>Well, there's NAFTA and many other attempts at regionalism that stand
>opposed to an integrated world market--India being a main victim of this
>as Sachs notes; anti dumping laws have been invoked and threatened much of
>late (e.g., against Russian rolling coils?).
This seems overstated. Sure, there's lots of regional integration going on, but, as the cliche goes, these integrated regions are the building blocks of a global regime. I don't see that NAFTA has seriously impeded U.S. and Canadian trade with Japan or the EU. India has never been an important trading partner of the U.S.
>Most world trade seems to be intra firm trade which again does not prove
>the existence of an 'integrated' world system.
Most? Hardly. Something like a third of U.S. trade is intrafirm, and most of that intrafirm trade consists of transfers of finished or near-finished goods to foreign sales subsidiares, and vice versa. No, the world isn't a seamless integrated trading system; most economies are still national, and most trade is with nearby regional partners.
I like Paul Smith's argument that "globalization" is in large part one of capital's millennial dreams - the fantasy has gotten way ahead of the reality. Greenspan is an accomplished fantasist, for such a boring guy.
Doug