The metaphor I would use for what's happening now is the Tower of Babel - a fable from the Old Testament. Mankind became proud of its accomplishments and wanted to build a tower that would reach to the sky. God destroyed the tower and caused all the workmen to speak thousands of different languages so they could no longer communicate, and they dispersed along linguistic grounds.
There exists in our culture and other cultures a strong drive towards globalization, towards unifying mankind into one connected world. There also exists in this culture and other cultures a strong drive away from globalization, towards dividing the world along national lines or linguistic lines or tribal lines.
During the 1920's, globalizers worked as hard as they could to unify the world's economy, but anti-globalizers got the upper hand and caused tremendous shocks to the international system. Examples include the US adopting the Smoot-Hawley tariff in 1930, which led to all major nations adopting similar tariffs, and reactionary governments being installed as an antidote to communism, e.g., the Nazi party got 107 seats in the Reichstag in 1930, Mussolini became dictator of Italy in 1925.
During the 1990's, the drive towards globalization became ascendant again, and again, anti-globalizers are fighting as hard as they can. Alan Greenspan and George W. Bush are globalizers. Europe adopting the euro is an example of globalization. The Internet is an agent of globalization. Osama bin Laden is one example of an anti-globalizer. So are the protesters at WTO meetings.
Some (e.g., Harold James) argue that globalization is impossible, that human beings are simply unable to tolerate the contradictions globalization creates, and, therefore, another worldwide depression is inevitable.
hup.harvard.edu
Others (e.g., me) argue that globalization is inevitable, and that human beings suffer from nothing worse than the inability to comprehend everything at once, but that's ok. No one person at Boeing understands how to build a jet anymore, and no one person at MicroSoft understands what's in Windows anymore. Similarly, the global economy is simply too huge to comprehend anymore, so people use metaphors, e.g., "the end of boom times always heralds the beginning of the bust."
The first big bust in the US was around 1819. There were big busts in the 1830's, 1840's, 1870's, 1890's, 1907, 1921, 1930's, and none since. Why not? I suggest that the reason is the same reason why there were no big busts in the US prior to 1819 - big busts are not inevitable. Even small ones may become less likely as we develop better communication of information, like "just in time" inventory. We also need to learn to believe the information we do communicate - the telcom bust was obvious to many long before it happened.
Human activity doesn't follow patterns. The metaphor of boom and bust is the wave. It's a lovely metaphor and I can easily see why people would be attracted to it, but it really doesn't work unless you ignore a lot of data to make it work.
Similarly with the metaphor of the Tower of Babel. I don't think it's a coincidence that bin Laden struck at the twin towers of the WTC and at the Pentagon, at colossal structures that serve as symbols for US economic power and military power. I don't think it's an accident that bin Laden is calling for his followers to attempt to destroy the US economy. He may not be aware of the fable of the Tower of Babel but he understands the symbolism.
The Tower of Babel was a metaphor for the Empire of Babylon. The US is today's Babylon, and yet it is not. I would argue that the US is yesterday's Babylon and the world is today's Babylon. If I am right, then one major difference between the Tower of Babel being built in the Old Testament and the one being built today is that we already speak thousands of different languages. Another is that our "tower" is the Internet, which is in the air, under the earth, and under the oceans. If one line is cut, countless thousands take its place. This is why I say globalization is inevitable.
I don't think it's possible to shock the world's economy hard enough to cause another great bust, absent nuclear war. |
