New socialisms Book

Defending asymmetry?

[Through my ratings, reviews and edits I'm providing intellectual property and labor to Amazon.com Inc., listed on Nasdaq, which fully owns Goodreads.com and in 2013 posted revenues for $74 billion and $274 million profits. Intellectual property and labor require compensation. Amazon.com Inc. is also requested to provide assurance that its employees and contractors' work conditions meet the highest health and safety standars at all the company's sites.]

The author advocates free trade, which is by definition and theoretically symmetrical, while spending the entire book on cases of asymmetry. Unable to see the wood for the trees, he concludes that globalization is good, but has to be managed.

The most revealing moment of the book is when it quotes a conversation between two economists, and one says: "Tommy, the difference between your socialism and mine is that when you think of yourself as a socialist, you think of yourself as behind the counter; when I think of myself as a socialist, I think of myself being in front of it " (p. 58, emphasis added). I'm not sure of the implications for socialism, but the in front/behind the counter asymmetry identified here gets straight to the heart of globalization.

The author exposes many of the asymmetries that trigger activism around the globe better than any NGO: the introduction of intellectual property protection into the WTO, to prevent developing countries from freely trading pharmaceuticals; the disasters brought about by the 'bottom of the pyramid' marketing of baby formula, and the refusal of multinationals to comply with WHO regulation; the catastrophic outcomes of free capital movements in the 1997-1998 Asian financial crisis. Every time, the West wants to be the one behind the counter, and the rest are forced to stay in front of it.

There are of course laugh out loud moments scattered throughout the book, as when the author posits that one billionnaire is better than a thousand millionaires because the billionnaire will spend a higher share of its riches on philanthropy.

In conclusion, can globalization be managed? This is to ask, can the artful or violent maintenance of power asymmetries by the West be tweaked to generate positive spillovers for the rest? Clearly, this a question not worth answering.