This brief essay is intended to comment on Geoff Eley's essay 'Historicizing the Global, Politicizing Capital: Giving the Present a Name'. It is in three parts. The first critically reviews some recent literature on economic aspects of 'globalization', focusing in particular on authors associated with the National Bureau for Economic Research (NBER). The second section poses the question of the relative absence of Asia - both China and India - in Eley's analysis, a remarkable blind spot of some dimensions. The final then looks at the question of the emergence of the 'global' as an object of study for historians, here revisiting some of my own earlier work and that of the French historian Serge Gruzinski. In the space of a few pages, a critique is thus offered both of Eley's own Eurocentric prejudices and his narrowly 'presentist' concerns.