Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Ahovking, Feb 3, 2011.
So are you for globalization or against it and why ?
It develops new nations, lifting them out of poverty and providing alternative markets for/sources of goods.
It may have short-term costs, but in the long-term it's the better option from all I hear. We can always try to regulate it to make it a bit less damaging, of course.
Economists say that trade can make everyone better off.
This means that trade can make everyone worse off.
Consider the following two statements:
1. Trade can make everyone better off.
2. Trade makes everyone better off.
The second statement is clearly stronger, yet economists don't choose this statement. Why? Because statement two must be false! Then it's just a hop skip and a jump from Trade can make everyone better off -> trade can make some people better off -> trade can make everyone worse off.
Globalization is too small minded, let's go find us some space chicks.
Globalization under who??
If it's China or any form of Islam, you can forget it.
Islam is against Globalization
I am totally against. Capitalism ruins local cultures, dstroys the environment and is a threat to local communities.
Pro-globalisation. Globalisation doesn't necessitate a lot of the negative baggage that goes with it. And obviously I'm against that negative baggage. But that doesn't at all mean globalisation in itself is a bad concept; it is a very good one.
I'm mainly against it due to outsourcing jobs outside the Unites States.
I like cheap stuff and I cannot lie!
If globalisation is at the cost of humanity and culture, no.
I'm against anything that will impede the upcoming Maori invasion of earth in 2012.
Congratulations to the poll for continuing on the clearly productive tradition of dividing a complex issue into two oversimplified opposing sides.
Am I destined to post this in every poll of yours from now on?
Anyway, Bill is right there is no grantee for globalization to be anything,but due to the complexity of economics I find this not so much shocking but rather very basic.
On the one hand globalization has been and is an awesome efficiency boost (good if you believe in efficiency to be a good way to achieve wealth, which certainly has its merits) and an even more an awesome boost for less developed countries in Asia or South America, which again can give a boost to more developed countries. So there can be made a good case for globalization.
On the other hand, the thriving for global efficiency is not fought fairly, different countries have different rules - hence the global free market is distorted. Which is to the liking of the ones benefiting from that and to the disliking of the ones loosing due to it. The second problem is, that the global thrive for efficiency will inevitably produce losers in general, as every free market does. And this can hurt.
The third problem is, that a thrive for efficiency between independent legal entities can tempt to use wage dumping or other measures not in favor of the people to achieve greater efficiency.
Now in reality, a country simply can't get out of the globalization. Because as a consequence this country would not be integrated into the efficiency cycles of the global economy and could not compete at all. Hence it would be poorer for it and the people eventually unhappy.
So there is not much just choice than trying deal with the negative sides of globalization. Like agreements on work conditions and other forms of international cooperation designed to keep things like currency wars from happening. To enable countries being on the loosing side to not get lost certain emergency measures could be discussed which may only be used when the situation is becoming really bad. Like allowing countries to use their currency as a economy booster in such occasions - but only in such.
Does culture includes religion?
Given that you can't stop the signal, globalization is inevitable. To be against it is to try to hold back the ocean. Just doesnt' work.
That said, you can manage globalization's effects in such a way as to not disrupt the native economy (which is where the issues are).
I would support globalization only if it was for the benefit of humanity rather than for the benefit of the rich/elite.
i'm for globalisation of the means of production and direct democracy.
I feel that "globalization", as it is today, has upsides and downsides.
My biggest gripe is that by outsourcing every kind of manufacturing to 3rd world countries we have lost some great promises. We didn't get high tech manufacturing plants, where the amount of workers would be reduced due to automation. Instead we opted for hiring labour on "slave wages" in really low tech settings. Now, this is not necessarily a bad thing.. It just makes me a bit sad that we ("western" countries) don't make stuff anymore. We've become administrators.
The problem on the last one, direct democracy, is that it usually work efficiently when the whole globe consist of a much larger number of representation from many diverse communities. And the current number (x number of nations), and as well as the current body (UN), is insufficient to the task.
Separate names with a comma.