PDA

View Full Version : why globalization is good?



AllIn All It's Not So Bad
08-25-2009, 01:51 PM
why is it good in your opinion?

wheelchairman
08-25-2009, 02:19 PM
I would say that as with many things, its effects are both good and bad. Saying its wholly good or wholly bad is a simplification that ignores various aspects.

RageAndLov
08-25-2009, 04:56 PM
^I agree with den røde danske pølsen.
Globalisation is good because more and more people understand each other (people learning several languages, like English), people have it easier to get different resources, and people understand other cultures and religions better.

Globalisation is bad because when big, dominant cultures are approaching small cultures the small cultures might be extinct, learning bigger languages like English small local languages might be extinct, alongside the useful resources that comes from other places of the world, also come alot of crap that most parts of the world would be just fine without.

AllIn All It's Not So Bad
08-25-2009, 05:10 PM
I would say that as with many things, its effects are both good and bad. Saying its wholly good or wholly bad is a simplification that ignores various aspects.

yes i know. i should have made a better tittle.
but tell me, why do you think it is bad and/or good?

T-6005
08-25-2009, 06:50 PM
The answer to that question will really depend on who you ask.

While it's true that you could experience a loss of culture during globalization, I feel the largest part of the whole "global integration" process is the opening of markets to multinational corporations.

It's a horse that's been beaten to death, then beaten some more and stripped to the bone, but multinational corporations have made widespread use of new markets - particularly labor markets - which have become accessible to them through globalization to keep their production costs down. By having this new ability to move your production market to wherever is cheapest, they can play off different regions of the world against each other and essentially lead people into an exploitative relationship. Countries throughout the world have felt the impact of joining the world economy, but very few poor countries have been happy with its effects.

Sweatshops and Free Trade Zones are hard to defend.

Al Coholic
08-25-2009, 07:23 PM
Free trade zone sounds kind of pleasant. Enough so that 90% of the American population probably can't define it but would think it's a good thing if provided with a 30 second commercial that says so. And the real explanation of it would bore the shit out of most of us anyway.

T-6005
08-25-2009, 07:32 PM
Wikipedia's Free Trade Zone - Criticism Section (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Trade_Zone#Criticism)

I'd have explained it myself, but there's always someone who's written it more simply.

Paint_It_Black
08-26-2009, 02:43 AM
All in all globalization is not so bad.

Jesus
08-26-2009, 06:51 AM
Globalisation is bad because when big, dominant cultures are approaching small cultures the small cultures might be extinct, learning bigger languages like English small local languages might be extinct,

I fail to see how this is bad. Language just evolves. That certain languages get extinct isn't really surprising since language itself has no value, it only gets it's meaning and value out of the function (communication) it serves. So saving some small local language if it doesn't fulfill it's function, is kind of pointless to me.
If you start from the Universal grammar theory in linguistics, you can even say that the world's human languages are just different forms or dialects of one language, so not much is really lost then.

In regard to culture. It's pretty hard to define culture anyway, people mostly end up using some kind of comical stereotype if they try to explain what things of a local culture could be lost. It actually has quite a lot in common with old skool racism. We used to classify people based on race and then assume they had certain thoughts, qualifications and characteristics based on their race. Now people just replace "race" with "culture" and say there is something such as a latino, arab, black, white, german, japanese etc culture and assume people who belong to that type of culture have more or less the same thoughts, opinions, habits while usually at the same time (without irony) reminding them that they shouldn't forget their heritage or their ethnicity. Quite consistent and quite bigoted too and also obviously wrong.




Sweatshops and Free Trade Zones are hard to defend.
Free trade zones, export processing zones or special economic zones (they got so many names for'm) aren't necessarily bad. They are a source for FDI and an opportunity to steal some technology and also to get some foreign currency to use to import other technology. What matters more is the industrial policy and the capital controls behind them.

The biggest problem in my opinion with globalization is with financial markets and financial mobility. Since these things are way more mobile compared to goods, services and people. This piece (http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/216/45989.html) James Tobin wrote in 1978, about a small tax on international financial transactions to stop (or at least make it more difficult) financial speculation and arbitrage, is still quite relevant.

Knife
08-26-2009, 08:47 AM
I fail to see how this is bad. Language just evolves. That certain languages get extinct isn't really surprising since language itself has no value, it only gets it's meaning and value out of the function (communication) it serves. So saving some small local language if it doesn't fulfill it's function, is kind of pointless to me.
If you start from the Universal grammar theory in linguistics, you can even say that the world's human languages are just different forms or dialects of one language, so not much is really lost then.

In regard to culture. It's pretty hard to define culture anyway, people mostly end up using some kind of comical stereotype if they try to explain what things of a local culture could be lost. It actually has quite a lot in common with old skool racism. We used to classify people based on race and then assume they had certain thoughts, qualifications and characteristics based on their race. Now people just replace "race" with "culture" and say there is something such as a latino, arab, black, white, german, japanese etc culture and assume people who belong to that type of culture have more or less the same thoughts, opinions, habits while usually at the same time (without irony) reminding them that they shouldn't forget their heritage or their ethnicity. Quite consistent and quite bigoted too and also obviously wrong.
Whoa whoa, something just pisses me off about this post. Something just isn't right. Very one-sided view, I'd expect more centrist opinion from you.

RageAndLov
08-26-2009, 05:06 PM
I fail to see how this is bad. Language just evolves. That certain languages get extinct isn't really surprising since language itself has no value, it only gets it's meaning and value out of the function (communication) it serves. So saving some small local language if it doesn't fulfill it's function, is kind of pointless to me.
If you start from the Universal grammar theory in linguistics, you can even say that the world's human languages are just different forms or dialects of one language, so not much is really lost then.

In regard to culture. It's pretty hard to define culture anyway, people mostly end up using some kind of comical stereotype if they try to explain what things of a local culture could be lost. It actually has quite a lot in common with old skool racism. We used to classify people based on race and then assume they had certain thoughts, qualifications and characteristics based on their race. Now people just replace "race" with "culture" and say there is something such as a latino, arab, black, white, german, japanese etc culture and assume people who belong to that type of culture have more or less the same thoughts, opinions, habits while usually at the same time (without irony) reminding them that they shouldn't forget their heritage or their ethnicity. Quite consistent and quite bigoted too and also obviously wrong.


Do you think all humans in the world should have one language?