It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Globalization (or globalisation) is a term used to describe the changes in societies and the world economy that are the result of dramatically increased trade and cultural exchange. In specifically economic contexts, it is often understood to refer almost exclusively to the effects of trade, particularly trade liberalization or "free trade". Between 1910 and 1950, a series of political and economic upheavals dramatically reduced the volume and importance of international trade flows. More specifically, beginning with WWI and until the end of WWII, when the Bretton Woods institutions were created (i.e. the IMF and the GATT), globalization trends reversed. In the post-World War II environment, fostered by international economic institutions and rebuilding programs, international trade dramatically expanded. With the 1970s, the effects of this trade became increasingly visible, both in terms of the benefits and the disruptive effects.
- The formation of a global village — closer contact between different parts of the world, with increasing possibilities of personal exchange, mutual understanding and friendship between "world citizens", and creation of a global civilization. The World Bank defines globalization as the “Freedom and ability of individuals and firms to initiate voluntary economic transactions with residents of other countries”.
- Economic globalization — there are four aspects to economic globalization, referring to four different flows across boundaries, namely flows of goods/services, i.e. 'free trade' (or at least freer trade), flows of people (migration), of capital and of technology. A consequence of economic globalization is increasing relations among members of an industry in different parts of the world (globalization of an industry), with a corresponding erosion of National Sovereignty in the economic sphere. The IMF defines globalization as “the growing economic interdependence of countries worldwide through increasing volume and variety of cross-border transactions in goods and services, freer international capital flows, and more rapid and widespread diffusion of technology” (IMF, World Economic Outlook, May, 1997).
- The negative effects of for-profit multinational corporations — the use of substantial and sophisticated legal and financial means to circumvent the bounds of local laws and standards, in order to leverage the labor and services of unequally-developed regions against each other.
- The spread of capitalism from developed to developing nations.
- "The concept of Globalisation refers both to the compression of the world and the intensification of consciousness of the world as a whole" - Roland Robertson
I believe that, despite some of the surface arguments in favor of globalism from a freedom point of view, on the whole, the bad outweighs the good.
Critics argue that the anti-globalization movement uses anecdotal evidence to support their view and that worldwide statistics instead strongly support globalization. One effect being that the percentage of people in developing countries living below $1 (adjusted for inflation and purchasing power) per day have halved in only twenty years, although some critics argue that more detailed variables measuring poverty should instead be studied. Supporters then note that life expectancy has almost doubled in the developing world since WWII and is starting to close the gap to the developed world where the improvement has been smaller. Child mortality has decreased in every developing region of the world. Income inequality for the world as a whole is diminishing. Democracy has increased dramatically from no nation with universal suffrage in 1900 to 62.5% of all nations in 2000. Worldwide, the proportion of the world's population living in countries where per capita food supplies are under 2,200 [calories per day] was 56 percent in the mid-1960s, compared to below 10 percent by the 1990s. Between 1950 and 1999, global literacy increased from 52 percent to 81 percent of the world. And women have made up much of the gap: Female literacy as a percentage of male literacy has increased from 59 percent in 1970 to 80 percent in 2000. There are similar trends for electric power, cars, radios, and telephones per capita as well as the percentage of the population with access to clean water.
Freedom refers, in a very general sense, to the state of being free (i.e.: unrestricted, unconfined or unfettered).
Wealth is not what we’re debating here; personal freedoms are.
Look at some of the countries which have been most impacted by globalization: Asian and Caribbean nations which feature the global sweatshops to make hundred-dollar Nike shoes for seventy-five cents’ worth of wages. Is democracy up in Haiti, Cambodia, Indonesia, Vietnam, and Burma?
Exceeding a normal, usual, reasonable, or proper limit.
He [they see ALL] says:
“Doesn’t economic freedoms have to do with wealth? I think it does.”
I don’t think it does! Freedom is about choice. Economic freedom is choosing how to work and earn your money
They see ALL did a great job of defending the weaker position, especially for his/her first time on a tough assignment.
Hands down the winner of this debate is Off_The_Street. He not only was able to get his opponent to tacitly agree with his point, he also was able to counter and argument that was put forth. they see all put up a good defence however, I hope to see him in future debates.
A valiant effort from both debaters, and not an easy topic due to it's broad and multi-faceted nature.
TSA rebutted consistently and well, but failed to make points for his own argument that left a strong impression.
Well-structured, strong arguments combined with confident rebuttals and convincing real examples won the debate for OTS in my view.
As the debate progressed, Off_The_Street commented that it seemed to have "devolved" into a "discussion over whether the freedoms admittedly lost to globalization are 'excessive'." I think this progression made the debate a great deal more interesting and thus don't consider it a devolution at all. While they see ALL provided some excellent demonstrations of the many benefits of globalism, he often relied on far too much quotation without explaining the significance of many of the great points he was raising. On the other hand, Off_The_Street provided an exhaustive explanation of globalism and it's effects on almost every aspect of life. Though sometimes his sources were questionable (his second post's link to www.anti-marketing.com... was particularly iffy), he presented a clear, engaging, brilliant argument. My vote goes to Off_The_Street.