Forums

There's no doubt that when examined from a detached point of view, globalization mainly seems to profit the rich and powerful first (notably the 1 % so they say) and leaves the rest of us to experience the trickle effects of these business kickbacks. After reading Heart of Darkness it's evident Conrad was writing about globalization even before the termed was coined. Through Conrad's descriptions of ivory traders and what he would consider "Savages", there's a plethora of evidence leading back to the greed and avarice that drove these men to make themselves as well as the country they hailed from richer. While the images might be slightly more refined in this day and age (albeit still intrusive and unwelcome in certain parts of the world where resources are continuously being extorted), globalization has now become a permanent fixture within the economic landscape that governs the world. However what's interesting to note is globalization's role not only in business but in politics. This parallel can best be examined by the current US political situation following business mogul Donald Trump's electoral win and subsequent inauguration. While Trump has been benefiting from globalization due in most part from his business dealings overseas, his familiar slogan of "Make America Great Again" is somewhat back-pedalling on his monopoly of businesses around the world. Essentially Trump the businessman saw opportunity in globalization while President Trump might see it as a threat as this Vox article states: http://www.vox.com/2017/1/20/14339424/globalization-trumps-business-china-trade-protectionism. His promise of keeping American businesses American and American jobs American is contradictory to his past dealings that essentially sought to make a profit on anything ANYWHERE around the world. Just like Conrad's men in Heart of Darkness, Trump was one of the first to see dollar signs in places far from the borders he calls home. It will be interesting to see how Trump the businessman and Trump the politician will be able to balance the idea of globalization on a personal and political standpoint during his first term. I believe it is damaging to think that it is possible to run a country as you would a business, which it seems is what Trump is planning on doing. It's just a matter of time before he realizes there is more money to be made overseas and he begins to question his motives for running for office.

The problem with both Trump the businessman and Trump the politician is the same; they are remarkably terrible at their understand of their job, largely boiling down to a false or lack of understand of globalization. The 'America First' approach is not only discriminatory towards immigrating cultures, but also poor for business. One of the business world's greatest modern tool is globalization and networking, and ignorance to such tools is a detrimental error. Perhaps decades ago, when globalization was in the early stages and easily less efficient, an 'America First' approach could be feasible, but in the modern climate, it is nearly impossible to ignore. Profit and economics leans on its ability to export and sell goods or delegate manufacturing to various other countries. While the world is not a cohesive political unit, many countries functions as economic cogs in a machine, operating in simultaneous benefit of each other. For instance, we manufacture parts of a car in one country, we design it in another, then we build those pieces into the car itself from another country, then that car is shipped to somewhere like America. Profit rests on the ability to sell internationally and buy internationally, something I fear both Trump the politician and Trump the businessman does't fully understand.

Reading this interesting article and thoughtful responses, brought to mind the post-modern satire Absurdistan by Gary Shteyngart. In that satirical novel the government is a shell of what business desires and political ideologies are little more than spin used to bring those desires, often through spectacle, to fruition. Following the storyline of this novel, the current political concept around protectionism would be a story that could be sold to the public through spectacle, for the purpose of protecting assets that large business has a personal stake in while continuing business as usual on a global scale. To me, this sounds about right, and sadly as we can reference political satires for similar concepts, it's a story that, in one form or other, repeats.