Sunday, August 26, 2007


"I am not a supporter of Globalisation", said Sven, a colleague of mine. This gave me a big food for thought!!!!!
Most of the advanced countries resort to statistics and probablity to understand/predict the behavior of the society/market and other such non-quantifiable things. We will simply follow their tradition. Not because I want to follow them but for the simple reason that they are correct here.
Isn't it more probable to find the best of brains amongst 1 billion than 200 million and much more in comparison to 8 million.
Also, isn't it more probable that more people means more capabilities, more varied interests.
Would a filthy rich country like Norway, bacause of its oil, remain so if it were to sell its oil only inside Norway?
So, would Norway be worse off without globalisation or would India be. Well, if no globalisation means no trade with other countries, India would definitely be better off than Norway. But fortunately/unfortunately, its not so.
When people say No to globalisation, what they mean is no redistribution of wealth anymore, not after the polarisation of wealth occurred due to many factors, spread across past few hundred years.
I believe highly in capitalism/freedom. (Selection based on rejection criterion, there is no better option, at present). So, every country/people/individual has the right to chose the form-of-trade or economic-policy it wants.
But this works very well for already-rich nations as long as the BIG manpower nations' people are more charmed by short-term goals of geting the best in their lifetime but not concerned with longg-term goals for the nation.
For the economy to grow, recirculation of wealth is very essential, the more the cycle goes and more vigorously it runs, the more the economy grows.
If Norway and India decide to close their economy and grow with their indegenous products, who would obviously grow more and full. Of course India. with the population and size it has, and as i said, higher probability of talents, India would have much better scope.
Anyway, the law of equilibrium would make sure that there would be lots of dynamics going on, whether you hate duncan or like closed economy, things would keep moving towards the direction of equilibrium which would stop only once the whole world acts like one country with maximisation of benefit of all but of course with weightage of skill-sets taken care of.

No comments:

Post a Comment