In conclusion, the topic of free trade is difficult to debate and often controversial as it has advantages but also disadvantages. Nonetheless, the drawbacks outweigh the benefits as it one, contravenes basic moral ideologies, two, makes the rich, richer, and the poor, poorer, and three, jeopardizes our declining environment. All in all, free trade will neither support nor sustain our country to be ethical, prosperous or
Globalization is slowly causing the world to expand its trade borders to help link together countries around the world in order to avoid isolating themselves economically. Nations are starting to rely on foreign trading because "the more trading that takes place, the more wealth is created, and global trade across international frontiers has created more wealth than ever before in human history, and [has] helped lift more people out of mere subsistence than ever before." (Pirie, Globalization). The extra wealth generated by globalization has brought an increase in employment in the service sector, which provides for many of the new jobs needed. Globalization helps countries of all economic ranges to be able to succeed in the global economy by allowing them the opportunity to use foreign resources in order to succeed. Poorer countries are able to succeed by providing labor that is cheap, causing foreign countries to invest in the country, which in turn allows them to earn enough to stay out of poverty. It benefits wealthier countries as well because the money saved from importing cheaper foreign goods allows consumers to maintain a higher standard of living. Globalization also forces firms to become more efficient in order to compete with other foreign firms to succeed. However, not everyone believes that globalization is a good thing. A group called the International Forum on Globalization believes that globalism "[benefits] transnational corporations over workers; foreign investors over local businesses; and wealthy countries over developing nations."(Hoppough and Meredith, 398-399). But if this were true then the local businesses and local people in the developing nations would have no reason to ever attempt to trade outside of their borders. The reason that globalism is able to even work is because the local
We agree to a large extent to the statement, "The benefits of globalization outweigh its cost." Even though there are some
Liberal rhetoric would lead us to believe that we live in an increasingly connected, and therefore improved, world. Images of Sherpas with cell phones and Amazonians with refrigerators are pointed to as evidence that by increasing global trade we are improving the lives of every human on earth. Given time, the expansion of free trade across the globe will lead to an interconnected world economy built upon a foundation of international cooperation and ever-rising standards of living. This utopian dream is the product of a brilliant public relations campaign, a carefully constructed façade that disguises the true nature of modern day globalization. In actuality, the spread of free markets is the utilization of capitalism as an economic tool
“Although the national welfare effect will be positive, in a country composed of many individuals, a redistribution of income generating winners and losers from trade is very likely.” (Internationalecon.com, 2011)
‘Newly industrialised countries have been and continue to be, the driving force of globalisation.’ To what extent do you agree with this statement?
As well, it states that globalization tears down walls, potentially expanding freedom, democracy, innovation, as well as social and cultural exchanges while offering communication opportunities. This source implies that globalization is a positive driving force. They believe that it gives people more chances to interact with and understand other people, and be able to exert power globally. The source is viable; the author of the source was Pascal Lamy, director general of the WTO. The author is suggesting that globalization is an important part of developing the various countries and corporations in the world. The author is neither mocking the situation or being ironic; their perspective is that globalization is positive. As they are the director general of WTO, they, in my opinion, have this perspective because they want more trade opportunities in other countries. The author of the source gave this statement to Chilean politicians and business leaders on January 30, 2006.
In theory, globalization should help contribute to the equality of the global economy. Yet this is not the case in reality. Globalization contributes to unsustainable prosperity for a very small percentage of the world’s population. For those in developing countries, it is especially unsustainable. The resources in these areas are consumed at an unstable rate and the environment given very little consideration. The workers are treated as if they are expendable. The smaller economies of these countries are vastly taken advantage of. For these reasons, globalization contributes to sustainable prosperity to a small extent.
Globalization, when considered in relation to trade and money, can lead one to wonder if it is all about powerful people, organised as corporations, making goods where labour is cheapest, carting it to where the price is highest, benefiting no one but themselves, trampling the planet in the process. Was it all worth it?
Supporters of globalization argue that it has the potential to make this world a better place to live in and solve some of the deep-seated problems like unemployment and poverty. But the opponents general complaint about globalization is that it has made the rich richer while making the non-rich poorer. “It is wonderful for managers, owners and investors, but hell on workers and nature.”
“Globalization is today's reality. Like it or not, the move to a world economy is a fact of life. At some point in the 1990s the process achieved critical mass and people started to sit up and take notice. Many were apprehensive.