Going through my files now, and I've found some more essays and such from high school. Enjoy.
Globilization is one more way for the rich to redistribute resources to themselves, at the expense of others.
Case studies - eg. Sao Paulo, China dispute that. Instead, these suggest that without proper regulation, global corporations destabilise economies in the countries they move to, and any economic advantage barely filters down to the actual employed.
Economic success does not directly translate to better living conditions.
I agree. It is a wealth redistribution tactic.
China's economy is growing BECAUSE OF, not in spite of the influx of capitalism. In fact, if not for their economic reforms to allow capitalism, they'd probably already have collapsed like the USSR.
i like that you used the term "screwed" your school work.
Erm... russ... maybe you can just read that again?
I didn't dispute that capitalism can have a good effect on economy. I am saying that globalisation does not always equal good effect on economy, and good effect on economy is not always "good for the country". I am saying that when it is done WELL, then so. But to say globalisation = always good/bad is to oversimplify. Globalisation without controls is generally bad.
You're right, I'm not getting it. What negative effects of globalization does China display?
Widespread environmental damage, unequal development/investment, continuation of government repression, increase in rich/poor divide.
Major problems that occur with globalization:
When companies move to cheaper labor bases, the original workers loose their jobs. This always has short-term negative effects. If sufficient steps aren't taken to enable these people to take on other jobs, there is a long-term bad effect.
Powerful and rich companies move into 3rd-world countries, taking over their resources. The people there lose control of these resources and become dependent on these companies with little hope of improving their situation above sweatshop conditions.
Since the people running these companies are not locals, they care little about the effects of environmental degradation and other injustices.
These companies may create low-wage jobs, but do not distribute their wealth into the community. It's just more money in the hands of the higher-ups. This is not exactly the best economic stimulus.
Separate names with a comma.