Argument 1: Globalisation or ‘Gobble-isation’
- Globalization: to extend to other or all parts of the globe; make worldwide. - Eg. Africa, a third world country due to anti-globalization - Evident that globalization is inevitable, thus we cope with it to survive - The meaning, extend to other parts of the globe, means competition with other countries - Run by the bigger companies and influential people in the world, we as common people cannot make a known difference. - Efforts will be gone to waste, and the world will continue to flourish resulting us being backdated and stagnant financially
Argument 2: Poverty is a result of anti-globalisation
- Globalization: to extend to other or all parts of the globe; make worldwide - World’s finances are mostly controlled by the big companies in the world. - Most of the economy revolves around the bigger companies as they take up a huge portion of the market share. - They globalize and offer a ‘win-win’ situation.
- Eg, MNCs come to Singapore as part of globalization, Singapore gain foreign revenue by taxing them at high rates. - Without them, we would not be able to gain foreign revenue and they would not have Singapore’s market share of the globe. - If a certain MNC doesn’t come in due to anti-globalisation, another MNC still would, thus there’s a competitive disadvantage. - Singapore’s financial flow would be in higher amounts and more transactions would also be made. - Singapore flourishes.
Counter argument: Globalization encourages cruelty:
Example: Nike sweatshops.
- Globalisation causes big companies like Nike to out source their manufacturing in third world countries like poorer parts of Indonesia and Thailand. - Products are made in sweatshops where exploitation occurs. - Poor people in there have no choice as it is probably the only source of income/ job they can find to support their families.
Please join StudyMode to read the full document