Some of the arguments against Globalisation are as follows: The critics of globalisation criticize it as a corporate agenda— the agenda of the big business and the ideology of the developed countries to dominate and control the international economic system in a bigger, deeper and intensive manner. Gains of Globalisation for Rich at the Cost of Poor:
Report this Argument Pro I"d like to apologize again for my largely cut off rebuttal, which was deleted when I tried to enter my response.
I will re-start it to make sure it flows smoothly. Domination of branded corporations- I completely disagree with your notion that globalization Globalisation argument the growth of branded products, in fact it often fosters the exact opposite.
For example in Switzerland and France people tend to oppose globalization and encourage the growth of strong national character in the political, social and economic centers of society. In those countries, people greatly value domestically produced products versus foreign imports.
This not only drives up the cost of average items which makes it extremely expensive to live in these countries and their cities take Paris and Zurich for example. This displays how refusing to globalize is the actual cause of branded name growth and price inflation as you described in your arguments.
Consider this question as well: When is the last time you heard an American or European demanding a Vietnamese or Chinese brand name due to its superior quality? In fact globalization has even encouraged the rise of new companies overseas. For example, analyze the development of HTC.
HTC is a Taiwanese company that was founded in Taipei in The only reason it came into existence is that American technologic advances, which Taiwan was manufacturing were exposed to Taiwanese investors, who subsequently started their own company and employed thousands of Taiwanese, from low-skilled workers to top-level engineers and financial analysts.
I"d also like to call into question your statistics regarding the factory wages. In addition, I completely disagree with your notion that the process of chains driving other stores out of business is negative. When a Walmart moves in to a new town, it hires many new employees who earn respectable wages and are able to ascend up a hierarchical management pyramid.
In addition, consumers are able to purchase goods at a much lower price. Consider the Recession of consumers were able to maintain their lifestyles for the most part, even if they lost their jobs because of saved money and very affordable prices at stores like Walmart.
Lastly, I"d just like to add how Walmart genuinely supports the disabled community and really improves the lives of some disabled people by giving them employment that no small business would offer.
Outsourcing to export processing zones- I must first respond to outsourcing again. My full answer is in my opening but for time considerations I will just pose a few points: Welfare in the Philippines?
Not in this world! That small wage is everything to an adult who needs every penny to provide food, shelter and medical care to his or her family. So outsourcing can transform the lives of those in the developing world. Next I"d like to refute your point about VAT as I believe it is actually the exact opposite of what you said it was.
VAT actually discourages exports because it requires domestic companies and shipping companies to pay the taxes instead of consumers, which is how sales tax works.
This tax on exports encourages companies to keep their products in the domestic market, so it is easier to collect taxes from consumers. In addition, imports from one VAT country to another are taxed by the exporter and not the importer, which just causes the same net price difference. Regarding Mexico I believe your argument to be contradictory.
If so many jobs were moving to Mexico, how come Mexicans come looking for work here? Also, illegal immigrants are never included in unemployment statistics because they are not legal permanent residents of the USA.
In addition, I"d like to show how the financial crisis of was marginally helped by globalization. Cheaper prices due to the outsourcing mentioned before allowed Americans to keep consuming and ameliorated many of the effect of the recession which would have had major repercussions if America was reliant on a completely domestic market.
Cultural imperialism- First, I"d like to refer to what you do as "cultural imperialism" as cultural diffusion which is what the spread of a dominant culture has been called for millennia. Now, cultural diffusion is an inherently beneficial process, as it replaces weak societal customs with stronger ones.
It has had the effect of removing many customs deemed backwards around the world that are gross violations of the intrinsic rights of women and men around the world. Look at the prime example of the effect of British culture on India.
Before British culture was disseminated in India, the practice of Sati was widespread, with widows being forced to commit suicide on their deceased husband"s funeral pyre due to pressure from disgruntled family members.
In addition, the caste system restricted social mobility in India for thousands of years.
When the British arrived, they sought to phase out these inhumane practices and ultimately were successful through their cultural diffusion to the elite classes of Indian society.
Social mobility is one major benefit of Western globalized culture, as it was the Western Enlightenment thinkers who derived the notion that equal opportunity should be present in society. Would there be as much mobility in China, India and Africa if these ideas had not been disseminated?
Now, I can"t deny that globalized Western culture causes enemy militant groups, but what I do assert is that "for every reaction there is an equal and opposite reaction" " Newton"s Third Law.We would like to show you a description here but the site won’t allow us.
Arguments in Favour of Globalisation: At the outset, one must say that globalisation is a controversial issue because it impinges both gains and pains. We will first put forward the arguments favouring globalisation. i. Globalisation is expected to promote efficiency, productivity and, .
Arguments Against Globalisation. Meaning of Globalisation: Globalisation is a process of increasing integration and growing economic ‘interdependence’ of countries worldwide.
It refers to “the expansion of economic activities across political boundaries of . ARGUING IN FAVOR OF GLOBALIZATION by Pascal Salin globalization is significant in comparison with the world structures of the XXth century, but it cannot be considered as a specific characteristic of our time.
the most usual arguments against free exchange (section II). We then stress that. Globalization is a process of interaction and integration among the people, companies, and governments of different nations, a process driven by international trade and investment and aided by . I will now rebut the points you made in your opening argument.
Domination of branded corporations-I completely disagree with your notion that globalization supports the growth of branded products, in fact it often fosters the exact opposite.