Again, I don't blame you because it is counterintuitive, but I invite you to read Section 6 ("Financial Crises") of the Bordo, Eichengreen and Irwin 1999 paper (linked above), to appreciate the extent to which globalization then was indeed similar to today's --even in terms of the number of countries involved, the role of supranational institutions, and the "contagion" effects of local crises via economic linkages. It's quite fascinating.
I'm reading that paper now (and I'll read the other later tonight). Thank you for linking to it, it's interesting so far.
I'm a little confused though: in the beginning of the paper, it seems to be supporting some of my thesis, that the modern global economy is more interconnected than it has been at any recent point in history. e.g., "We conclude that our world is different: commercial and financial integration before World War I was more limited. ...integration is deeper and broader than a hundred years ago."
...maybe they go on to refine that point in a way that refutes me. I'll keep reading.
No, you are right! I completely misread the paper. From the conclusion:
"While presenting a good deal of detail, we have sought in this paper to emphasize a small number of general points. First, the globalization of commodity and financial markets is historically unprecedented. Facile comparisons with the late nineteenth century notwithstanding, the international integration of capital and commodity markets goes further and runs deeper than ever before."
Thank you for pointing this out! I stand corrected.
