Now, there have been a few debates on protests about Globalisation to wether its good or bad. In my opinion, it's a good thing because it gives job opportunities and helps a country to start developing.

For example, 50 years ago, China didn't let Globalisatiion enter its country but once they let factories and companies place buildings and workplaces there China developed and look at it now. Everything is made in China.

I bet you anything that if Africa had more food companies or any other companies set up an area of work there then Africa would develop and become richer. It may be a slow process but it could eliminate starvation, homelessness and poor countries.

Of course you have the otherside of it such as work conditions and salary then pollution (from factories). But once a country is developed they can affords a better Environment for workers.

I laughed at this, are you serious?
Well done, you can spell globalisation, but you still dont know what it is.

like 3/4 of Africa is farm land and your perception of Africas level of developement is hilarious.

Not all africans are poor.

The ones you see on tv are in the bad areas.

Africa would probably be degraded into incredibly low paying, intensive work rather than how 1st world countries like America or Australia are currently. Which I think is worse.

I didn't say that, I am from Africa myself.

@Ben Sorry for not researching hard enough but I don't have the time. Just using what school taught me.

It's fair to assume that Africa is a shithole apart of the couple of countries in the very north and south of the continent.
In my opinion globalization is a positive trend because it connects nations and make an exchange of things all countries need possible. There are a couple of problems that are more associated with the fact that it's a rather new trend that is not fully in place yet.
Countries that try to stay out of globalization will be fucked over. You can look at the economy of Argentine for an example.

Globalisation as a whole is a good thing. Its main pitfall is the U.S. It seems like the vast majority of the internet is American users. Due to this, and the (sadly true) stereotypes about Americans in general, international users are constantly pelted with "speak english fagit" and other similar non-sentences.

Yes, I understand that it is the "standard" language for all international businesses and such. I'm talking about the idiots who say "english or gtfo". I'm also not advocating one language over another.

Users from non-English speaking countries should consider that the site that they enter is most likely to be primarily speaking English, and at least make an attempt to communicate likewise. If they manage to find someone in the same place who speaks their language, great. They won't have to strain themselves to try and get their point across. The same goes for the opposite. Many a time have I seen some random idiot come into a room in-game, where there are four Brazilians and myself. He takes one look at the chat and goes "JESUS GUISE SPEAK ENGLISH".

Additional information: I am American myself, and am guilty of doing the very thing I am complaining about. However, this is only when the majority of the conversation is in English and a random foreign person comes in. Most of the time, I will politely ask that they speak English. Sometimes that works. If it doesn't, I simply carry on with the previous conversation and effectively ignore the foreign, seeing as none of the other people I am talking to understand him either.

Idiot 12 year olds dispariging other people's languages are the exception to the Internet's influence on globalization, not the rule. The influence of the Internet is the capabilities it provides to widen the scope of communication between nations, fostering a global community. The vast majority of Internet communication is relatively positive and contributive.


Back to globalization, I would say true globalization would be beneficial, but the current state of globalization today is far from perfect.

In many situations, globalization is colonialism by another name. Frequently, less developed nations are told to accept globalization and compete in the global economy with their less developed infrastructure and human capital against economic superpowers like the U.S. and other Western nations, along with a few rising Asian and South American nations. They are given no market protections, and are expected to impose no protective tariffs on imports from other countries.

Naturally, their economy is unable to survive in the global market, due to lack of development, volatile socio-political climates, in comparison to the relative stability and advanced tech and capital afforded by developed nations. So what often happens is multi-national corporations swoop in from these developed nations to "help" develop their economy by investing in their infrastructure. Which they technically do, as they do inject capital into the region that normally would not be there. However, the price is often at the expense of the nation's resouces, as frequently the corporations promote the export of resources to the developed nations for manufacturing, which are then often resold at much higher costs to their own populace and occasionally to the original country. This follows the concept of colonialism almost to the letter, exempting the sovereignty of the colony.

And many of these countries, except for the corrupt politicians who often willingly enter this colonial economy for personal gain, are resentful of this setup, but are unable to withdraw from the global economy because of loans that were taken to fix the damage done to the nation's economy because of colonialism, which hold conditions that they must participate in globalization as a "path to development", yet are unable to pay back because globalization shackles their economy. Loans which some argue are void because they were loans taken from nations to fix the problems the very same nations had caused, and thus the loans should have been compensation, with no repayment.


It's a very long grievance starting from the beginning of colonialism, culminating during the formation of the IMF, and carried on to this day. I've left quite a bit out, as I've basically given a crash course on half a semester of a 3 credit hour course I took, and even then I haven't completely covered it all.

Tl;dr: some view globalization as a continuation of colonialism under a different banner, and thus disapprove of it.

It also takes away job opportunities. First world countrymen expect first world wages and conditions. Transnational companies realise it's cheaper to pack up shop and move to countries where they can pay workers less in worse conditions. That's where all the middle-class jobs are going. This subsequently leads to a widening of the wealth gap and the host of issues that come with it. That's where we're all heading. Thanks to globalisation.

Globalisation also means all the countries are interconnected. So, when a country crashes, the negative effects tend to ripple through to other countries. Case in point, the GFC. It also accelerates the rate at which we fuck up our environment.

On the other hand, globalisation does increase participating countries' growth and GDP. Increases in GDP result in increases in standards of living, and standards of living are often used as indicators of happiness. So globalisation = happiness. It gives us ways to deal with problems that are global in scale, like global warming, and it promotes collective security.


Is globalisation good or bad? Who knows? Time will tell.