(06-13-2016, 03:09 PM)Mikasa Wrote: The word "globalisation" already contains the name "global" which says that the meaning of globalisation affects the whole world, not just one or two countries.
Globalisation happens in many parts of our daily life :
Environment, politics, our culture or communitications via Internet for example. We're available everywhere all the time, what makes our world more connected than it ever was. But the globalisation got negative aspects aswell, such as the trash in our oceans. We all have to work on it, not just two or three countries. The only way to stop the pollutions is to get the whole world to help eachother and work together as a team.
Cars produced in Germany are sold in literally every place on this planet, but how do the cars get there? Usually by ships or planes, but this way isn't that healthy for the environment aswell.
You see, we all have to find a solution as fast as possible, and we don't have that much time left.
(This is a text that I wrote, nothing is from the Internet.)
When I hear the word "globalisation" (with a 'z' for you "I must spell differently" crazies in the USA), to me... it was mostly a political/economic buzzword that was applied chiefly to "how to make stuff cheaper".
I'm not sure that it has ever been intended to have anything to do with the global environmental concerns.
So let's go to the source:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/globalization
Definition of globalization
: the act or process of globalizing : the state of being globalized; especially : the development of an increasingly integrated global economy marked especially by free trade, free flow of capital, and the tapping of cheaper foreign labor markets
That seems to track with what I thought it was.
"Free trade" seeks to abolish countries who have typically given advantages to certain sectors of their local labour markets, to make them more competitive with foreign producers. Let's take "dairy farmers" as an example. I know that here in Canada, most of the milk that we consume comes from Canadian cows. Now I'm going on memory here, so I'm a bit cautious on how accurate I am, but... for many years, I think Canada imposed an extra 'tax' on dairy products that were imported to Canada. This was to protect Canadian dairy farmers, and ensure that they would not be out of a job because in some other country, milk was being produced far more cheaply.
So basically, it's a jostling match between politicians, international product markets, and local lobbyist organizations. For example in Canada, you have "Dairy Farmers of Canada" (
https://www.dairyfarmers.ca/what-we-do), who are a lobby group that support the dairy farmers. Although Canada now has free trade agreements with many nations, including the USA, Mexico, these guys still are trying to keep Canadian dairy farmers from being priced out of work. (For example, they might protest against a place like Brazil, which has cut down tropical rain forest areas, which do nothing for their economy, and put dairy farms in their place. Dairy products from Brazil are quite likely to be cheaper than those from Canada.) And if you look under "What we do" (the link I gave), here's what they say about International Trade: "
International Trade Dairy farmers have concerns regarding the impact of trade negotiations on their livelihood and the stability of our farms and communities."
And the weakening of local jobs, along with the jobs lost due to lower demand, would be one of the criticisms of globalisation.
But what I see as the driving force, is that publicly traded companies are under constant pressure to lower costs and improve profit, so they have taken to outsourcing wherever possible, to take advantage of cheaper labour.
Now, this is more prevalent with manufactured goods, than produce, but it has been applied to other sectors as well. For example, in North America I.T. technical support has been farmed out to Indian companies, because it is so much cheaper to hire a worker from India, and they still speak English. The "globalisation" of international markets, has sought to take full advantage of cheaper costs of doing work elsewhere. There still are disadvantages, of course. For example, you can make North American product in China much cheaper, but now you have to pay higher costs to transport those goods back to North America.
Is "globalisation" a good thing? I think that's a hard question to answer. At this point, because of the unfair advantages being offered to China, they (a tiny subset of the Chinese who are politically connected, and "entrepreneurs") are amassing wealth while continuing to hurt the planet. And almost every manufacturer is now producing their product in one of the cheaper labour markets. China produces the most "greenhouse gasses" of any country. I think the USA is second, and this is why the USA has never signed any greenhouse gas reduction treaties. Although the Chinese have nuclear weapons, and are capable of producing excellent robotics, along with many other factors one would consider for the "Developed" countries of the G8/G20/etc., they are still considered a "Third world" country, because their government controls and oppresses their people, and they live, for the most part, in abject poverty.
One of the things that politicians of every country have to do, is to look out for their people. Economically, this requires allowing companies to make a profit there, and to increase jobs. The free trade agreements allow companies there to make use of cheaper foreign labour, but this must still somehow be balanced, or the country will suddenly have an unemployment problem.
It is highly complex, and varies for each and every country.
Good luck @
Mikasa on your paper, and I hope this little Canadian look on the matter has helped you some!
![[-]](http://agarioforums.net/images/collapse.png)
