"I think globalization is an inevitable process in which the peoples and economies of the world become more and more tightly interconnected, whether we like it or not."

Globalization is 'natural' in the same way that cosmetics made without harsh chemicals and not tested on animals are 'natural'.

In other words, not natural at all - and also not 'inevitable'.

The problem with saying globalization is inevitable is that it is a political and social process. It is about as 'inevitable' as democracy, which is to say, not very.

What is inevitable is technological change. There will be such change, without or with globalization.

I think it's part of the neo-con project to make the "free" market and globalization seem natural and inevitable. It is a part of the ideological project to naturalize these essentially political constructs. That removes them from the social domain, so that citizens, even in democracies, lose control over their lives.

Globalization, in the neo-con scheme, is anti-democratic. That is why free trade pacts (like NAFTA) establish special courts which can overrule (even the environmental!) laws of democracies. That is why *voters* in South American are turning against globalization and its institutional handmaidens, like the IMF.

Be careful with the "whether we like it or not" rhetoric. Besides being fundamentally anti-democratic, it is incorrect. The more you taunt the people who are losing health care, pensions, jobs, land and more to globalization-au-naturale, the more likely it is that this attempt at integrating the world economy will be shattered. It is absolutely the case up to this point that *not only* is globalization anti-democratic, but it also worsens stratification across virtually all societies: it benefits the rich, and the divide between rich and poor deepens.

I read your post here, plus the mysterious quote from the reader. I clicked the link to read it, and it was me! Gawrsh.

I do believe that "globalization" is inevitable in today's world, and not something to be fought -- but the problem of how to keep developing our Republic, and to be the engine for genuine development in the rest of the world, has not been faced by the sons and daughters of Hamilton, Lincoln, FDR and so on. Obviously, there's the Buchananite, reactionary response -- not doable, nor desirable. And there's this "Washington Consensus" thing, which is basically a recipe for the Walmartization of the United States, where we'd only have enough industry to fund wunderwaffen to keep the trade lanes open for the benefit of international business.

And what's the progressive response? It can't be, "Put the tariff walls back up," can it? But neither can it be the Clintonite, "Spread 'em open for Wal-Mart, and educate our youth so we can all be the middlemen of the new, financial Empire of the States. Not bad as a preliminary effort, but where do the jobs go?

So I'll read Stiglitz with some attention.

My instinct is that free unions, in China and here, might be a big part of the solution.

If you want a serious view of that globalization means for American workers, you won't find it here.

Stephen Roach has a good piece today at over at Morgan Stanley (he's their chief economist):

http://www.morganstanley.com/GEFdata/digests/20060109-mon.html

He calls this article, fittingly, 'The End Of Labor'.

Wake up, people!

I don't think that one could call the Washington Consensus synonymous with reinstituting low wages. Nothing in the Washington Consensus deals with that.

I would think that one would look at what preceded the 90s for an example of what the Washington Consensus attempted to deal with. The juntas and other oppressive regimes that led the countries down a route of hyperinflation through mishandled populism. The smashing of hyperinflation was one of the primary reasons for a tight monetary policy. Opening markets to private corporations was intended to attract investment and development to these countries.

The Bolivaran revolutionaries following in Chavez' footsteps are not necessarily models to follow. Chavez is providing for his people, but at the expense of what political institutions existed in Venezuela before him. Sure he's pissing the rich off, but he is also spending oil wealth to support his policies in the rest of the hemisphere as well as buy support at home.

One of the key points that people tend to miss is that hyperinflationary policies hurt the POOR vastly more than they do the rich. That's one of the reasons that there is such a gap between rich and poor in Latin America. The rich can hold their money in bonds or hard currency from outside the region and avoid the devaluation spiral. The poor on the other hand have to do things such as shopping the day they get paid to avoid having their cash lose its value 3 days in the future... Forget about stuffing your savings under the mattress--you might as well burn it.

Brazil is a country that pretty much still follows the Washington Consensus and it is doing better, arguably, than Argentina--which spent too long defending a currency peg that had outlived its usefulness.

All in all, I think the author is oversimplifying what the Washington Consensus was and what it was in response to...