Do you think globalization is a good idea?
118023
The only way this will work is the strong nations must suffer and their economy fall, while the weaker nations thrive and reach a happy medium with the other nations.\nFor example NAFTA with mexico, the only way that will work is for the u.s.to fall econmically and  mexico to rise until we meet at some point, we've already lost over a million manufacturing jobs to mexico,since NAFTA in 1992, and have you seen the prices fall on any of these manufactured items, NO, because the manufactures are making a killing on all the profits. For example if you made floor lamps here and your cost was $10 , i could move to mexico and make the same for $2, when i got ready to sell it for $8 , i could put you out of business, so all the manufacturing jobs are headed south, with no hope of getting them back. Good luck with your globalization and you flipping burgers for a living, because that's going to be the only thing left here.
722426
Well there's the debate whether if those effects are positive or negative in first and third world countries.  In a little more than 10 years after the creation of the WTO the world's poor nations became poorer and the rich nations wealthier.  I think any economic policy to be implemented ought to involve social development as well... it doesn't make sense to make the global exchange more efficient if the majority of people will suffer from it in the end.
485064
To borrow from President Clinton here, it depends on what the meaning of "globalization" is. I have seen a number of definitions, ranging from social-cultural to economic.  Usually "globalization" conjures up ideas of some sort of global inter-connectedness wherein previous barriers are no longer as salient, and the free flow of tangible and intangible goods serves to change the entire system- arguably for the better.  If we assume that we're talking about globalization on all fronts, such that we mean the free flow of all tangible and intangible goods, then at first glance we might be tempted to say that this is a good thing.  But I would rather ask another question. Rather than assuming that globalization is an end unto itself, I would rather pose the question in terms of how globalization might be used as a tool to accomplish a specific goal. For example, on the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)- an often cited example of economic globalization in North America- we might ask how workers have fared in terms of their wages, rights, workplace safety.  Or, we might look at China's accession to the WTO and its consequences.  I personally do not believe that the answer to your question lies in "globalization" itself, but how it is used.  With any radical change, there are bound to be costs and benefits. But the costs and benefits arise largely because new opportunities are created. Those opportunities do not necessarily indicate a fixed directionality or path. Rather, it is how people use those opportunities to achieve certain results. Globalization is neither inherently "good" nor inherently "bad". It does not demean rights, or wages, or the safety of others, no more so than a car can cause a highway accident or a gun can kill a person.  It matters more how globalization is used as a tool to achieve specific ends.
513381
I think its a fundamentaly good idea, how it could be implemented successfully I do not know.  I think its worth taking a look at, most definitley.\n\nEdit:  good point, gcbtrading, I forgot about that oil rich city in the north (dont remember the name offhand) that the Kurds lay claim to but arent the majority cause Hussein moved his people to during his reign.
429381
I believe that globalization affects all, so in that regard I disagree with you. However, i believe that it is the rich people (haves) that are benefiting form the trend of globalization therefore marginalizing the poor (have nots). The reason for this belief lies in the fact the system of globalization is based on the fact the world is at different stages of development, what this means is that the disparity between the rich nations and the poor nations is so large that it is worth a Multi-National Corporations(MNCs) while to invest and "exploit" the population of a lesser developed national because they simply charge less for their labour. The rich people continue to have and get more while the poor people continue to rely on the rich (west) for handouts.
59855
when america took over iraq and put its fast food, banks, and other american poisions thats globalization. When countries that dont have phone lines start using cell phone technology instead of any natural progress, thats globalization. When hurricane  or other natural disaster victims recieve relief, thats globalization. When children build foreign products, thats globalization. Basically its not america the melting pot, its now becoming the global melting pot.
1157313
Yes, and do you remember when the economists and professors  and sundry politicians told us that the WTO would be good for America, then years later admit ed that by good for America they didn't mean for the workers or small business owners or the poor or middle class or the economy but rather that it would be good because it would "streamline" trade negotiations? Kind of a big difference right? \nOh and remember NAFTA was negotiated by Clinton, such a nice gift on top of his tax increases that helped to make relocating to Mexico more attractive.
69220
Globalization means integrating our economy with world economy.
544963
Yes !\n\n- Communication is instant (Email/IM/Skype..)\n- Answers to most of your questions are available in less than a minute (Google, Yahoo Answers)\n- Global Thinking is very much in vogue, so we all share a great deal of concerns and thoughts (blogs, portals)\n- We can trade anything from anywhere (Amazon, ebay)\n\nWe could go on and on...Our horizons have expanded to cover the entire world.
153302
yes,why not ? \nall u mention are nations that have lot of people who have smart brain and guts.and money can easily find with that 2 resources.so the only matter just time and conscious to manage and channel their resource better .
209230
Your question is to confusing. Are you talking about how the the military helps in globalization?\n\n2 points for me
477383
Globalization is neo-imperialism. This means the whole world should do what USA tells them to do. Anybody says anything against the western invasion, will be called "Anti-western" and be destroyed by American globalizers. On the other hand it is the god given right of the west to be anti-east. To make sure this plan of globalization works, son-of-a-bush is making sure that nobody else can have nuclear bombs. Only America has used nuclear bomb in the past and only they can have it.
612886
McDonaldization is a form of globalization.
720744
How about the effects of globalization on the developing world?\n\nThe effect of global warming on the Arctic
529754
Most definitely.  We need to do some cleaning up ourself before we can help others.  The U.N. is a good idea in itself (like Communism is, I mean you can't say the idea of it is a bad thing, it just doesn't work in reality) but so far it's been just a bitch.  I know I'm tired of going through the U.N. I mean just look at the dumping scandal.  No one can really be trusted anymore.\n\nMy only qualm is that if we go back into the Monroe Doctrine phase, we will resort to Isolationism.  We, being a world power and major influence (to some degree), can't afford to go back to being isolated.  It would just be like backing down and letting the world do as it pleases--no Americans, I would think, would want foreign people dictating how we should run our lives (just as noone else would want that, either).  So it's sort of a black and white question with so many gray areas it isn't even funny.
443768
Honestly if you are a developing country, you are probalby leery at best of Globalizaton. It offers very little protection for your local industry and very often leads all the way to a loss of gov. sovergnity. One of the features of the globalization system is that debt ridden industrialzing countries recieve short term aid packages from the IMF/World Bank. The problem is the way the packages work, countries are required to adjust the structure of their economy to recieve aid. These used to be called structural adjustment programs (SAP's) but the name has been changed as a result of many riots resulting from sap actions. Part of the problem is everything is privatized very quickly but there is little done to ensure any kind of safety net for the locals or the local businesses. What results is transnational companys swoop in, take what they can essentially, and leave with their investments which cripple a country. Likewise, countries are often told what to produce, but the influx of a certain good hurts prices, and at a competitve disadvantage to developed countries this can be a killer.\n\nTo answer the last questions.... it is not a secure financial system as many NIC (newly industrializing countries) are more debt ridden and have higher unemployment than before. Likewise, legally a country has less say over its gov. because of the debt they have incurred of high interest short term loans. \n\nAnother problem is the transnationals dont get taxed very much by the gov. (as a rule of the saps) so the privitization process can occur very rapidly at a high cost to the country. Also property rights are secure for the new investors and their companies because of sap rule, but not for the country.\n\nAs i think it shows, for developing countries, neoliberal economics (globalization) is not a very user friendly system. The spoils all go the global elite while the countries being used to create that wealth often end up in worse shape than before.
310336
Yes, but I also think that it'd be better if the world was one mass country. Of cousre, that'll never happen.