Globalization

[Nippon]

Since the industrial revolution in the past few centuries the world has become increasingly open. The advancement of technology has made the world a small place, where crossing continents is only a matter of hours and spreading information a matter of seconds. Throughout the 20th century the industrial countries have made efforts to remove obstacles for free trade and to create international agreements allowing the free movement of people and commodities. This trend has become known as globalization.

 

Globalization has certainly made the allocation of resources more efficient, but simultaneously it has worrying effects on the environment and has further spreadened the gap between industrial and 3rd world countries. Critics say that globalization is why an increasing amount of the world population is doomed to poverty and famine and environmental issues such as pollution and loss of biodiversity have become an issue all around the world.

 

Where do you stand on globalization? Are we headed in the right direction or have we already gone too far?

[`Mo]

I personally don't think we've gone too far. We are doing the right thing although a lot more precision and care should be taken. Just improving the ways we live and caring we will be doing our part.

[Viesturs]

Globalization is an unavoidable by-product of modern day society.

The question whether we have gone too far is incorrect, since countries are growing increasingly dependent on each other, which in turn, means that we cannot really limit globalization.

 

While your explanation of globalization is fundamentally correct, the main aspects which it is based on are social, political and economical, meaning that if we, for some reason, would want to slow it down, it would ultimately end in the alienation of countries.

 

It is true that rich-poor gap is continually increasing, however that does not indicate anything other than the fact that the rich are becoming richer (it does not mean that the poor are becoming poorer).

 

Just look at everything which is being done. The Millennium Development Goals, global aid and increasing attempts to involve the LEDC's in international markets. Overall, the 3rd world countries are moving forward, it's just that MEDC's are moving quicker.

 

As to "Critics say that globalization is why an increasing amount of the world population is doomed to poverty and famine and environmental issues such as pollution and loss of biodiversity have become an issue all around the world." I'm fairly sure that globalization has actually very little effect on these factors, however maybe I'm simply misunderstanding the point...

[Nippon]

Globalization is an unavoidable by-product of modern day society.

The question whether we have gone too far is incorrect, since countries are growing increasingly dependent on each other, which in turn, means that we cannot really limit globalization.

 

Yet the MEDC countries are limiting globalization by protecting their own production in many fields. Both EU and US have significant agricultural subsidies that especially hurt the trade of many heavily agricultural LEDC economies. It is not at all impossible to imagine China and India setting similar subsidies in the future on their industry as the growth of GDP/capita brings wages and prices up.

 

Globalization can easily be limited with such measures, so it is simply a question of whether it should be done or not.

 

While your explanation of globalization is fundamentally correct, the main aspects which it is based on are social, political and economical, meaning that if we, for some reason, would want to slow it down, it would ultimately end in the alienation of countries.

 

Which an increasing amount of people see as a viable solution to many problems. Especially in Europe xenophobia has been on the rise lately due to increasing amounts of immigrants from 3rd world countries, which has increased domestic crime and both social and economic costs.

 

It is true that rich-poor gap is continually increasing, however that does not indicate anything other than the fact that the rich are becoming richer (it does not mean that the poor are becoming poorer).

 

While the gap is because of the rich becoming richer in the absolute sense, it also means that the poor are becoming poorer in a relative sense. The amount of money you have is irrelevant, it is how much that money can buy you. As the rich gain a larger percentage of the overall capital, the poor also have less purchase power and become, in effect, poorer.

 

Just look at everything which is being done. The Millennium Development Goals, global aid and increasing attempts to involve the LEDC's in international markets. Overall, the 3rd world countries are moving forward, it's just that MEDC's are moving quicker.

 

That last sentence is not true.

 

World Commission A FAIR GLOBALIZATION:

CREATING OPPORTUNITIES FOR ALL (2004)

 

The poorest countries have not moved forward at all in past 100 years. The amount of world population living in absolute povery is expected to rise by 1 billion people by 2015. I'm not expressing an opinion on whether its right or wrong, it's simply a fact. The poorest countries in the world are only getting poorer and they are not expected to rise out of their poverty at the current rate.

 

 

As to "Critics say that globalization is why an increasing amount of the world population is doomed to poverty and famine and environmental issues such as pollution and loss of biodiversity have become an issue all around the world." I'm fairly sure that globalization has actually very little effect on these factors, however maybe I'm simply misunderstanding the point...

 

You are mistaken, globalization is the factor that has led to these results. Globalization has enabled the current economic growth, which is the reason for all our environmental problems. Globalization and the unfair rules of globalization is why many African countries are burdened under huge debts that they'll never be able to pay, effectively destroying all attempts to create real growth.

[Viesturs]

Globalization is an unavoidable by-product of modern day society.

The question whether we have gone too far is incorrect, since countries are growing increasingly dependent on each other, which in turn, means that we cannot really limit globalization.

 

Yet in many ways the MEDC countries are limiting globalization by protecting their own production in many fields. Both EU and US have significant agricultural subsidies that especially hurt the trade of many heavily agricultural LEDC economies. It is not at all impossible to imagine China and India setting similar subsidies in the future on their industry as the growth of GDP/capita brings wages and prices up.

 

Globalization can easily be limited with such measures, so it is simply a question of whether it should be done or not.

 

While your explanation of globalization is fundamentally correct, the main aspects which it is based on are social, political and economical, meaning that if we, for some reason, would want to slow it down, it would ultimately end in the alienation of countries.

 

Which an increasing amount of people see as a viable solution to many problems. Especially in Europe xenophobia has been on the rise lately due to increasing amounts of immigrants from 3rd world countries, which has increased domestic crime and both social and economic costs.

 

It is true that rich-poor gap is continually increasing, however that does not indicate anything other than the fact that the rich are becoming richer (it does not mean that the poor are becoming poorer).

 

While the gap is because of the rich becoming richer in the absolute sense, it also means that the poor are becoming poorer in a relative sense. The amount of money you have is irrelevant, it is how much that money can buy you. As the rich gain a larger percentage of the overall capital, the poor also have less purchase power and become, in effect, poorer.

 

Just look at everything which is being done. The Millennium Development Goals, global aid and increasing attempts to involve the LEDC's in international markets. Overall, the 3rd world countries are moving forward, it's just that MEDC's are moving quicker.

 

That last sentence is not true.

 

World Commission A FAIR GLOBALIZATION:

CREATING OPPORTUNITIES FOR ALL (2004)

 

The poorest countries have not moved forward at all in past 100 years. The amount of world population living in absolute povery is expected to rise by 1 billion people by 2015. I'm not expressing an opinion on whether its right or wrong, it's simply a fact. The poorest countries in the world are only getting poorer and they are not expected to rise out of their poverty at the current rate.

 

 

As to "Critics say that globalization is why an increasing amount of the world population is doomed to poverty and famine and environmental issues such as pollution and loss of biodiversity have become an issue all around the world." I'm fairly sure that globalization has actually very little effect on these factors, however maybe I'm simply misunderstanding the point...

 

You are mistaken, globalization is the factor that has led to these results. Globalization has enabled the current economic growth, which is the reason for all our environmental problems. Globalization and the unfair rules of globalization is why many African countries are burdened under huge debts that they'll never be able to pay, effectively destroying all attempts to create real growth.

 

 

First of all, I'd just like to mention that I love these kind of topics and it's awesome discussing this ;)

 

So you say that MEDC's are promoting and defending their own markets in certain fields, which of course is true. But, the primary goal of that is to benefit economically and not become more independent.

 

The general trend is that it's much cheaper to import goods than to produce them locally, however that puts a lot of jobs at risk, for example butchers, local grocery stores and other outlets of the sorts. By limiting the influx of products or by promoting local products it helps stabilize the local economy as well as create jobs. However it would still be far cheaper to buy cheap products in bulk from LEDC's. Thus the popularity of Tescos and WallMarts and whatnot.

 

Additionally, a country cannot deal independently with most factors. Natural resources for one - gas, coal, oil and water are among a few. As much as every country would like to have their own reserves of each and every one of those, that's not the case. Tropical goods ranging from coffee to fruit are another big one.

Countless examples of these can be found in nearly every single sector.

 

But the truth is that Globalization does not just affect us economically.

Look at Facebook, look at Youtube, look at Runescape... they are all examples of globalization.

 

Social and political factors are as important as economic when talking about the growing interdependence of countries.

 

 

Anyway, moving on. The increase of immigrants has indeed resulted in an increase in crime rates and put strain on the society, however it is clear that there certain barriers which prevent it from bring beneficial. The language barrier, social barrier and educational barrier are just a few. I'm not saying that we can really do much about it, however if the governements were to pay more attention to the integration of immigrants into the community, it might even bring some benefit.

 

Racism is the biggest barrier of them all, the hostility of locals and the lack of opportunity leaves the immigrants with little chance of finding a good paying job in a group of people who don't want to beat him up and kick him out of the country due to that fact that one of their friends got demoted so that the immigrant could work there. (random and weird example ik ik..)

 

 

 

Okay, yes I agree that the poor might be worse off financially due to the ever-increasing gap between them and the rich, however you also have to admit that overall the standard of living of the poor increases as more money is invested into healthcare and education by the rich government.

 

But basically, here you show, the well discussed fact that the GDP is a bad indicator of development and then in your next point proceed to compare the levels of development by using it :D

 

Look at these :

http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/pdf/MDG_FS_1_EN.pdf

or really any of the 8 goals at http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/stats.shtml

 

You will see that overall, while the progress is relatively slow, hunger, AIDS, maternal deaths and education are getting significantly better.

 

 

As to your last point, debt relief is becoming more and more common nowadays, the international market borders are being opened up both by NGO's as well as governments.

Africa is a great asset to the world and has vast quantities of, yet to be discovered, natural resources.

 

AS to the environmental factors, I'm not too sure what to think, however, I'd say that globalization is both the cause and the answer.

It is only through international cooperation that we will be able to jointly start repairing the damage done.

 

 

The one one thing about globalization which I really dislike is the cultural imperialism. The rapid spread of information, people and cultures has resulted in the creation of this perfect western culture. The countries that attempt to adapt to this new culture frequently forget their own rich heritage.

 

And this works both ways. I had an extensive case study about the Dani tribe in one of my geography books. The gist of it was that when the Dani were discovered masses of missionaries start coming in trying to convert the Dani and as a result ****** up their idyllic lifestyle. Here's a little bit, but not much http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dani_people

[Anthoni]

How could we have gone too far? As a society, we'll always continue to advance. There's no stopping that.

[Tyrone]

But there's ways to avoid advancing in negative ways, such as limit some of our resources.

[8loodyarch3r]

Globalization is good for our civilization, i see nothing wrong with it.

 

When i think of globalization i think of progress.

[I R Jaketard]

I'm in support of globalization, but only because I'm cold-hearted. Some countries are simply more fortunate than others and at this point in time, we're in way too deep to back out and try to reduce the impacts of globalization and make things better ;\ As far as the environment goes, I've lost all hope. We're doomed either way, so we might as well make the most of it.

[Nippon]

So you say that MEDC's are promoting and defending their own markets in certain fields, which of course is true. But, the primary goal of that is to benefit economically and not become more independent.

 

The general trend is that it's much cheaper to import goods than to produce them locally, however that puts a lot of jobs at risk, for example butchers, local grocery stores and other outlets of the sorts. By limiting the influx of products or by promoting local products it helps stabilize the local economy as well as create jobs. However it would still be far cheaper to buy cheap products in bulk from LEDC's. Thus the popularity of Tescos and WallMarts and whatnot.

 

Additionally, a country cannot deal independently with most factors. Natural resources for one - gas, coal, oil and water are among a few. As much as every country would like to have their own reserves of each and every one of those, that's not the case. Tropical goods ranging from coffee to fruit are another big one.

Countless examples of these can be found in nearly every single sector.

 

But the truth is that Globalization does not just affect us economically.

Look at Facebook, look at Youtube, look at Runescape... they are all examples of globalization.

 

Social and political factors are as important as economic when talking about the growing interdependence of countries.

 

It's a common misconcept that protectionism is used to keep the unemployment rate low. In fact the loss of jobs could only be temporary. Labour market mechanisms tell us that on the long run wages would balance to meet the new conditions and new jobs would appear for the unemployed. Protectionism is only a political tool to serve the benefits of influential unions and corporations.

 

I'm just going to leave the discussion on whether facebook, utube or RS are good or bad things, though I'd like you to consider the possibility that they are not necessarily an absolute benefit for human welfare.

 

Anyway, moving on. The increase of immigrants has indeed resulted in an increase in crime rates and put strain on the society, however it is clear that there certain barriers which prevent it from bring beneficial. The language barrier, social barrier and educational barrier are just a few. I'm not saying that we can really do much about it, however if the governements were to pay more attention to the integration of immigrants into the community, it might even bring some benefit.

 

Racism is the biggest barrier of them all, the hostility of locals and the lack of opportunity leaves the immigrants with little chance of finding a good paying job in a group of people who don't want to beat him up and kick him out of the country due to that fact that one of their friends got demoted so that the immigrant could work there. (random and weird example ik ik..)

 

You address well the most common problems of immigration. However, you offer no solution, which is the case for most people advocating for multi-culture society. It seems that there is no apparent way to decrease or get rid of these barriers. Why, then, should we force ourselves on trying to become a multi-cultural "world nation"? Wouldn't it be more beneficial to hold on to our cultural differences, which have enrichened our world throughout the human era, each in our own natural and evolutionary environment?

 

Okay, yes I agree that the poor might be worse off financially due to the ever-increasing gap between them and the rich, however you also have to admit that overall the standard of living of the poor increases as more money is invested into healthcare and education by the rich government.

 

But basically, here you show, the well discussed fact that the GDP is a bad indicator of development and then in your next point proceed to compare the levels of development by using it :D

 

GDP alone might be an insufficient measure of living standards, therefore we use purchasing power parity numbers to describe the real average wealth of people living in different countries.

 

Take a look at the PPP map in 2009 for some reference http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm...ta_2009_IMF.png

 

You can see that the less developed countries are indeed far behind in terms of economic welfare, and that the situation is not improving in absolute terms, and is becoming worse by day in relative terms.

 

Look at these :

http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/pdf/MDG_FS_1_EN.pdf

or really any of the 8 goals at http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/stats.shtml

 

You will see that overall, while the progress is relatively slow, hunger, AIDS, maternal deaths and education are getting significantly better.

 

UN is very much biased towards presenting their numbers in a positive fashion. Their funding depends on showing results for the work they do.

 

Much of the millenium goals that UN claims to have accomplished by showing those averages are due to the growth of emerging economies like China and India. While the emerging economies are indeed growing on a fast pace, there is absolutely no positive development in most of Africa, which is where UN does most of its work. There is a very simple reason for this, one that UN can't affect much: overpopulation.

 

In fact, the work that UN has done with food aid and such has made the situation worse. Much of the food and financial aid is given to families according to the amount of children they have, which has further increased overpopulation. There are 2 things that can improve the situation in Africa: education and birth control.

 

As to your last point, debt relief is becoming more and more common nowadays, the international market borders are being opened up both by NGO's as well as governments.

Africa is a great asset to the world and has vast quantities of, yet to be discovered, natural resources.

 

It is true that IMF has promoted debt relief in the 21st century for many poor countries. It is wrong to think that this is due to some suddently emerging empathy towards the less fortunate. Rather the aim is to bring the debt to sustainable levels so that the milking of natural resources and property can continue in the future.

[Fatall]

The human race went too far, too long ago. We're no better than a virus feeding off the Earths resources untill it's deprived and dies along with us. The main reason for this is human overpopulation, the main reason for most of the worlds biggest problems is infact overpopulation.

[Reilly]

I'd say globalization and the ideological advancement of liberalism have had the most profound affect on modern day society as we know it. As for the question at hand, I'd personally say it's meaningless. Regardless of the social, political and economic ramifications it may have on humanity as a collective, globalization was bound to happen sooner or later, which is why the question itself is irrelevant. This is my perspective on the world: Humans have developed our values, beliefs and identities through social constructs, IE Religion, education, linguistics, etc. However, at the same time we evolve as a collective race through technology, and this technological advancement is inevitable. We've seen this during even our most primitive evolutionary stages, IE basic scavenging tools, etc. I feel as though globalization is just another step in the evolution of man; it's neither good, nor bad, and depending on how humans handle the situation will ultimately be the variable that determines whether or not globalization works. The benefits, similarly to the possible consequences, are extraordinarily high. I don't know enough about the issue at hand to go in-depth on whether or not I personally believe it will work, but what I do know is that we're never going to be able to "un-globalize" now that we're so interconnected.

 

I guess I'd just have to say that what's done is done, and humanities going to have to find ways to live as an interconnected society alongside these vast economic policies.

[0ynxx]

all your posts are retarded, your arguing over nothing, ok I am done

[Hugh]

Just had an essay relating to this

 

I've been doing this for two and a half weeks and i`ve had enough

 

so simply, heres what I learned:

 

Globalisation is a good thing in theory, large corporations provide huge amounts of money into research and development, giving us, the top 20% of the worlds population, with a fair amount of money at our disposal to buy products like 3G phones that companies spent hundreds of millions to develop. These large corporations help push the limits of modern technology, and push the human race forward. As well as "made the allocation of resources more efficient".

 

However

 

Critics say that globalization is why an increasing amount of the world population is doomed to poverty and famine and environmental issues such as pollution and loss of biodiversity have become an issue all around the world.

 

Is completely true, billions of people around the world are living in poverty, and heres us all snuggled up at our computer screens and comfy houses, not even close to even imagining what some of these peoples lives are like, through no fault of their own.

 

Corporations need to start taking some responsibility, they have plenty of opportunities through disruptive innovation to start providing these billions of people living a poor quality of life with some help, start bringing in basic goods and products, don't just leave them with **** all. The funny thing is the poorer countries around the world provide the most business opportunity for businesses to get involved, but the corporations just can't be bothered.

 

oh yeh and the USA are also cocks

 

tl:dr

 

innovation through globalisation is good, but mostly its just us being greedy.

corporations need to start hitting up some of those poor folk.

 

stop being ***** everyone

 

srs

[Father Justin]

I'm American so I support!