Jotting #26 - Globalization

Prompt: What did you think of Professor M. Avramovich's lecture?

My Response:
I felt that Professor M. Avramovich had a commanding presence in the classroom. His points were well thought out and direct. He was able to communicate sometimes-complicated concepts to a somewhat uninterested crowd.

To start things off he gave us a definition of globalization: The reduction or elimination of state enforced restrictions on trade.

I appreciate the history lesson he gave us in regards to globalization. So much of the history I have learned is “what year did this happen” or “who did this”. His approach to history helped me understand how the economics of globalization developed. The book “Wealth of Nations” by Adams Smith was one that I had never heard of before but sounded as though it was a good overview of world economics. I had never paid much attention to the shift from Mercantilism to Globalization. Nor did I pay much attention to the ramifications of both methods of doing things. Whereas mercantilism encouraged exports and not imports globalization showed that each country has something that it is really good at. His example used to illustrate this point was quite effective. It would take one employee with the right tools to do the accounting for a company whereas it might take 10 people in another country to do the same amount of work without the proper training and tools. There is a balance that must be realized between imports and exports.

One of his most interesting points was when he mentioned that no two countries with a McDonalds have ever gone to war against each other. The fact that a county has a McDonald’s means that they are open to the idea of foreign influences and trade. If they have no McDonald’s they are in essence shut off from the world and not open to new ideas or reason. As a result when a problem arises it is not resolved through words and diplomacy but rather military methods.
This, of course, is not to say that McDonald’s is the savior of the modern world but instead to illustrate the fact that if a company moves beyond national borders it is as a result of a certain level of acceptance of foreign influence.