A short but interesting posting that helped liberate an idea for me. Globalization’s fans claim the market for much of their ethical underpinnings. The market is good; globalization is an example of the spreading reach of markets, hence it’s a wonderful thing.

But, but. It seems to me that it’s just not that simple. It seems to me that much of globalization owes it’s motive force to state actions. These range from the huge successes in India to educate it’s population, which took place under governments that were to say the least somewhat suspicious of market forces, through international trade negotiations. Those have been largely co-opt’d by the largest firms in the markets. It’s a stretch to say that these large firms are exemplars to what most people mean when they speak of the wonders of markets.  The posting adds another to those two; the question of how states have deployed their wealth in support of globalization.