on this article are mixed. Clearly the author makes some good points. Globalization is a huge deal in everyday life. Many people fear it, others revere it. It is present everywhere and anywhere you go. There are many opinions concerning globalization, and each and every person who has an opinion has some basis on why he or she believes this. Personally, I can easily see why one might fear the dangers of globalization just as easily as I can see why one might hail it as a great benefit to them and to the rest of the world. It is hard for me to make an opinion and stick to it, as I am young, unemployed, and surrounded by different beliefs. But I do understand. And in my comprehension, I realize that globalization is not, in fact, the only thing that is having dramatic changes in the economic development of our world.

Competition is what drives many people to do well. It pushes them to do better than others, to ultimately finish at the top; at the height of economic magnitude, in this case. And to achieve this, they need the help of experienced, well-trained employees. The number of people needed to get the job done 10 to 20 years ago has essentially diminished in shocking volumes. Jobs have been eliminated. How does this make me feel? Honestly it makes me want to do well in school and continue receiving a good education until ultimately becoming a part of the well-trained employees working anywhere and earning a good living. But it also makes me realize that this, combined with globalization, is entirely reshaping the economic presence. It makes me wonder how many people lost their jobs to this brutal competition between people who could care less. The wealth balance of the world is very obviously out of wack, and these two elements have a huge role to play in this imbalance.

This article makes me think twice on how I feel about globalization. I, as I was apparently misinformed and naïve, did believe that it was one of the central and primary factors pushing the world to evolve and driving us to advance. This article opened my eyes to another, equally, if not more important of a force in this competition. Education and experience is evolving just the rest of the world is. And the controlling forces of the economy and of the stronger corporations of the world are aware of this. If anything, this makes me more and more aware of the importance of education and of the continuing fight for a strong hold on the world through economic stability.

To better suit for tomorrow, the developed world is realizing that the upper hand in this everlasting fight doesn’t lie in manufacturing capability, or in the number of workers, but rather in the quality of the workers’ education, and their ability to process information and perform. And as the rest of the world begins to realize that this is just as much of a driving force as globalization, they are beginning to respond accordingly. The consequences of these responses, however, are yet to be seen. The competition that has been going on for so long is still just as brutally competitive as it has ever been; what has changed is what the companies have to do to gain the upper hand. And I think that the rest of the world is soon going to realize that there is nowhere to go without a proper education.

[arpitav]

This article emphasizes that “globalization is the driving force behind economies.” But the result of this is that within a country they are not able to control their own economy. But this to me is really confusing and puzzling, I mean then how is the economy controlled if no one from the inside is doing it? Or is the article wrong in saying that globalization is the driving force when it is really causing disorder in the world? As I recall reading, before globalization became this huge thing, the global economy seemed to be under control. In this article, David Brooks also states that the Chinese and Indians are stealing all the jobs. Because before the American economy and the European economies were the main and strongest ones. You could agree with Brooks about jobs being stolen from the Chinese and Indians, but there’s another side to that. You could look at it like these two ‘groups’ who are claimed to be stealing, are actually providing more jobs and opportunities; especially for cheap labor. I think that politicians stepping in, and with economists on their side, will try and somehow find a way to get the economy back under control and take care of the decline in American jobs without hurting the Chinese and Indian economies.

[sofiekh]

I see globalization as a good thing, and the fact that I live in India and I see how India globalizes helps me understand this article and the term globalization better.
I really liked this article and I enjoyed while reading it. Some of the things the article says really surprised me and made me think about some things. For example the quote by Hillary Clinton. The thing she is saying is true, but are we not all happy for the developing countries to develop?

China and India are developing so fast and are globalizing the countries. For example in Denmark some of the universities have started to teach Chinese, because there are so many Chinese here, most of the companies are outsourcing to china.
Then there is India. When I first came here, I saw big billboards everywhere, now there is nothing left. I see signs everywhere saying “learn English now and fast” India is globalizing faster and faster. Western companies hire Indian engineers, doctors or whatever. The western countries are getting competition from china and India.

I can see that the western countries economy will decrease now that everything is made abroad. There are different opinions on globalization. Some think that it is good for the world and other think it is for the worse. As stated in the article the democratic like globalization. I see globalization as a good thing, but I can still see some bad things about it. The world is changing right in front of us, and sometimes we hardly see it happen.


Why is the world globalizing now and not before?

[eliasse]

Globalization is know in all world today, many countries got and still get fortune from them, nations such as America, or other countries from Europe moved most of their own power to other countries such as India, or China that are consider today the diamonds of the world, they improved their trade overseas, and on these days companies such as Microsoft, or Apple have most of its power in India, so globalization means for these countries a constant font for the future of power, money and chance to increase this business.
However globalization comport negative effects to these countries that are receiving influences from all world, these innovations comported many negative effects on the traditions of states like India, China, and more.. An example is that in India today, in many areas people changed their occupations from manufacturing to other productions such as computers, or cars, also globalization reduced a lots the world’s trade, many countries that before used to import many products from India, moved today on the state to produce by their own these products that now are not used anymore.
In my opinion globalization should be used just in case of necessity, if a state really need to produce product that are present in other countries, so in this case globalization should be used, however states usufruct this globalization so that now many products are not in use anymore, many types of works that before were really famous on these countries are disappearing and only few of these companies are taking benefits from this globalization that today is spreading through all world, and will continue until all countries will be under the effects of globalization.

[jihyeyun]

;)Everything has two faces, positive and negative sides. ¡®Globalization¡¯ is term which refers to mainly about technology and skills through out the world. Of course, globalization brings more goods, services and more interactions among countries. In addition, as the world comes closer together and becomes similar and it is interesting for the economists to predict global economy and for more people to invest some businesses in the world. Yet, globalization creates problems in employment and confuses policies in different countries. iglobalization Everything has both sides, positive and negative. ¡®Globalization¡¯ is term which refers to mainly about technology and skills through out the world. Of course, globalization brings more goods, services and more interactions among countries. In addition, as the world comes closer together and becomes similar and it is interesting for the economists to predict global economy and for more people to invest some businesses in the world. Yet, globalization creates problems in employment and confuses policies in different countries. Technology has developed, machinery comes into the manufacturing; and it is replacing the people¡¯s job space and more and more people are losing their jobs especially in China and countries with high population.
Also, globalization eliminate countries own colors. ¡®Westernization¡¯ is the one of branches comes under the ¡®globalization¡¯ and this consequence destroys and change people¡¯s mind and lifestyle and cultures. Furthermore, bringing in foreign companies create another complex problems with local markets. It is good that countries share the economic policies and interact each other but in terms of people's lifestyle and culture, globalization isn't beneficial.

[divya]

What the author says is correct and he makes his case persuasively that skills revolution is a bigger cause of dislocation than globalization. However, this is not a new phenomenon. Right from the start of mankind, we have been experiencing skills revolution and large sections of people being affected by the constant innovation and technological revolution. For example, when the steam engine and later the internal combusion engine were invented, mass transportation threw many horse carriage drivers out of jobs. Similarly, robots made unnecessary thousands of auto assembly workers. My point is this cycle of creation and destruction and creation is a constant...right from the start and will continue to happen well into the future. Today, the effects of technological change has a bigger and faster impact because it is global in scope. Added to this is the fact that companies are global and they are constantly searching for ways to reduce costs and increase efficiency...so they search the world for countries that can fulfill that.

The only way people can protect their jobs is by constantly learning and updating their skills...and be flexible about where and who they work for. One must be broad in scope as far as skills are concerned but with specific expertise where needed. In a world that is changing faster and faster with dramatic innovations, the biggest problem is the inability on the part of people to learn no matter what their age is. This was true before, it is true now and it will be true in the future.

Picking a stance on globalization, to me, seems useless. When asked if I like globalization, I feel that it is like asking if I like rain. The fact is that it exists and there is nothing we can do about it. The negative and positive perspectives balance each other out for example, how the article talked about the negative effectives on economies but then again many countries’ economies have flourished due to the trade on a global level. When the article talks about an open economy, I think that it is talking about making its economy open to overseas investments and vice versa. An obvious example of this is India and how foreign investment has made it a force to reckon with in today’s global race. So many small points can be made about the good and bad of the situation but in the end they neutralize each other, therefore making it impossible to come to a consensus on the topic.

Instead of trying to judge globalization as a whole, we should learn to adapt to the inevitable change. To me, I feel that because globalization is prominent today, it is a form of human evolution. It tests our capacity to cope with the changes and adopt new skills to survive in today’s world. Globalization has no zenith per say, but the technological revolution and the varying needs for unique skills keep pushing the bar just a little further, causing everyone to try to jump and reach for it. The strongest will survive and the rest will lag behind.

[miriam]

What is Globalization really? To this question there are many answers. Some might say it is the process of different countries combining to make one world, others might say it is simply different countries sharing ideas and technology. Whatever answer one chooses to believe there will always be pros and cons to it. Obviously globalization will improve lives all around the world “by the increasing movement of goods, people and capital across borders” but it is also widening the gap between developed nations and developing nations making it harder for the developing nations to reach the same level that the developed nations are on.

America has always tried to be the nation that dominates all others which is why I don’t understand why when “new dynamos like India and China” “came for the steel companies…the auto companies…the office companies, …and the professional jobs that could be outsourced, …nobody said anything.” Yes, “new dynamos like India and China” have some things that America does not “cheap labor and manipulated currencies”, nevertheless America’s economy is on the downfall because of this, as the article states, but is still doing nothing about it – why?

“But there’s a problem with the way the globalization paradigm has evolved. It doesn’t really explain most of what is happening in the world” “It allows” governments “to blame foreigners for economic woes. It allows them to pretend that by rewriting trade deals, they can assuage economic anxiety. It allows them to treat economic and social change as a great mercantilist competition” - something has got to be done, and fast.

Finally, I think that David Brooks uses this article to finally turn our attention towards the fact that “Globalization is real and important”, “It’s …not” simply “the central force driving economic change” it is responsible for “job creation and destruction”. It is responsible for Capital “flow around the world”. It is here, and it is staying. What has got to be done now is that governments have got to decide how they are going to deal with it and make the best out of the situation and not just stop at making a decision but follow through on it - help their nation help the world.

[miriam]

To: Arpita

After reading your post I understood your main opinion, however, I am having trouble with a few minor details. What do you mean when you write ¡§that politicians stepping in, and with economists on their side, will try and somehow find a way to get the economy back under control and take care of the decline in American jobs without hurting the Chinese and Indian economies¡¨ when it is because of the fact that ¡§American manufacturing is in decline¡¨ that the economies of India and China are becoming stronger ¡V as products from India and China are cheaper because of ¡§cheap labor and manipulated currencies¡¨.

Good Job ļ

[divya]

This post is in reply to Sujata’s entry.

I feel that though Sujata made some obvious points, they were important to show readers how globalization has positive and negative affects on our world. I feel that she could have been a bit more specific with examples, different cultures that have changed and those who have remained, etc. I would like to ask Sujata why she feels quality is increasingly important today and what in the article made her bring up that point? I would want to understand how the fair trade affects the article because she said that this is crucial today. I can understand why she would say that quality is important to some extent because now that products and services compete on a whole new global level, the competition rises and people need to work harder to sell their products versus the others. But in the article as the point was made, it is a skills revolution now along with technology. After a certain point, products cannot be manufactured any better than others because they will be using the best technology we have to offer as of now and after a certain point the quality will stay the same. Though I think I know what an open economy is, I would also like to clarify it and I am eager to hear a response to Sujata’s last question about mistakes in globalization. I think an example is like the Tigers in Asia, from the Globalization book we read, and how they opened their economies and lost everything. Is there anyway to predict this in the future? Is there any formula to avoid that?

Overall I think Sujata made valid points and asked thought provoking questions.

[meehye]

The globalization is really important people and their own country, I think that, globalization is really good for their own sharing culture and ideas and knowledge. It is really good for other country also, it is positive things. But oh my god! I feel so disappoint because I think that globalization is really good thing in our world. But it is not. When I read article I feel really surprised and shocked about that. Of course, there is lots of countries are selfish, only they want their own profit. It does not care other countries and doing whatever they want. Then I thought that, developed countries develop more but developing countries cannot develop. That is really unfair and it is only good for powerful countries. I am sure, when people make globalization then they think about that, globalization is good. But nowadays, it is not, they make negative way. It does not make sense anything to me. They made for good way but it used negative way. People have their own right and also, their countries also have their own right. They have to make better than this. And they have to think about what is going on in the world.

What developed countries did to developing countries who did not have any power?
Why did they act selfish for own countries?
Then why they made globalization? Where is come from?
When they made globalization do they think, it is really good for all they every countries?