There are some people on this forum what like economics and know a lot about it and such. I was wondering if anyone would care about and/or comment on this article from the Economist. It's a book review, and the TLDR of it is -- globalisation is surprisingly limited in a lot of ways, and doesn't shape the world nearly as much as some people (and companies) seem to think it does. I myself was surprised by some of the numbers, though my knowledge of such things is fairly limited, so to others they may be obvious, and old news.
Apparently "less than 20% of internet traffic crosses national borders." Is that true? It seems surprising. Perhaps the world is not nearly as different from how it was in the past as I thought it to be? If so, it seems a little sad or even worrying in some ways.
"Globaloney"
Most high-traffic sites are US based but alternate servers are created internationally so that other countries can access the same information in a timely manner.
SO THE TRAFFIC DOESN'T HAVE TO CROSS BORDERS, EVEN THOUGH ALL THE INFORMATION ORIGINATED FROM THE SAME PLACE.
That article is stupid and that guy is stupid.
SO THE TRAFFIC DOESN'T HAVE TO CROSS BORDERS, EVEN THOUGH ALL THE INFORMATION ORIGINATED FROM THE SAME PLACE.
That article is stupid and that guy is stupid.
There's a new sheriff in town.
-
fuzz_windows
- Posts: 111
- Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2011 6:55 pm
This is "Lying with Statistics: Lesson 1". When he says that only 3% of people live outside their country of birth, he means that "only" 180 million people live outside their country of birth. That looks like a small number compared to the global population of 6 billion, but is actually a much bigger percentage when you exclude the billions of people that are too poor to emigrate and don't come from a violent enough country to claim refugee status.
Similarly, when he says that only 1% of American companies have any foreign operations, you need to realize that that statistic is incredibly diluted - after all, the hot dog stand down the street, the local tattoo parlor in downtown, and the local nonprofit charity that recently filed for bankruptcy were all classified as "companies". The vast majority of companies are small local affairs and personal ventures; among the companies big enough to have national-level operations, though, quite a few of them have international operations as well.
Similarly, when he says that only 1% of American companies have any foreign operations, you need to realize that that statistic is incredibly diluted - after all, the hot dog stand down the street, the local tattoo parlor in downtown, and the local nonprofit charity that recently filed for bankruptcy were all classified as "companies". The vast majority of companies are small local affairs and personal ventures; among the companies big enough to have national-level operations, though, quite a few of them have international operations as well.
Jimen wrote:QUOTE (Jimen @ Apr 29 2011, 10:11 PM) This is "Lying with Statistics: Lesson 1". When he says that only 3% of people live outside their country of birth, he means that "only" 180 million people live outside their country of birth. That looks like a small number compared to the global population of 6 billion, but is actually a much bigger percentage when you exclude the billions of people that are too poor to emigrate and don't come from a violent enough country to claim refugee status.
Similarly, when he says that only 1% of American companies have any foreign operations, you need to realize that that statistic is incredibly diluted - after all, the hot dog stand down the street, the local tattoo parlor in downtown, and the local nonprofit charity that recently filed for bankruptcy were all classified as "companies". The vast majority of companies are small local affairs and personal ventures; among the companies big enough to have national-level operations, though, quite a few of them have international operations as well.
Jimen
While I absolutely think he is taking a piss on the subject, or even worse honestly believes this hot mess of an article, your being a faithful practicneer of this very method, wile pursuing your beloved role of forum devil's advocate, does smack a wee bit disingenuous of yoU.
MrChaos
edit: the reason? I actually $#@!ed up the spelling of my nickname... errrm yeah... kind of gutted the whole smartyclown post thingee above now didn't it?
Last edited by MrChaos on Sat Apr 30, 2011 5:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Ssssh
I scanned the article rather quickly, but he does make a few valid observations. It's not exactly an in-depth study or anything, more of an essay on the limits that "globalization" actually produces. ie - it's a bit of a counter to the generic "omg globalization!" rhetoric pandied about by journalists who can't, for the most part, balance their own checkbook.
On the bigger picture of globalization, it merely reflects, for the most part, the optimal use of resources "capital, labour, inputs, etc." to provide goods and services at a competitive and affordable price. Countries/regions have competitive advantages and globalization merely attempts to take advantage of those to provide those goods and services. So your smartphone is actually assembled in China. So what? China has a competitive advantage in that they have a deep and cheap labour pool. The real "value added" is in the design, engineering and marketing of the thing. Those higher paying jobs (and the taxes they produce) are all generally done in the "home" country. We don't WANT the factory-level jobs for ourselves or for our sons and daughter - we want something that we perceive as better than that - so why not let the Chinese assemble the smartphones for us? Meanwhile we produce everything else - including most of the raw materials they need to make 'em.
On the bigger picture of globalization, it merely reflects, for the most part, the optimal use of resources "capital, labour, inputs, etc." to provide goods and services at a competitive and affordable price. Countries/regions have competitive advantages and globalization merely attempts to take advantage of those to provide those goods and services. So your smartphone is actually assembled in China. So what? China has a competitive advantage in that they have a deep and cheap labour pool. The real "value added" is in the design, engineering and marketing of the thing. Those higher paying jobs (and the taxes they produce) are all generally done in the "home" country. We don't WANT the factory-level jobs for ourselves or for our sons and daughter - we want something that we perceive as better than that - so why not let the Chinese assemble the smartphones for us? Meanwhile we produce everything else - including most of the raw materials they need to make 'em.
wassup with this egocentric view that 'most Internet traffic' is US based?!
Google is successful worldwide because their search engine is available in 40+ languages. period.
It's not the "US content" or even english language that make Google n°1.
Internet is local/national because it's about 'text' and culture. Text is language and so is culture. As far as I know only 400+ millions people on earth learned english as their first language.
"less than 20% of internet traffic crosses national borders" has nothing to do with globalization.
Actually Internet is anti-globalization because it allows new communities to exist at a smaller level than countries.
Look at what your read or do on the Internet everyday and you'll see it's very 'local'.
Globalization is not (yet?) at the language or culture level. It's at the economic level for now. The consequences are that your friendly neighbor lost his job at the factory nearby because the company relocated manufacturing to China and that 80% of the products you can buy at the local store are 'made in China'. The internet traffic is not related to globalization.
There is a big confusion between Internet and Globalization here.
Google is successful worldwide because their search engine is available in 40+ languages. period.
It's not the "US content" or even english language that make Google n°1.
Internet is local/national because it's about 'text' and culture. Text is language and so is culture. As far as I know only 400+ millions people on earth learned english as their first language.
"less than 20% of internet traffic crosses national borders" has nothing to do with globalization.
Actually Internet is anti-globalization because it allows new communities to exist at a smaller level than countries.
Look at what your read or do on the Internet everyday and you'll see it's very 'local'.
Globalization is not (yet?) at the language or culture level. It's at the economic level for now. The consequences are that your friendly neighbor lost his job at the factory nearby because the company relocated manufacturing to China and that 80% of the products you can buy at the local store are 'made in China'. The internet traffic is not related to globalization.
There is a big confusion between Internet and Globalization here.
Last edited by KGJV on Sat Apr 30, 2011 7:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
