Nearly everything is outsourced from this country, we are 100 percent dependent on other countries to produce our items. Sure, we can blame China, we can blame the 3rd world, but the real problem is the corporations. It is big corporations that do not care about where the product is coming from but about maximizing profits as much as possible. Even companies that produce quality products are outsourcing to save money because it appeals to the shareholders, which all makes sense to a business person. There are some pros to globalization as Mike Collins states that, "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."
This reduces deep poverty by increasing wealth for all nations.On the negative side, globalization can also hurt the environment because middle classes are big consumers of natural resources. It is predicted that over the next 50 years`, as much as 2-3 billion people will join them. Another factor is protectionism, which is the favoring of home industries over foreign industries, specifically agriculture. Protectionism hurts developing countries by keeping them out of $700 billion in commerce each year. For me personally, what makes this word issue important for us to understand its impact on global citizens from developing countries.
Deaton makes this argument by stating that the rich are corrupting the poor countries and slowing their growth. Supporters of this argument state that receiving foreign aid leaves the governments and citizens of these countries with a strained relationship because when countries are receiving aid the government isn’t getting its money from taxes imposed on their citizens, rather from the aid given to them. Deaton’s overall argument is that developed countries should let poorer countries learn how to develop on their own (Swanson). According to this argument, foreign aid is keeping developing countries poor and perpetrating the idea that developed countries should have some sort of power or control over the developing countries. This also goes hand- in- hand with the idea of foreign aid keeping warlords in power; if the only way for aid to get to the citizens of a country is through it being given to the rulers, warlords will stay in
When free trade is implemented, there should be no barriers from the governments on the trade. But countries together with the big companies sometimes enter the poor countries and capture a bigger market of a product which leads to a monopoly and poor become dependent again. Finally the rich put sanctions on the poor so they cannot stand up again on their own. Therefore Free trade is subjected to criticism among the people as well as among the critics. Kulkarni (2013) proves this idea by saying that there is no country who adopts Free trade as it is.
The formation of global commodity chains exemplifies how globalization interconnects national economies. On the one hand, these chains vastly decreased the prices of numerous products as well as stimulated the economies of several developing countries. On the other hand, they resulted in price wars that pushed suppliers to depress wages and labor conditions for the sake of cost-efficient competitiveness. Divided on how to approach poor labor conditions, a number of scholars expressed opposing views on the imposition of global labor standards as they have various consequences for the poor. While U.S. companies promote labor rights in sweatshop nations, their resolutions are merely public relations strategy and as a result, even something as
The bulk of corporations prioritize their wealth over the condition of the Earth beneath them. Economic growth is important for the people, yes; it is how we develop as a society, but at what cost? The Earth takes the brunt of society 's success, and denying the inevitable will not stop it from occurring. In fact, denying climate change will only harm society and the Earth further; because by denying it, those who deny climate change are willingly aiding the damage and the danger climate change brings. Climate change is denied is due to the prioritization of business and the economy.
He also argued that all countries in the world runs on greed and that economic prosperity gives freedom and this particular determinant is the only reason why we even worry and can act upon social unfairness and global warming. With a different point of view, stands often sociologists and psychiatrist, among this group we find Tim Kasser, a Ph.D. expert in materialism. He argues that materialism has driven to far and that both consumerism and materialism brings bad side effects, for example: social problems, anxiety and obesity. So which side would you support? Do you think that the culture of materialism and consumerism is driving our nation towards insanity?
The unfair distribution and control of wealth, healthcare, food and education is holding back the progression of world population as a whole. Although, a world without money seems ideally possible, it would be extremely diffficult to implement. That kind of a world, requires a change in the fundamental way humans think and consume goods. As Gandhi rightly said, “Nature has enough to satisfy every man's need; but not to satisfy every man's greed”. Throughout the course of history, we have seen that greed is an intrinsic part of mankind and greed has turned the wheels of time.
As Rose Ackerman assumes, “Demands for greater transparency and integrity in government often become more insistent as per capita income rises” . It necessarily follows that corrupters are strongly motivated to restrain the economic growth of underdeveloped or developing countries in order to be able to pursue their illegitimate activity. Hence, corruption, apart from being arguably morally unacceptable, actually prevents from the gradual advancement of economics. It seems likely that those disadvantaged countries affected by corruption will never start enhancing their trading capabilities until they get rid of corruption itself and they appear to be constantly trapped into a regressive
Further, globalization is resulting in the alienation of people by bringing them together and there is no consensus on whether the bringing of people closer and thus striving for global homogeneity/uniformity/conformity is a good development, or whether it occurs at the heavy cost of destroying indigenous or local beliefs and culture. Similarly, whether globalization increases or decreases poverty as well as economic disparity is a hotly debated and contested issue, same could be said about the impact of foreign direct investment by multinational corporations (MNCs) (the drivers of globalization) on development and human rights. What is hotly debated is that positive and the negative implications of globalization, for the realization of human rights particularly in developing