globalization is not helping to poor?
965497
Globalization isn't helping the poor.  It is being built on their backs.
62616
In many of the countries they are not distributing the aid AT ALL.  In some they are and those economies tend to outperform the other ones over the long term.
710638
I just look at the results, and don't feel these things have helped so far.  These international organizations seem to me to be designed to promote spreading capitalistic greed for the rich aroung the world, and bringing 3rd world poverty to our people and those of the rest of the developed world.  The goal is not to bring up the lifestyle of the 3rd world people, but to bring the lifestyle of the developed nations average people down to the caliber of the 3rd world.  This is sad for me to say, because as a 60/70s idealistic hippy I believed in a one world society, but it would not be used for the people of the world, but for the wealthy.
308116
Maybe it is, but third world countries are primitive and backward compared to 1st and 2nd world countries.  They do things like wash their clothes by hand, have dirt floors in their homes, don't have electricity.
332019
There are not thousands of poor, illiterate children in India. There are millions. India is a huge country full of poverty and injustice. There is no way to super-quick fix that place up. Just so you know, they are agricultrually self-sufficient. This means that India grows enough food so that everyone there can get enough to eat. The problem is that it gets held in these store houses and never gets to the people that are starving. The best way to help India is to invest money in companies that are working at building up its infrastructure. That's my opinion, anyway. If you give money to its government, that is really bad, because most people over there in government are really corrupt. If you want, do a little research on the socio-economic history of India. I learned a lot and am really excited about it.
369512
Globalization is a fact. Question is how. A number of years ago there was this naive theories that everything was going to be nice and neat and that we will all be equals and happy ever after.\n\nNow we know that those visions were naive and to make globalization better then we should work a lot. First of all, controlling the speed of globalization to give people time to adapt themselves should help.\n\nYou can't ask iraqies to became westerners in one week, or ask chinese to abolish any censorship in three days and embrace the internet as it is, and you can't ask americans to happily deal with the fact that jobs exportation and immigrations are reducing their average real income every year.\n\nWe people are not good dealing with differences. We need time to adjust, and then... well... new problems will emerge.
408199
globalisation i feel does not benefit any DEVELOPING  nation including india. here the developing nations are forced to open their economies to the developed.if india continues to abide these policies then the prices of all our necessities might go up
528571
Cause all countries are not equal... And I'm not talking just language. Economic opportunities, the cost of living, wealth distribution, and much more would never allow this to work in the current state of the world. I guess what I'm saying there really isn't a globalized world yet, cause in reality none of that is being exchanged perfectly. If free movement was allowed it'd be chaos, whole economies would be brought down. A lot of people would move in search better life, higher incomes, education, heck even visit, I'm sure a larger part of countries in Africa, countries of India, China, multitudes of other would experience a huge loss of population as they are still working on their economies and appropriately not everyone is content. \nAnd, to those who object to this, because they say everyone would move to US, that is not true. Many if they had the choice would not choose to live here. As long as an individual can make a decent living in his own country he is not uprooting his whole family to move to a country whose lifestyle he often resents just to make money. Money is not all that matter. Many would choose to come here and work, yes, but most of them would also go back and use that money in their country instead and live comfortably. Which is yet another flaw in free movement, as you proposed, we don't even have a currency that is equalized, and tons of people would be taking advantage of that...
640209
Answering just to your question "Is poverty a legitmate excuse to breaking the law?", my answer is No. And you are right, Mexico is not a poor country, so I kinda agree with you. I'd say the economy has not been devided equally; rich people are very, very rich and poor people are very, very poor. So it's these poor guys the ones who run to the USA with the expectation of a better life, which they do not always get. I personally prefer to be middle class with a secure job in a middle class country (Mexico), than to be poor, receive humilliations and be struggling for a job in a rich country (USA).
255599
Sure it does.  Advertising contributes and speeds up globalization by getting the word out about new products or services that will save time or help out in some way.
1138770
(http://www.answers.com/globalization )
309791
There are a number of reasons. The riches are exploiting the poor. In the industries the workers are not getting their remuneration according to the labor they provide there. The rich countries are exploiting the developing counties. Corruption is another reason. The person who has power in hand earns money through corruption and that money belongs to the people of the country. If the money is properly distributed among the people there can not be any poverty in the world.
875781
Yes I think he is (agree with you!).\n\nHis concept is the "poor" will be helped because, the larger population will bear the large pie of the 2% increase.\n\nThe "poor"...well... 2% of nothing is not much..."it helps them".\n\nThe majority will pay the 2%, and the Govt. gains the extra and will pass that onto the "poor".\n\nBetter read the small print!
855128
Exactly we should be helping the poor people and if not at lest overthrow the dictators running these countries and show the poor people countries(third world sorry) different ways to make a better economy or tax the rich people more.
893205
(m)\n\nOne of the demerits of the globalization, illegal immigration of poor people to the advanced countries, becomes a serious problem in the world. As the concepts of globalization spreads around the earth, there is a noticeable distinction between the rich and the poor especially in a backward nation. As a result of that, even illegally, the poor people decide to go to other country for their dreams.
390946
are you serious ? or you are just posting this to get a kick out of people's responses.\n\nIt is a known fact that out of all industrialized nations in the world, the US does the least to help the poor (in terms of their possibilities). There are many good things about the US, helping the poor ain't one of them !\n\nWhere exactly do you get your information ? Let me guess Fox News?
1062289
first guy is right. sad.\nbut the underdeveloped nations benefit from them also cause the \nlabor they get from them is higher than what they can earn from their own country