Have you heard this lately?

Is globalization harmful or helpful? That seems to be on the mind of many these days. Some would have us believe that Globalization is the new and improved version of colonization, with all the nasty implications of the latter, only more sophisticated in their presentation. Still others tout it as the foundation to a new world order of peace and prosperity for all. Thomas Friedman's seminal work, "The World is Flat" has certainly emerged as the most popular pro-globalization view in most intellectual circles and does indeed make some compelling arguments in favor of globalization. From a more parochial viewpoint, there is a sizable constituent in the US that contend globalization is stealing jobs out from under us and jeopardizing the future of our country. Other nations invert this logic and argue that globalization is rapidly eroding their security as inefficient state owned companies collapse under the pressure of competition, drawing support from the hundreds of thousands of displaced workers that result.

Is globalization the proverbial wolf in sheep’s clothing or is it the final step on the road to a universally better global society? The answer of course depends largely on whom you ask, as this is certainly one of the most emotionally charged and hotly debated issues of our time, but perhaps even more important, the answer I believe depends greatly on “when” you ask. I would argue that globalization is in fact a dual edged sword, whose harm or good can only be judged by its long-term benefit to mankind in general. Clearly, in the short run, its role as a powerful agent of change is a threat to many, and the short-term effects can be disruptive, as most people are threatened by or frightened of change, and to the worker who just lost his job, or the store owner who can no longer compete, or the farmer with no market, the immediate impact is in fact bad, and I believe that these short term economic consequences so easy to personalize are behind most of the support for the negative view. Indeed, it is possible to build strong and compelling arguments, no matter which side you hold as the impact of globalization is fraught with contradictions.

From those rabidly opposed to globalization, no matter their politics, religion or race, one reoccurring theme is the real villains are multinational corporations, often American, in no small part due to the undeniable fact you can enjoy that culinary treat called a "Big Mac", in almost any corner of the world today. This emotionally charged view contends that these corporations are simply fronts by which a few powerful nations impose their political will and cultural norms at the expense of others under the banner of consumerism, destroying local cultures and traditions, even national sovereignty. I find this view particularly interesting. Clearly, icons of American consumer culture, the pinnacle of consumerism, are apparent everywhere we look in the world and this fact alone is, in my viewpoint, the most often cited argument against globalization. But is that fair? For those of you who share my disdain for processed cheese food sandwiched between two slabs of ground meat products and bathed in French dressing before being tucked in a sesame bun, maybe yes. But for the implications this is harmful to world order, probably not. Globalization is not just about having a McDonalds in every city, town and village on the globe; it is about a universal improvement in institutions like healthcare, education and most importantly, the ability to freely communication and share ideas across borders and cultures.

Today's world citizens, on whole, are better informed and better educated than at any time in history. The power of the Internet allows information, good and bad, to pass around the globe at the speed of light, and the development of the World Wide Web has made the dissemination of this information to practically anyone possible. At the same time, rapid advances in microelectronics and wireless data transmission technology has put this power of communication in the hands of more and more world citizens. Perhaps the most powerful image of this is the cell phone you are likely to find in the pocket of the lowly Vietnamese farmer plowing his rice fields with an ox. We live in an age of information and this more than anything is the real long-term value and positive contribution of globalization. As the citizens of the world are increasingly exposed to the choices that exists, even those as debatable in value as a Big Mac, they chose what they believe offers the best value, whether in real terms or the emotional experience that goes with it. Those who believe that only the clever and devious marketers of Madison Avenue fuel this phenomenon should be chastised for such a narrow minded and condescending attitude. By nature, human beings are the most rational species, and perhaps the only one capable of considering first the possible outcomes of our decisions. We want a better life and an even better life for our children and their children. Ask any well-informed air traveler in the remote areas of the globe whether he or she prefers Airbus to Tupelov and why? The answer, poor maintenance and bad pilots aside, is it is safer. The basis of that answer is that traveler’s access to legitimate worldwide statistics of the reliability of each and the fact there is, in fact, a choice. Despite all of its warts, globalization, or perhaps more exactly, the globalization of information, is allowing these kind of decisions to happen faster and more frequently than at any time in history, as the quality of not only products and services, but social institutions such as healthcare and education is universally improved and our choices are expanded. This has to be good for everyone in the long run.