Like many people, when I woke up this morning, my thoughts were focused on what had to be done today. For me, that meant writing this note to you and editing some articles for this issue. We all tend to spend most of our time on the specific tasks we must accomplish and typically dedicate little time to pondering the larger theories and hypotheses of life. So, it came as a surprise when, as a result of an article I was editing on global standards ("Lost in Translation?" p. 28), I found myself thinking about world peace.

The article reports standards are progressing, albeit slowly, across the globe. No, it doesn't describe standards as the harbinger of world peace. But it did get me thinking about how people largely view achieving peace simply as an ending to war and a matter of politics, ideologies, and perhaps sociological forces. Of course, there are financial consequences–to the victor goes the spoils–but deterring war historically has been popularly an idealistic issue. For example, a book by Wendell Willkie (who ran against FDR for president) titled One World, published in 1943, contended the war in which America was engaged should bring an end to the empire of nations over nations. In a post-isolationist/pre-Cold War time, it posed the idea this country had the opportunity to create a new society built on independence–the quest for freedom.

Today, with the rules of war changing due to the nature of terrorism, financial weapons and self-interest frequently are the arsenal helping to keep the peace. The line between idealism and materialism seems blurrier. In a global economy, war still can happen, but it's bad for business. So, the financial markets gradually are becoming as borderless as the air we breathe.