globalization

in a nutsh-ll, the integration and exchange of ideas and goods globally. hence the name, globalization. it benefits the middle cl-ss and especially the rich and powerful, but has hurt the poor and powerless.
question: what is the truest definition of globalization?

answer: princess diana’s death.

question: how come?

answer: an english princess with an egyptian boyfriend crashes in a french tunnel, while in a german car with a dutch engine, driven by a belgian who was drunk on scottish whisky, followed closely by italian paparazzi on j-panese motorcycles; treated by an american doctor using brazilian medicines.

this is sent to you by an american, using bill gates’s technology, and you’re probably reading this on a computer that uses taiwanese chips, and a korean monitor, -ssembled by bangladeshi workers in a singapore plant, transported by indian lorry-drivers, hijacked by indonesians, unloaded by sicilian longsh-r-men, and trucked to you by mexican illegals.
globalization is the inter-dependence of nations on one anothers’ goods, resulting in a global economy. one may argue that such has occurred since civilization began, with the thing we know as commerce, but that is more wrong than right.

there are perks of globalization, such as:
– the ability to travel internationally easier.
– a wide variety of goods, differing in quality and price dramatically.
– forced peace between inter-dependent nations, which results in less war.
– more universal measurement, arithmetic, and language, making it easier for people to communicate internationally.

of course, globalization has serious draw-backs, too:
– if one economy declines, the rest do, too. this is much like a farmer using one variant of one crop, which will result in the destruction of most of his crop, if a bad disease hits.
– if a universal currency is not used, some, smaller nations will have disadvantages in trade.
– if one nation so chooses to withdraw from the global economy, the entire thing could collapse.
– those countries that offer less valuable products than others will get f-cked over.
– the richer nations profit more than the smaller ones.
i, personally, do not advocate globalization.
another word for new world order and one world government
globalization
international investment, and the exchange and transfer of goods and ideas overseas. it’s a complicated process of economic, technological, sociocultural and political forces. but it’s the main culprit of the loss of numerous manufacturing jobs in the us. gatt and nafta have created jobs overseas while closing plants in the us. nafta has done more to hurt the rust belt than anything; factories r closing in the us but opening in mexico or china. the demise of the auto industry and steel industry in the us has been hurt more than any other industry. nafta has also been the catalyst for illegal immigration of mexicans into the us. globalization is doing an excellent job at wiping-out the middle-cl-ss in america. globalization has also resulted in dubai purchasing and now owning the chrysler building in new york.
the value of the dollar in the us, is a direct result of globalization.
yes, as the definition above states, globalization is the exchange of goods, services and ideas across national boundaries. what many people fail to realize is that globalization has been going on for hundreds of years. however, the rate at which globalization has been spreading has increased dramatically within the past two decades due to factors like technological advancements in communications.

globalization does not make the rich richer and the poor poorer. this is a common myth held by many narrow-minded religious fanatics and ignorant people who don’t know the first thing about business. anybody who has taken a basic introductory course in economics will realize why globalization works to both the more affluent as well as the poorer nations’ advantage.

there is a growing disparity, however, between nations that are not globalized and those that are becoming more globalized. a study conducted by the world bank in 2005 proves that nations who have taken part in globalization have experienced a growth in education levels, as well as an increase in gdp and standard of living. on the other hand, their less-globalized counterparts suffered the reverse.
have you had your gl-ss of globalization today?