I've heard all of the arguments against globalization, but haven't ever been able to get a good perspective on the arguments FOR it. The mainstream (or "liberal," as it's sometimes called) media has little more to say than "Globalization is good. If you don't agree you're stupid and/or crazy."
I'd like to gain a perspective on it from a real person using real arguments. I'd like to know WHO globalization benefits (in the view of the globalists, that is) and, even more importantly, HOW it benefits them.
I don't want this to be an argument thread, I really just want to know what people think.
Globalization is neither good nor bad, it is the term used for the "equalization" of consumers to choose more products and services and provide for more consumers. Like capitalism it is neutral and can be abused or it can increase for the betterment of all. Those against globalization tend to not understand economics, its like being against "raining" it is a natural fact of a more integrated world economy.
The question I have is why these economic "luddites" whine about globalization rather than look for way in which globalization might improve areas in need.
I assume globalization implies a single sovereign world state, with a single soveriegn government(though possibly a federal one, with subservient State governments, such as in the USA)??? If so, you ask who it would benefit? in the end, everybody. How would it benefit them? The peoples of the world would, as a whole, be relatively much more at peace and much more content with living conditions(they'd have enough to eat and drink more often, and better shelter, and less bullets to duck). Furthermore, resulting from this large general increase in peace and contentment, the peoples of the world could turn their attentions to less basic things, such as science and art. Advancements in art can directly contribute to the morality of a culture. Advancements in science should, of course, contribute indirectly to that morality through the economic and physical advancement of mankind(Better agriculture, renewable energy sources, environmental cleanliness, healling the sick etc...)
Now to answer how this government would set the world at this relatively high, much sought after level of peace and contentment. A fair question, I guess, yet I offer a simple answer: It would have enough power to do so. Recall that unlike the U.N., this government would have zero other soveriegn, legitimate governments to thwart it. Yes it would have internal troubles, but so do all democracies, and most get along just fine, despite many feudal predictions.
I always thought of globalization in terms of the fact that more and more people get to interact over larger and larger spaces. This inevitably results in some kind of homogeneity. My impression has been that the people who hate globalization the most are those whose culture is contributing least to the homogenization, because they are instead being marginalized. They feel kind of like the "un-cool" crowd at high school. The gut responce is just to hate the "in" crowd. But just because somebody hates the in crowd doesn't mean that the in-crowd is bad. It just means that the marginalized group has as yet been unsuccessful in promoting their culture. This can change. For instance, in the last 5 years or so, gamers and comic book nerds have joined with computer geeks in becoming a very cool set to be with. I'm sure the same can eventually happen with many larger cultures that are currently marginalized. Unfortunately, in the process, many marginalized cultures may die out.
As far as a global government is concerned... if there ever is one, I hope very soon abouts there that we colonize off of the planet, otherwise there can be nowhere to run if a government becomes oppressive.
I'm referring specifically to corporate globalization, global "free trade" the WTO, IMF & World Baml, FTAA & similar agreements, etc. Sorry for not being more clear.
I should mention that I personally am undecided as to whether the concept of any form of globalization (as in, people from around the globe interacting with one another) is a good thing or not. I'm certainly not in favor of a world government.
If you're interested in a primarily Pro perspective of globalization, may I recommend Thomas Friedman's "The Lexus and the Olive Tree."
In a sentence, as I see it, the primary good that comes from globalization is an enhanced global quality of life and much more global exchange of all sorts of information.
The primary negative is the homogenization of culture into one global culture that seems to be primarily inspired by American culture. While that, alone, isn't necessarily my objection, the problem is that the negative aspects of that culture (materialism, for example), are being spread just as quickly and deeply (if not moreso) as the positive aspects.