As per my last post, things are changing and fast. I would say we may possibly soon be able to talk of golbalisation phase one and globalisation phase two, speaking only of the post 1990 version of course. In the first phase there was plenty of room for argument about beneficiaries: it seem a topic open to debate whether globalisation was only an instrument to secure the continued hegemony of the OECD economies. Now with globalisation mark II it is already much clearer that a global rebalancing is taking place, securing a higher global 'optimum output', even if the distribution of the product will be different. Those interested in a more equal world can only rejoice at this.

The transition from phase I to phase II coincides with a move from an industrial based global economy to a services based one. In this context the comparitive advantage of the capital rich OECD economies, the incumbents, seems to be decidedly less. Those societies rich in comparatively well educated, and cheap to educate, young people can see their relative position remarkably enhanced.

The World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, has revealed that the export of Information Technology and other hi-tech jobs to India, China and Brazil and manufacturing jobs to countries like Mexico is shaking faith in globalisation even among its most fervent advocates, a media report said in Washington.

Political and business leaders participating at the gathering of traditional advocates of globalisation have "voiced doubts over the past few days about one of the central tenets of global economic integration.

They question whether the increasingly global economy will produce as many high-wage jobs in rich countries as once expected," the 'Wall Street Journal' said on Monday.

The free trade axiom holds that when a rich country sends blue collar jobs overseas, it creates opportunities back home for workers to move up the skill ladder.

However, the paper said, the risking number of skilled, white collar jobs migrating from rich nations to developing countries is raising fears that, in fact, well-paid workers in developed countries will have trouble finding equally well-paid computer, design and medical jobs at home.

Zhu Min, General Manager of the state-owned Bank of China, suggested that the US needs to "reposition itself.

Manufacturing is gone, services are going. Research and development is still there. The US needs to move up the development chain." So long as manufacturing jobs were at stake, opinion leaders did not take much note, said Dani Rodrik, a Harvard University economist.
Source: Indian Express

Yes, I've always been a big fan of "globalization" in terms of big picture. Those who paint it as only some form of corporate imperialism missed much of what globalization brings (beyond your argument), such as: better health & medicine, education, intercultural pluralism & cosmopolitanism (you can buy falafel un rural midwest America), etc. In the end, the world will be globalized, and the best thing isn't to fight it, but to take charge of it.

very good site!!

Your site is excellent

Your site is excellent

Great page !

Thank you for maintaining such a great site. God bless you!

Thank you for maintaining such a great site. God bless you!

Thank you for maintaining such a great site. God bless you!

Thank you for maintaining such a great site. God bless you!

Hello! Nice site!

Hello! Nice site!

Hello! Nice site!

Hello! Nice site!

Very interesting!Thanks!

Very interesting!Thanks!

Very interesting!Thanks!

Very interesting!Thanks!

Nice site! Well done !

Nice site! Well done !

Nice site! Well done !

Nice site! Well done !

Great site, thank you for sharing it.

Excellent site. Keep up the good work.