is globalisation necessary?

Answer 1

Hell no!!

Answer 2

It is necessary to have the kind of wealth that we have in the world now. It is necessary to have the standard of living people across the globe have now. Without globalisation, as a population, we could have still survived, but may not be to these standard nor to this size (count).

Note that globalisation is not a recent phenomenon. global trade an movement of people has been going on for thousands of years. if none of that happened, human population and culture would have been very different. But still would have existed.

Answer 3

No, but something being necessary and a good idea are not one in the same.

Globalisation occurs because free trade provides mutual benefits among all parties--pure and simple. We could make all of our t-shirts in the U.S., but that would mean dedicating resources that could be better used elsewhere instead of just letting workers in another country make our t-shirts for us while we focus on what we're good at. (Look up "comparative advantage").

To illustrate on a smaller scale, we could have an economy where every single person did everything for himself---but that would be terribly inefficient. Opening up markets to a community, nation, and finally the world generates new opportunities for wealth.

The more trade, the more productive we become, and quality of life is better on the whole.

Now, globalisation does screw some people over---the U.S. manufacturing industry for example---but this is not because of evil outsourcing, but because the service they are selling is no longer of much value. Service Industries based on human capital acquired through education are what the United States excels at. Overall most people are better off through globalisation.

It is our success that in a way makes outsourcing inevitable, because our largely successful populace won't work for what people in other countries would love to work for.

The common anti-globalist (or alter-mondialist) view is that free trade helps corporations and not people---not realizing that in most cases the interests are one in the same. Many of their idealistic policies such as higher minimum wages and unionization which are actually counter-productive; as well as social democracy which is sometimes more equitable, but causes stagnation in productivity. They are quick to criticize the IMF for helping out heavily indebted countries, and requesting that they be fiscally responsible in exchange so the debt can be repaid.

Now, the alter-mondialists do make some good points. There are externalities such as pollution, overconsumption of natural resources as well as child and bonded labor that are unfortunate side effects of irresponsible globalisation---but that is no reason to criticize globalisation itself---and these problems can be fought without taking down the generally good idea of global free trade.

Answer 4

Yes in some cases and No in some cases. Yes in the sense the countries which still lack in basic needs (eg. some parts of africa and many all over the world) could gain more benefits on glabalisation. No in the sense the well developed country may lose its specialization in many ways by glabalisation..It depends on the need of the country for it..

Answer 5

GLOBALISATION IS A PHENOMENON. IT IS THE RESULT OF MUTUAL INTERACTION BETWEEN PEOPLE ACROSS BORDERS. MAN CANT LIVE WITHOUT RELATING OTHERS SO IT IS NECESSARY.

Answer 6

Necessary, no. But if you believe in liberty, it is inevitable. The only people who can stop it are know-it-all politicians with power. Let's hope The King is not a politician.
.

Answer 7

Who is going to be the leader of the global World?

Will the communist countries accept such a policy?

Countries will be divided, I think.