A letter of discomfort

Ever since globalisation became the buzzword in the 90s, globalists enjoyed monopoly over popular consensus. The arrival of economic turmoil, however, has been changing mindsets. Even in the US - the worlds leading pollinator of globalisation - people have been busy reconsidering their views.
"In 2001, six in 10 Americans said tightening economic ties were a positive development. That fell to 42 percent in 2003 and now sits at 36 percent," a Washington Post Poll revealed last month. The fall in the number of globalists was witnessed in both camps: the Republicans and the Democrats.
This trend makes sense. Globalisation, as we know today, is easy to enjoy and easier to export in times of boom; when the times get tough, the seeds of discontent are hurriedly sown and hastily harvested - and before you know it, the anger springs. For those long sitting on the sidelines of globalisation, the story is more painful.
Take for instance, the case of developing countries like Pakistan, in the light of recent developments.
Who could have thought that the death of an unknown Tunisian vegetable vendor (yes, a sabziwala) would lead to a social revolution across the Middle East, create jitters in global financial and commodity markets, while threatening weak economies with food and fuel inflation, current account imbalances and an en masse demand for government subsidies that may lead to additional fiscal woes.
Advocates of technology might be quick to give credit to latest fad called social networking - coining phrases like Facebook Revolution, Twitter Revolt and what not. Yet, while technology may be a facilitator, at the heart of the revolution spree in the Middle East is a complicated web of financial globalisation.
As emerging economies - like China, India, Brazil - bring more and more people on the demand counter, food and fuel prices escalate - and as floods play havoc in Pakistan or in Australia, or as fires burn down crops in Russia, somewhere in the remote corner of the world, a loaf of bread becomes costlier.
Similarly, as Ben Bernanke pumps more liquidity to avoid a double dip recession, the money ends up fuelling commodities.
Of course, Bernanke denies that quantitative easing policy is behind the resurgence of inflation and the revolts in Tunisia and Egypt and instead points to "excess demand pressure in emerging markets". Yet, while there may not be Granger-causation between the two, on the face of it Bernankes monetary pumping is making the life of global poor more difficult.
The point to ponder for Pakistanis is how to deal with this multi-faceted animal called globalisation. Quite naturally, the clock can be turned back - not at least as smoothly as anti-globalists would like to think. Nor can one out rightly deny the positive impact of globalisation on the humanity at large.
Yet, at the same time, there is no denying that in an increasingly connected world, volatility is also increasing - the boom-bust cycles are becoming shorter and unstable, and a host of uncertainties is making markets spooky and lives miserable.
For a country like Pakistan, whose tradition-minded citizens have been abruptly pushed in the globalised world without having actually been prepared for it, the hyper revolutions in global economy is as painful as indiscernible by the population at large.
While the breeding grounds for a revolution may exist in Pakistan, no one can predict with certainty if, when and what will trigger the revolution. But if it does, the consequences could be strident and far reaching. For those involved with Pakistans economy, the US, the IMF, and other multilateral agencies, let this be a letter of discomfort.