The Debating Society
Hobbies & Interests
A place where ModDB members can debate civilly, and learn from each other's views.
Globalization
(view original)
Post a comment
Description
We've had quite a bit of strife on here over the last week, however the debate must go on!
Is ongoing globalization good for the world as a whole? More specifically, is it good for the developed world? The developing/undeveloped world?
Well now that Cure Optimism's retarded public mental breakdown is done and dealt with, perhaps this group can kick back to civil debating.
Globalization is normally a good thing and has been a good thing historically. Think about the trade between india and the west, the silk trade from China.
Modern "globalization" is understood in different terms but ultimately, the pros out-weight the cons. There's more trade, a bigger market and more consumers.
A good article on its pros and cons is here:
Udemy.com
The way I see it, the more globalized we are. The less likely we are to wage war on one another due to us being more or less dependent on each other.
That said, countries not being self sufficient/reliant on others for food, power etc. The worse we are off when ever a major catastrophe hits, natural or otherwise.
Mostly for it. If we ever have a chance at getting off this rock we'd better work together to achieve that. However if it is possible to keep all of the unique and independent cultures that exist in the world it would probably be worth the effort to keep them.
Problem is, if we don't fix our problem first, were going to have Chinese colonies, American colonies, European colonies and so forth and we will bring our problems with us :P
To keep our cultures in developed countries, we will all have to keep a healthy balance of Nationalization and Globalization. We can use globalization for new ideas, sharing common platforms to exchange useful knowledge with other countries. While we can also use Nationalization of our economy to reserve our natural resources(forests,oil, etc.)promote our country's cultures and not "forget" about it over time. As opposed to only having Nationalization or only having Globalization, if you only have Nationalization, you close your country off from the world preventing ideas to flourish, trade will be limited, natural resources will last longer, population will be limited, if you only have Globalization, your spending in resources will increase dramatically increasing your GDP as well, ideas will flourish, population will increase, but your people will be all caught up in what the media has to say, people will be consumed in their gadgets, and facebook lol.
a great example is Nationalized North Korea compared to Globalized South Korea
It is good for the developed world, increase in trade and companies being able to concentrate their trade into a foreign land can still receive good results in the stock market. A good example of this is Apple's new Iphone debut in China, which was well received for the time being. Forbes.com
But for the undeveloped world, they literally have no say in what goes on, corporations can send lobbyists to lobby the government into selling land, buy large amounts of land, in effect kicking out the original inhabitants who use it for farming, and hire the people they kicked out for cheap labor to extract resources. People begin to lose a sense of who they are, children would grow up thinking material wealth, and big houses and cars displayed on tv equate to happiness versus learning how to be independent, their culture is replaced from living off the land to being enitirely dependent on corporations to provide them jobs. Another problem is (going back to point one) with the effect of corporations being multinational due to globalization, corporations are granted way more power than and manytimes "over" everyday people who live in the country. Theguardian.com
Remember, of the 100 largest economies in the world, 51 are corporations while only 49 are countries.