- Politics and Social Issues»
- Economy & Government
Is Globalization Good or Bad
Globalization: Good or Bad for you and me?
Whether you are for it or not globalization is inevitable. As far as scientist and historians can date back man has traded goods amongst other men. Mankind would travel to another area in search of something “better” whether it is food or weather. Once they arrived they would trade what they had for something they did not have. For the most part this could be considered globalization but it has not been labeled for the mere fact that territories were not as established by boundaries as they have been in the recent centuries. Globalization is inevitable because the power is what everybody want, economical or militarily. Most go for economical power. Globalization is most referred to during economics throughout the world. When a company is doing well in one area, it will try to expand to another for more power. Globalization cannot be stopped and should be embraced. To embrace globalization and make it were everybody benefits from such a system, a few items must be addressed, first would be the fact of the matter of having to go into a worldwide recession to “start over.” Secondly would be issuing of new rules s and regulations for such a feat. Also allowing everybody in the world to contribute to make this happen, there will be many protestors from the start but if executed correctly those protesters children and grandchildren will have a much better and easier life.
Sweden is a country of “universal” everything. From housing programs to healthcare and to even college, it can be free. That would be nice to have in the world in general. Economic globalization can make this happen if we embraced it rather than create a current in which it has trouble swimming. In order for economic globalization to work up to “our” standards we are going to have to take some major hits financial. For success of an idea that has been around forever, the world will have to reset all currency values to be the same. This in return would reduce world debt “Clinton promised cancellation of some debts owed to the United States by impoverished nations” (Thousands). Large companies would take great hits to their institutions. These companies would be the credit companies and governments. The world needs to make sure that the poverty line for each country is the same instead of the U.S. being at $28,000 per year, and Liberia being at $816 a year. This will eliminate the large companies farming their production to cheap labor nations and will immensely reduce child labor. “Similar global pressure from public opinion can also put an end to the practice” (Globalization...). If Nike corp. had to pay their workers in China the same price that they pay workers in the United States, Nike would more than likely keep their company production evenly spread throughout there world just to save on shipping prices. This will be the same across the boards for all companies. Large companies would hate this; the world’s citizens may dislike it as well due to price hikes. After it is all said and done the price of the product will remain the same, pending sales taxes, and tariffs, worldwide. Poor countries cannot afford the shoes, this statement would be incorrect. With enough time allowed for economic globalization to stabilize, everybody will be equals and making the same amount of income as a kite assembler in Canada or China. Large recessions will take place causing worldwide market crashes, but the only way to build a new house where the old one is, is to destroy the old house.
North American Free Trade Agreement known as NAFTA has many rules and regulations that decide whether imports and exports are to be made with other countries. Organizations such as this would have to be eliminated. To globalize you would have to use the world, NAFTA segregates itself from the world, and it says that in its name. Rules and regulation would have to be set by world industries and world leaders. Getting that many companies and leaders in one room would also be a huge step towards world peace as well. Agreements would have to be made along with compromises. Countries, organizations, and companies obviously would not see eye to eye on things. With a worldwide recession in place countries would be more apt to help themselves buy helping the world. Many countries have many other free trade policies with other countries, but the one thing they all have in common is a time limit. Free trade agreements would most definitely not sound like an agreement that would have to have a time limit. Unless Charles, your next door neighbor, never returned your weed eater. Just stop letting him borrow stuff, as well as his kids, his wife, his friends and so on. In a suburbia metaphor it seems pretty lame. The neighborhood could just set a community system that would could offer help in the situation or flat out just supply equipment so people do not have to borrow.
Protestors would be left and right barking about how these are terrible ideas to globalize economies. First off, it would be terrible, for us. It would bring immediate hardships on us but for our children and our children’s children, their lives would be some much simpler and easier. “In the 1990s, while the loss of manufacturing jobs was controversial, American consumers and businesses seemed to regard globalization and free trade as net positives” (Free Trade). These protestors would be proven selfish or just flat out uninformed on what was happening. The idea of capitalism would be the same but it may just be a little harder to break through and become “wealthy.” For me to be wealthy is to do what you want and to never have to worry about money. In an efficiently economically globalized world, the working class would be the wealthy class. If you work and work hard you will be wealthy. For this to even take place many decades of hard work to get this system in place would have to occur. People would have to give up their fortunes and time to reset everything. Jesus gave his life for the sins of others; this would almost be like that. We would give up what we worked for so the rest of the world can catch, or we can catch-up. This would have to be a worldwide effort. “Democratic socialism is centered on humanist ideals, with the ultimate goal of allowing each individual the opportunity and means for his or her personal development and individual satisfaction” (Socialism). May seem like Socialism, but what is so terrible about socialism if you are not rich?
"Economic Globalization." UC Atlas of Global Inequality. 11 May 2009 <http://ucatlas.ucsc.edu/economic.php>.
"Free Trade: Is Globalization Hurting the U.S? | Newsweek Inside Business | Newsweek.com." Newsweek - National News, World News, Health, Technology, Entertainment and more... | Newsweek.com. 11 May 2009 <http://www.newsweek.com/id/156343>.
"Globalization and Child Labor: The Cause Can Also be a Cure." YaleGlobal Online Magazine. 11 May 2009 <http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=8907>.
"Socialism." Welcome to Bergonia, an imaginary country. 11 May 2009 <http://www.bergonia.org/Gov/socialism.htm>.
"Thousands Rally To Urge Erasing Third World Debt." Common Dreams | News & Views. 11 May 2009 <http://www.commondreams.org/views/041000-105.htm>.