give me anti-globalization arguments!

[Kuciwalker]

... because I'm supposed to research them by tomorrow and contrast them with Thomas Friedman's The Lexus and the Olive Tree, which I finished reading 10 minutes ago. The assignment lists some websites to visit, but I figure some additional input would make my paper seem slightly less cooked-up-the-day-before-school-starts. So here is your chance to have your opinions presented in a paper that will have no impact on anything but my grade!




Incidentally, there is a lot of (unintentional) irony in this book. Example: Friedman says, when demonstrating how "cyber-exchanges" are changing the relationship between companies and suppliers, "Consider Enron." Oops.

[chequita guevara]

Off the cuff:

globalization promotes a race to the bottom as countries compete with each other to offer corporations the lowest wages, most compliant labor, and minimalist environmental regulations. It undermines living standards in the 1st world while not substantially raising them in the 3rd world.

[Kuciwalker]

a good one that lets me stay carefully neutral on the issue because I actually know ****-all about any of this and would just look stupid by taking sides.

[Bereta_Eder]

not taking sides is good when writing a paper

[chequita guevara]

Also, globalist trade organizations such as the WTO, force countries to adopt certain trade policies or be punished, while the people appointed to it are unelected. IIRC, the Senate doesn't even confirm the person the U.S. sends, but he can change U.S. laws.

For a NAFTA example, Canada is suing the U.S. because California has decided to ban MTBE, which is believed to be a nasty carcinogen. If the Canadians win, the U.S. will have to pay damages to the Canadian manufacturer.

[child of Thor]

I think chegitz guevara just about summed it up in a nutshell, (edit: in the first post he did). After that all you can do is cite examples of it happening to prove the point. Basicaly it stuffs the third world(often enviromentaly) while weakening the middle wealth of the developed countries, but helping the rich get richer.
From the infamous Nike shoes from south american sweat shops etc to America's unlevelled playing field in the logging dispute with canada(to show its not just the third world that can suffer from globalisation) etc.

[Pekka]

BEcoz it makes the poor poorer and da rich richer!!1

I don't have to back this up. This is the argument of most idiots.

But the few smarter ones who might oppose this, well what che said.

[alva]

Can I mention "diversity"?

I can't stand the way each and every city now is a look-alike to the one you came from.

[Bereta_Eder]

Originally posted by Pekka
BEcoz it makes the poor poorer and da rich richer!!1

I don't have to back this up. This is the argument of most idiots.

Actually there are data that confirm this. And were recently published.

[chequita guevara]

I suppose one could also attack the arguments for globalization.

For example, one of the arguments for free trade is that by providing lower cost goods, it effectively raises the living standards of consumers. However, there is no reason to believe that there are as many winners as losers. More people could be hurt by free trade than helped by it.

That would be more of a philosophical argument, since you'd have to see the numbers to know for show.

[Pekka]

You just insulted my religion (free market and WTO is the God of it), so you need to go to prison.

[chequita guevara]

What are the other arguments for? Maybe those can be knocked down as well?

[chequita guevara]

Oh, Kuci, watch Is Wal~Mart Good For America?

[Last Conformist]

Globalization is bad, because it helps the brown people.

[atawa]

Originally posted by alva
Can I mention "diversity"?

I can't stand the way each and every city now is a look-alike to the one you came from.

Riding your dirtbike into small town Cambodia for lunch.

Hi, we're you from?

-Holland

Ah... have Heineken