In response to the posting on the TransAsia Energy Grid, I suggested an important security alliance of developing countries was BRICS - including Brazil, Russia, India and South Africa, with observers Iran and Venezuela; BRICS is reported to have 75% of the world’s population and 80% of the natural resources.

But cultural differences are significant. For example, some in the US Senate and the Congress want Russia ousted from the G8 because it is too different, culturally, from the other members. And BRICS contains the economic giants of tomorrow.

Globalization is a shaky thing - currency collapse, loan defaulting, stock market crash, oil supply disruption, and more obvious things like wars can throw it off balance, disrupt it or reverse it.

I think just about anyone would agree to this. But, keeping with my first response, I think the main issue of globalization currently is that it is currently driven by the “old rich” so to speak, things will change as other countries began to demand place their input into the system.

Another issue, is that globalization is supposed to lead to growing economies that in turn would lead to increased consumption of goods, which can only be unsustainable for the environment in the long run. What is missing is a mechanism for a true and total cost of production to be accounted for.

The article by Niall Ferguson draws parallels between economics today and before World War 1, when globalisation sank.

“International trade, investment, and migration all collapsed. Moreover, the attempt to resuscitate the world economy after the war’s end failed. The global economy effectively disintegrated with the onset of the Great Depression and, after that, with an even bigger world war, in which astonishingly high proportions of production went toward perpetrating destruction. . .Global markets were disrupted and disconnected, first by economic warfare, then by postwar protectionism.”

Such is the destination of economic patriotism in an unregulated global economy. Unfortunately there’s little appetite to prevent a repeat.

“However the developed world is now saying that the rules of the global economy have gone far enough.”

Not to sound like Tom Friedman, but I think that in some cases free trade has not gone enough, especially with the tariffs imposed by the developed nations over the poor. Also, I think to a certain degree globalization has also become the scapegoat for not-so-successful countries, as well.

In other cases, there also needs to be an understood limit. The privatization of water, even if it would have improved the water supply, was too much for many people and even against my belief of limited autarchy.

There is also a lack of serious input for developing nations. This is why I think nations like Brazil and India should be embraced by the G-8. Even if they are more advanced then most third-world nations, they can act as a bridge between the mostly Western developed nations and the developing nations.

Having the G-8 seemingly dictate the terms is the wrong approach.

However the developed world is now saying that the rules of the global economy have gone far enough. Their countries are becoming poorer, albeit developing countries are becoming richer. Economic patriotism is more of a factor. The IIE have responded to the trend by calling for holistic problem solving; they comment on the ongoing talks at the WTO aimed at the further loosening of global trade:

“The Doha Round could become the first major multilateral trade talks to fail since the 1930s. To prevent a collapse, policymakers in the G-8 and key developing countries must resolve global monetary and current account imbalances, counter the backlash against globalization, and find a way to jolt the talks back to life.”