Is Globalization more Positive or Negative?

Alternative Facts · September 05, 2014, 04:29:05 PM

I'll leave the topic open ended and not just say "Good or Bad".

So, discuss whether globalization has had a more positive effect on the world as a whole, or a more negative impact. Back up your reasoning.

Dustin · September 05, 2014, 04:30:48 PM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

Mad Max · September 05, 2014, 04:38:04 PM

I'd say it's a lot of both, but more positive than negative.

I think globalization is unavoidable. Our reliance on technology requires everyone to be on board, or lose out entirely and fall by the wayside. If we didn't have the internet, cell phones, and emerging markets elsewhere in the world, I would feel differently about globalization, but we live in a global world now where we all rely on each other for a variety of different reasons.

People laugh at the US for it's economic troubles, but if we dropped off the map or cut our ties with foreign countries, they'd take a massive, perhaps unrecoverable, hit. The same goes for most other countries. India. China. UK. etc.

Globalization comes with a myriad of complications, as far as how to navigate business, taxes, politics, etc, also, but I think it's the logical progression.

More Than Mortal · September 06, 2014, 05:26:09 AM

It is WAY more positive than negative.

Alternative Facts · September 07, 2014, 11:27:00 AM

Quote from: Meta Cognition on September 06, 2014, 05:26:09 AM

It is WAY more positive than negative.

How so

More Than Mortal · September 07, 2014, 11:36:13 AM

Quote from: IcyWind on September 07, 2014, 11:27:00 AM

Quote from: Meta Cognition on September 06, 2014, 05:26:09 AM
It is WAY more positive than negative.

How so

Economic growth, free trade, multiculturalism, humanitarianism, transnational action, development of poorer countries, international competition.

I could go on and on.

Alternative Facts · September 07, 2014, 12:13:01 PM

Quote from: Meta Cognition on September 07, 2014, 11:36:13 AM

Quote from: IcyWind on September 07, 2014, 11:27:00 AM
Quote from: Meta Cognition on September 06, 2014, 05:26:09 AM
It is WAY more positive than negative.

How so
Economic growth, free trade, multiculturalism, humanitarianism, transnational action, development of poorer countries, international competition.

I could go on and on.

Could you not say there is just as many negatives as there are positives?

More Than Mortal · September 07, 2014, 12:21:56 PM

Quote from: IcyWind on September 07, 2014, 12:13:01 PM

Quote from: Meta Cognition on September 07, 2014, 11:36:13 AM
Quote from: IcyWind on September 07, 2014, 11:27:00 AM
Quote from: Meta Cognition on September 06, 2014, 05:26:09 AM
It is WAY more positive than negative.

How so
Economic growth, free trade, multiculturalism, humanitarianism, transnational action, development of poorer countries, international competition.

I could go on and on.

Could you not say there is just as many negatives as there are positives?

No.

Kinder Graham · September 07, 2014, 12:30:28 PM

I's bad

Multinational companies are the only ones benefiting. They bring in foreign currency, employment opportunities, give funding to the governments in the countries they have bases in, and increase the GDP, to name a few. However their drawbacks outweigh their benefits. These companies can exploit the local workforce. For example some countries have less intense labor and health and safety rules and multinationals use that to their advantage. They might use cheap labor and give unfair hours. Issues of child labor have stemmed from this. The separation of these far-away factories means they do not have the investigative eye of the western media to watch them.

Another issue with multinationals is pollution. Some host country's governments for fear of losing all the said 'benefits' of the multinational do not insist on the factories adhering to stringent environmentally conscious practices. An example of this was the Bhopal gas leakage in 1984:

In the Union Carbide pesticide plant in India, over 500,000 people were exposed to toxic gases due to a leak in the plant. There were many fatalities. The issue was due to the operating of the plant with safety equipment and procedure far below the regular standards. The local government was aware of this but did not intervene due to the reason I said before-they wanted to keep the large employer.

My final issues with multinationals are that they take aware opportunities from local competing firms, they reduce a countries cultural identity by surrounding them with their western ideals, and finally the natural resources of that country can be used for the multinational, and once they are depleted the multinational is able relocate quickly, leaving the host country to pick up the pieces.

And here's this which makes even better points why globalization is bad
http://ourfiniteworld.com/2013/02/22/twelve-reasons-why-globalization-is-a-huge-problem/

The biggest one that strikes me from the link is the dangers of reliance of other nations. The Great Depression was partly due to every nation relying on each other and when one economy collapsed (Germany), it created a domino effect that transferred to other countries

More Than Mortal · September 07, 2014, 12:35:34 PM

Quote from: Kinder_ on September 07, 2014, 12:30:28 PM

The biggest one that strikes me from the link is the dangers of reliance of other nations. The Great Depression was partly due to every nation relying on each other and when one economy collapsed (Germany), it created a domino effect that transferred to other countries

"Partly due" only holds if you mean very, very, very marginally.

The Great Depression was mainly due - as in, almost completely due - to the gold standard and tight money, which led to a serious loss of liquidity. Now, let me look at those twelve reasons.

More Than Mortal · September 07, 2014, 12:37:10 PM

>looks at kinder's list
>first thing there "1. Globalization uses up finite resources more quickly."
>mfw

Kinder Graham · September 07, 2014, 12:53:42 PM

Quote from: Meta Cognition on September 07, 2014, 12:35:34 PM

Quote from: Kinder_ on September 07, 2014, 12:30:28 PM
The biggest one that strikes me from the link is the dangers of reliance of other nations. The Great Depression was partly due to every nation relying on each other and when one economy collapsed (Germany), it created a domino effect that transferred to other countries
"Partly due" only holds if you mean very, very, very marginally.

The Great Depression was mainly due - as in, almost completely due - to the gold standard and tight money, which led to a serious loss of liquidity. Now, let me look at those twelve reasons.

The only way the gold standard played a role is that nations suspended it so they can produce more money than they could back with gold. If they were to revert back then their economy would have tanked; that's why a system like gold is the best way to prevent a cloud 9 type of deal where people think they're prosperous when reality is that they are not.

On the other hand, America kept it's gold standard during WWI, which led to an economic boom straight afterwards

But the Great Depression was due in part of Germany's $10B debt it owed the allies. The allies were dependent on Germany to pay them back and when they tried to pay them back, they resorted to printing money which led to inflation and bombed the world economy

More Than Mortal · September 07, 2014, 01:02:12 PM

Quote from: Kinder_ on September 07, 2014, 12:53:42 PM

The only way the gold standard played a role is that nations suspended it so they can produce more money than they could back with gold. If they were to revert back then their economy would have tanked; that's why a system like gold is the best way to prevent a cloud 9 type of deal where people think they're prosperous when reality is that they are not.

On the other hand, America kept it's gold standard during WWI, which led to an economic boom straight afterwards

But the Great Depression was due in part of Germany's $10B debt it owed the allies. The allies were dependent on Germany to pay them back and when they tried to pay them back, they resorted to printing money which led to inflation and bombed the world economy

You started well. The reason the nations suspended the gold standard was because they realised the supply of money was constricted relative to the demand, and suspending the gold standard allowed them inject liquidity into the financial system. It's no surprise that countries recovered pretty much in the order that they suspended the gold standard.

Also, gold is not the best system to back money with. Not only is it politically unfeasible, we wouldn't get back many of the benefits from it. There's a big danger it could lead to some pretty horrible deflation.

Germany's hyperinflation didn't bomb the world economy, at all. The central bankers just failed to respond to the loss of liquidity and declining NGDP.

You can limit the monetary regime without a gold standard.

Kinder Graham · September 07, 2014, 01:50:22 PM

Quote from: Meta Cognition on September 07, 2014, 01:02:12 PM

Quote from: Kinder_ on September 07, 2014, 12:53:42 PM
The only way the gold standard played a role is that nations suspended it so they can produce more money than they could back with gold. If they were to revert back then their economy would have tanked; that's why a system like gold is the best way to prevent a cloud 9 type of deal where people think they're prosperous when reality is that they are not.

On the other hand, America kept it's gold standard during WWI, which led to an economic boom straight afterwards

But the Great Depression was due in part of Germany's $10B debt it owed the allies. The allies were dependent on Germany to pay them back and when they tried to pay them back, they resorted to printing money which led to inflation and bombed the world economy
You started well. The reason the nations suspended the gold standard was because they realised the supply of money was constricted relative to the demand, and suspending the gold standard allowed them inject liquidity into the financial system. It's no surprise that countries recovered pretty much in the order that they suspended the gold standard.

Also, gold is not the best system to back money with. Not only is it politically unfeasible, we wouldn't get back many of the benefits from it. There's a big danger it could lead to some pretty horrible deflation.

Germany's hyperinflation didn't bomb the world economy, at all. The central bankers just failed to respond to the loss of liquidity and declining NGDP.

You can limit the monetary regime without a gold standard.

Take away right-wing meaning and you get a pretty accurate depiction of economics. Everybody, including economists, will have a different opinion and what they think is right. I obviously see the gold standard is good and you think it won't work so really, arguing about it is kinda redundant

More Than Mortal · September 07, 2014, 01:58:57 PM

Quote from: Kinder_ on September 07, 2014, 01:50:22 PM

Take away right-wing meaning and you get a pretty accurate depiction of economics. Everybody, including economists, will have a different opinion and what they think is right. I obviously see the gold standard is good and you think it won't work so really, arguing about it is kinda redundant

I'm not saying otherwise.

Like I'm saying, you can limit the monetary regime without a gold standard. I'm not arguing with you, I'm merely telling you I don't find the gold standard preferable and there are other alternatives. I'm not trying to convince you of their merit, you merely seem to be under the illusion that the gold standard is the only way of monetary regulation.

Although, admittedly, I grow weary of discussion while trying to do history work >.>

Magos Domina · September 07, 2014, 02:58:38 PM

I'm all for Globalization.