Is Economic Globalization Good for Humankind?
Is Economic Globalization Good for Humankind?
Is economic globalization good for humankind? Murray Weidenbaum (2007) believes globalization is a positive change especially for poor nations and an opportunity for the exchange of ideas between countries. For the basis of his argument, Weidenbaum states the top ten myths about economic globalization and rebukes them. On the opposite side of the argument is Herman E. Daly (2007) who is strongly against economic globalization. With economic integration comes political, social, and cultural integration between countries which will result in a loss of national identity and the potential for national governments to be replaced by multinational governments. To support his argument, Daly gives four negative consequences as the result of economical globalization (Street & Street, 2007).
The first myth Weidenbaum attacks is: globalization costs jobs. Employment is at a record high and unemployment is at a 30 year low in the US. More jobs were created in the US than Western Europe and Japan between 1993 and 2000 and that technological advances and not international trade is the cause behind job loss. The US is not an “island of free trade” (myth 2); numerous federal, state and local laws prevent this from happening. Americans are not hurt by imports (myth 3). The fact is that there are different foods, minerals and other goods that Americans would not have access to if importing was not allowed or limited. American companies do send jobs overseas, but to developed nations with high labor costs and high environmental standards (myth 4). “American owned and managed factories in foreign countries are top-of-the-line in terms of both better working conditions and higher environmental standards than locally-owned firms” (Street & Street, 2007) Because of this many local workers seek employment at American factories (myth 5). The sixth myth; the trade deficit is hurting our economy and we should eliminate it is rebuked
Is economic globalization good for humankind? Murray Weidenbaum (2007) believes globalization is a positive change especially for poor nations and an opportunity for the exchange of ideas between countries. For the basis of his argument, Weidenbaum states the top ten myths about economic globalization and rebukes them. On the opposite side of the argument is Herman E. Daly (2007) who is strongly against economic globalization. With economic integration comes political, social, and cultural integration between countries which will result in a loss of national identity and the potential for national governments to be replaced by multinational governments. To support his argument, Daly gives four negative consequences as the result of economical globalization (Street & Street, 2007).
The first myth Weidenbaum attacks is: globalization costs jobs. Employment is at a record high and unemployment is at a 30 year low in the US. More jobs were created in the US than Western Europe and Japan between 1993 and 2000 and that technological advances and not international trade is the cause behind job loss. The US is not an “island of free trade” (myth 2); numerous federal, state and local laws prevent this from happening. Americans are not hurt by imports (myth 3). The fact is that there are different foods, minerals and other goods that Americans would not have access to if importing was not allowed or limited. American companies do send jobs overseas, but to developed nations with high labor costs and high environmental standards (myth 4). “American owned and managed factories in foreign countries are top-of-the-line in terms of both better working conditions and higher environmental standards than locally-owned firms” (Street & Street, 2007) Because of this many local workers seek employment at American factories (myth 5). The sixth myth; the trade deficit is hurting our economy and we should eliminate it is rebuked
References: Street, M.D., & Street, V.L. (2007). Taking sides. Clashing views in management (2nd ed.). Dubuque, IA: McGraw-Hill Company.