Globalisation - Is it a good thing or a bad thing? - General

Globalisation can be explained in rather simple terms - It makes the world smaller. The concept of it is the unification of the global economy, for example it means that we can do business with portions of the world that we could not do conveniently a hundred years ago. A hundred years ago, most economies were self-sufficient, needing little stimulation from other economies to work successfully. Today, most economies have a reliance on what is now the massive United States economy, as well as each other. Another example would be China, with its economy heavily reliant on exports but also reliant on imports, such as metals which are imported from places such as Australia. Globalisation's effect on the economy may prove for benefit to businesses, but disadvantageous to local markets. An example of this is outsourcing, where a business has a third party manage certain operations for them. Although outsourcing to groups within the same local market can still be done, much outsourcing goes to places such as Asia, where labour is alot cheaper. This saves the business money in comparison to outsourcing locally, or doing the operations of their own accord. Globalisation doesn't have to be just about business and economics though, it can affect other things as well. Another example is cultural globalisation, one major example of this would be "Americanisation", where the world outside the United States is slowly adjusting to the US culture. This has affected many places immensely. Although this would be a petty example, here in Australia barely any young adult will call their friends "mates" or "blokes", now it is simply "guys". But to benefit, foods from other cultures may settle in a culture. In most countries in the western world, you could drive around and find places such as a Chinese restaurant and an Indian restaurant, as well as many others. A hundred years ago, this would not be the case. Globalisation can affect many other things as well, but I do not want to make this OP too long. So, is globalisation a good thing or a bad thing? Here are some arguments I can see for each side: [B]For Globalisation[/B] - Introduction of foreign cultures, creates diversity. This can be things such as new cuisines and traditions. It could be argued that because of this, it might help in removing xenophobia over time. - Allows businesses to reach into international markets, making a new source of income available for the business but also providing something new for that local market. An example is Coca-Cola, which can be found in nearly every nation in the world. - Outsourcing allows for cheaper labour, and possibly even cheaper goods or services as a result. The ease of importing from foreign markets also allows for cheaper products [B]Against Globalisation[/B] - Globalisation can damage cultures, and possibly even destroy them. An example of this is the effect of "Americanisation". I provided an example of it above - Globalisation creates a reliance on foreign markets, which can possibly be negative. An example would be the recent Global Financial Crisis, which rippled throughout the whole global economy. It also means if nations such as the United States or China were to collapse (both being major importers and exporters), a new financial crisis could happen as a result - The ease of outsourcing to foreign markets can damage employment in a local economy. Financially, it is understandable to employ human resources from a cheaper foreign market than it is to employ human resources from a local, and more expensive market. Please, contribute your own arguments and provide your own point of view. This should be a good topic to debate over.

I would say that globalisation is a good thing, for it is slowly uniting the people of this planet as one over time as various cultures/languages/religions will slowly merge and others will inevitably die off, especially now that with the introduction of the internet this process is accelerating as more people gain access to it. I know friends who have started to use American slang rather than Scots slang now as one example, the latter gradually dying out.

i support a free market powered by people with liberties and rights, not slave labour and invasive exploitation.

Not if it is Globalization under Corporations

I myself am 50-50 on the issue. I like the idea of cultural diffusion and diversity, but I don't like the fact that all jobs can be outsourced. I'm for globalization, but not for globalization by corporations, because then you get class warfare on a much larger scale than before (probably something like #OccupyWallStreet, but a lot more violent on both sides of the coin.

can be good, can be bad Scholte writes a good intro the subject, it's on google scholar

I actually found a post i made about globalization back in 2007, my opinion still stands though "I think that Globalization is a good concept, it's bringing people closer. But why does it feel like we are becoming more distant from everyone? You go to a big city and if you say Hi to a random person in the streets, they will either ignore you, laugh at you, or even freak out, you guys are getting my point? In comparison, in smaller communities like suburbs or rural villages, people would greet you probably with hugs, invite you to dinner, etc etc. We have the Internet, we have cell phones, we have TV, we have everything we need, we are slowly becoming one large super-culture, This is bad, this is really bad! I hate fashion, i hate trends, it makes me sick, in a few hundreds of years (If we don't destroy ourselves meanwhile) everyone will literally be the same. Hundreds of languages will meet the same fate as Latin, hundreds of cultures will fall into the abyss that is our history books! The reason that this is all happening is written in our genes, our minds crave to fit in society, make no mistake, globalization is the result of our primitive instincts. Overall i think Globalization is underrated, and my opinion is that it's going to ruin the legacy of future generations."

In terms of culture, I'd much rather have a lot of unique and diverse cultures interacting than have one homogenized global culture that incongruously incorporates parts of all of them.

What the fuck, we [b]literally[/b] just started discussing this in class today. Globalisation of education?

I don't see small villages where you can say "hello" to other people being the pinnacle of human intelligence and ability. I all my luxury items that globalization has provided me. Although some kid in china made them with shitty salary. Because without globalization the little kid would be swimming in wealth, food, and happiness right.

[QUOTE=evilking1;32710927]I don't see small villages where you can say "hello" to other people being the pinnacle of human intelligence and ability. I all my luxury items that globalization has provided me. Although some kid in china made them with shitty salary. Because without globalization the little kid would be swimming in wealth, food, and happiness right.[/QUOTE] The main difference I see with globalisation is that before if your life was shit you also were rather ignorant of the worlds affairs. Now with globalisation your life may be still shit but at least you know a hell of a lot more today as a poor man than a rich man 100 years ago. If I lived 1000 years ago in France I would barely know nothing beyond the Rhine. If I lived a century ago I would know barely anything outside of the Western World. Today I find out just about anything by typing it into google.

I would say an increase in communication would be great for our society. Only negative thing would be the danger of cultural assimilation between countries.

Culturally, I think it's probably the best thing ever. I've talked to people from loads of countries over the internet and it's always interesting, you always learn something new. I think ideologies have changed for the better because of it - people are less likely to just accept war as a thing that has to be done sometimes, which can only be a good thing. Economically, well... the strong pick up the weak, but everyone needs to pull their weight or the system won't work (as we are seeing in the EU at the moment, Germany is supporting a lot of the economically weaker countries like Greece). But I suppose that's fairer than having your entire country go to shit because of corruption and being unable to do anything about it because it's isolated from everyone. In the end, we only have the one planet, and if we want to have more than one planet, we'll have to get everyone to pile in.

[QUOTE=DireAvenger;32710894]What the fuck, we [b]literally[/b] just started discussing this in class today. Globalisation of education?[/QUOTE] Are you in Year 8? I believe that's the earliest the topic is taught, and I haven't done it at school in years (aside from a few mentions in my Business Studies course).

[QUOTE=DrBreen;32710559] In comparison, in smaller communities like suburbs or rural villages, people would greet you probably with hugs, invite you to dinner, etc etc.[/QUOTE] Yeah, because I fucking know who they are. A random person on the street just suddenly going "hi!" makes me think he's got the wrong guy.

It got both good and bad effects. I would like to see a world fully globalised. A world without borders or countries. But there are people and corporations who use globalisation for their own gain and the methods used are not always good.

I like free trade, but "open borders" won't fit for me, it will just spread diseases and problems.

We can either learn to respect everyone and what they do or have everyone become what we respect.

I don't understand a number of these responses and what they have to do with globalization. I'm all for it, free trade and capitalism is the best way forward. It is the only way to further progress without force.

[QUOTE=Antdawg;32717354]Are you in Year 8? I believe that's the earliest the topic is taught, and I haven't done it at school in years (aside from a few mentions in my Business Studies course).[/QUOTE] Classes usually talk about it by the 9th-10th grade, at least in the U.S. It also depends on state, too. Not all states teach at the same pace.

[QUOTE=Pepin;32737779]I don't understand a number of these responses and what they have to do with globalization. I'm all for it, free trade and capitalism is the best way forward. It is the only way to further progress without force.[/QUOTE] What responses are you unable to understand? I don't see any that aren't rather related.

[QUOTE=Antdawg;32717354]Are you in Year 8? I believe that's the earliest the topic is taught, and I haven't done it at school in years (aside from a few mentions in my Business Studies course).[/QUOTE] I'm just completing year 9, we ended up doing a summary of it in our social studies class.

[QUOTE=Contag;32738519]What responses are you unable to understand? I don't see any that aren't rather related.[/QUOTE] Everything related to culture, though a lot of it has been implicit. Also basing this a bit on outside conversation. Is the idea that "we" shouldn't trade with certain groups to preserve their culture? I don't know where the idea comes from where that some outside authority decides who's culture should and should not be kept intact. I also don't know where the idea comes from that a group of people make their decision as a group and that individuals wanting to retain their culture will be unable to. There also seems to be a false impression of force, where people will for some reason have to trade regardless if they want to or not. All trade is voluntary and the fact of the matter is that the majority of people would, especially poor people would choose trade over culture because it would improve their lives. I think this is the real argument going on, that people would prefer improving their lives over their culture and that some third party needs to stop them. At the very least you could explain what DrBreen is trying to say.

[QUOTE=Pepin;32743313]Everything related to culture, though a lot of it has been implicit. Also basing this a bit on outside conversation. Is the idea that "we" shouldn't trade with certain groups to preserve their culture? I don't know where the idea comes from where that some outside authority decides who's culture should and should not be kept intact. I also don't know where the idea comes from that a group of people make their decision as a group and that individuals wanting to retain their culture will be unable to. There also seems to be a false impression of force, where people will for some reason have to trade regardless if they want to or not. All trade is voluntary and the fact of the matter is that the majority of people would, especially poor people would choose trade over culture because it would improve their lives. I think this is the real argument going on, that people would prefer improving their lives over their culture and that some third party needs to stop them. At the very least you could explain what DrBreen is trying to say.[/QUOTE] But don't you see that culture is extremely relevant? Globalization transmits culture much like it does political and economic ideas. Islamist-jihad ideologies and its supporters wouldn't be a problem if it wasn't a reaction against perceived Western political/social/cultural/economic encroachment on their values, which is disseminated via globalisation. The IMF structural reform packages as a condition of loans is an example of using economic instruments to promote the aims of the US, and it has hurt the poor in few instances. Bolivia comes to mind. That's arguably forced in a sense - reform your economy in line with neoliberalist ideals otherwise you won't get the loan and your economy will be even more screwed. DrBreen was talking about the paradox of how globalisation reduces distance between us on a global scale, while increasing distance (obviously abstract distance) on the local level. I'll use an economic example because from what I've read of your posts that seems to be fairly keen interest. The decrease in transport costs and the lack of comparable minimum wage (and other contributing factors to cheap labor) has led to the outsourcing of many industries. These days, I might purchase a Chinese product designed in the EU through a server based in Singapore which uses American software. One hundred and fifty years years ago, I would purchase my product from a local store which buys from a local manufacturer that employs the local population. That this is not really the case any more for many things is an indication of how my distance to the local was increased, whereas my distance to the global has increased. I don't think we're all becoming one super-culture, though. Any more than in the past, anyway, considering we're using arab numerals with a turkish notion of the nation-state and loan words from plenty of different languages, and a range of other stuff.

[QUOTE=Contag;32743577]But don't you see that culture is extremely relevant? Globalization transmits culture much like it does political and economic ideas. Islamist-jihad ideologies and its supporters wouldn't be a problem if it wasn't a reaction against perceived Western political/social/cultural/economic encroachment on their values, which is disseminated via globalisation. The IMF structural reform packages as a condition of loans is an example of using economic instruments to promote the aims of the US, and it has hurt the poor in few instances. Bolivia comes to mind. That's arguably forced in a sense - reform your economy in line with neoliberalist ideals otherwise you won't get the loan and your economy will be even more screwed.[/QUOTE] The two issues you described have to do with force. The majority of the jihad movement is about land taken by force. This is laid out quite clear and they see it as a movement to take back the land they own. As far as globalization goes with this issue, I've seen some articles that go into how Bollywood has had a huge affect on the Middle East culture and opinion. It really makes sense, they likely aren't going to relate and purchase more Western material, they'd be more likely to relate to their neighbors who have similar values. Below is a video kind of going over the whole Bollywood point. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-1JUcKpHro[/media] I wouldn't consider foreign aid apart of globalization. I think you technically could as it is a contractual trade and is voluntary, but it at least doesn't fit my definition. I can see why you object to the IMF's measure. My opinion is of course that a free trade policy would work much better, one reason being that it would build infrastructure. There are reasons why a free trade policy isn't advocated for places like Africa, mainly because liberals are against free trade and in favor of welfare. The second being that most governments accepting these deals wouldn't be open to free trade in the first place. There's a bit of a history to this, but most African governments don't trust Western nations. [QUOTE=Contag;32743577]I'll use an economic example because from what I've read of your posts that seems to be fairly keen interest. The decrease in transport costs and the lack of comparable minimum wage (and other contributing factors to cheap labor) has led to the outsourcing of many industries. These days, I might purchase a Chinese product designed in the EU through a server based in Singapore which uses American software. One hundred and fifty years years ago, I would purchase my product from a local store which buys from a local manufacturer that employs the local population. That this is not really the case any more for many things is an indication of how my distance to the local was increased, whereas my distance to the global has increased.[/quote] Seems you're getting at the division of labor which globalization affects hugely, and in a positive way. Whatever the decision turns out to be is necessarily bad as all processes are interdependent. People seem to misunderstand this and assume that the people who design the products are superior, which isn't at all the case, because the skill of design is useless without the skill of crafting. There is the famous example of how the pencil is made. There is an even better example about how a ham sandwich is made. How many people cooperate just to make that? How many years does it take? Not only do you have to include the pig and the bread, but you also have to include the transportation, the coolers, and so on. Where I'm a little bit confused is that I understand the point you're making about local business, but I'm confused as to whether or not you're saying it is good or bad. Kind of sounds like you're being objective, kind of sounds like you're making an appeal to the past. Either way, I'll make my argument which is that globalization allows skill to be allocated best and allows resources to be used most efficiently. David Friedman put it pretty well when he said that we have ships that turn wheat into cars.

Globalisation is essentially the long process of connecting the entire world into one, single "country". I say country with " because the concept of countries are being broken down in this century. What before was a heavily defended border into different countries, we are opening borders to free travel between countries, so that goods travel faster. The IMF, The World Bank, The European Union, NAFTA etc. they are all signs of this. They all set a standard in which countries operate in, which will eventually result in some form of cultural convergence which will make the countries unite. If this happen to be ruled by corporations or dictators I don't know, but it is coming. If you think about it, nation building is something quite recent. Nation states, as a concept, only arrived in the 1600's and forward. Society changes, but people don't like change, so they don't see it.

[QUOTE=Beafman;32750022]They all set a standard in which countries operate in, which will eventually result in some form of cultural convergence which will make the countries unite.[/QUOTE] I don't know why people keep saying this. Maybe I'm misinterpreting it. Can you explain what you mean and why?

[QUOTE=Pepin;32737779]I don't understand a number of these responses and what they have to do with globalization. I'm all for it, free trade and capitalism is the best way forward. It is the only way to further progress without force.[/QUOTE] i disagree, capitalism and free trade are not the way forward for us, but a resource based economy

[QUOTE=SIRIUS;32803827]i disagree, capitalism and free trade are not the way forward for us, but a resource based economy[/QUOTE] Can you do a bit more than disagree? I gave a short but simple reason and that was that there wouldn't be force involved in capitalism.

I'm partly for and not for it. I don't want cultures and traditions to die out and one global economy would have its downsides. [QUOTE=oskutin;32735555]I like free trade, but "open borders" won't fit for me, it will just spread diseases and problems.[/QUOTE] This too.