Please tell me if you are against or in favour of globalization and please give the reasons for your answer.
Please convince me it is a good thing.
I am neither in favour or against but I am a little suspicous.
Thank you
(for those who prefer a 'question', "Are you in favour or against globalization ? Give me reasons for your answer please" )
2007-09-18
00:43:14
·
13 answers
·
asked by
RED-CHROME
6
in
Politics & Government
➔ Politics
" Enigma "
WOW -- (I am not easily impressed)
2007-09-18
01:07:47 ·
update #1
" Enigma "
sorry... what I meant by that was "I love your answer"
2007-09-18
01:08:41 ·
update #2
My take on 'Globalization' ?
It makes it easier to control the entire planet,
centralized control.
2007-09-18
01:11:30 ·
update #3
" Boring "
Boring you are not. What a good answer too.
Very academic.
Thank you.
2007-09-18
01:13:42 ·
update #4
" PATRICK M "
Good answer.
"...why is patriotism a dirty word ?" -- Exactely!!!
2007-09-18
01:43:25 ·
update #5
I read all your fantastic answers
Who am I to declare a winner ?!
I will put it to the vote.
Thank you all for your intelligent answers.
2007-09-20
10:04:18 ·
update #6
Absolutely against it,,,,,big business means big money and that usually means the poor get trodden on
2007-09-18 00:46:46
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
0⤋
Well, to me, "globalisation" describes a number of processes and it is possible to imagine those processes in different ways.
The word is used to describe the increased speed at which ideas, information, capital, corporations and products can travel around the world. The movement itself is not new (look at the spread of religions and other ideas thousands of years ago) but the speed is new. However, what is missing from the definition in my opinion is people. While money and products can travel freely, only the rich are allowed to move around.
Borders and passports are a relatively new thing remember. So, at the same time that everything else can move, people are more immobile than ever. It seems to me this is the big problem with this model of globalisation.
Those protesters who are called "anti-globalisation" are invariably not. They are for "global justice" and against a model of globalisation that puts companies and profits before people. Globalisation could be a better thing if it were fairer and people-centred.
2007-09-18 01:10:44
·
answer #2
·
answered by Boring 5
·
1⤊
1⤋
Globalization is just a cleverly disguised word for something the evangelical christians and half of America has been railing against fo a long time and that is NWO (New World Order) or One World Government. It just depends on which sect you belong to which word you use. World control by the corporate elite. While some may view it as a utopian society there are many more that view it as a dystopian society. Human rights are suppressed and oppression worldwide. Worldwide fascism.
2007-09-18 00:51:42
·
answer #3
·
answered by Enigma 6
·
3⤊
0⤋
I`m totally against it Globalisation is a polite way to describe the rich getting richer by living like parasites on the back poorest people in the world
2007-09-18 00:53:08
·
answer #4
·
answered by keny 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
During the past we were faced with issues governing the future. All that could be said about these issues is that they contained unknown variables relating to the present situation. Via legislation we attempted to forward theories regarding these variables.
We found that the future was largely unknown, but that the middle eastern crisis could be linked to issues of the present situation, regarding those aspects unearthed in our future having a direct relationship on the past!
2007-09-18 01:55:08
·
answer #5
·
answered by bottle babe 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
What is globalisation in real terms?
Is it a utopian society?
Or is it the imposing of one countrie's culture and customs on everyone else? Ramming it down our throats?
I am in favour of cultures existing side by side, but integrating economically with a free open trade market. Rather like Ebay..
2007-09-18 00:50:13
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
i hate it like the poison that it is.))) the thought of all cultures blending into one huge mac Donald's fest, where every one eats the same food wears the same clothes fills me with absolute horror. the world will turn into a sad grey boring place, and no one will feel any form of identity in their soul. travel will become a pointless exercise it will be like travelling 3000 miles to be in the same boring dull place you just came from. people need to feel like their part of some thing. who wants to be part of EVERY THING!!! why is nationalism a dirty word??? its what gives competition and pride!! among us. its what gives us that spark** that differance. globalization is just an excusse for the big powerfull to bully the whole wold into being one huge customer.
2007-09-18 01:21:21
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
I wish there was globalization with moderation. Although it does give business opportunities to countries, it does destroy the uniqueness of said country. I don't think it will go away. It is disturbing to be in remote parts of third world countries and seeing coke and snickers being sold in make-shift stands.
2007-09-18 02:02:11
·
answer #8
·
answered by binreddy 5
·
2⤊
0⤋
I believe one of the stated aims (or effects ) of globalisation was to improve the lot of people in developing countries, and if that had been true then it would be commendable. What it seems to do is permit multinational giants to exploit them and us by allowing them to make even greater profits.
I don't think it is a good thing but I'm sure we are stuck with it.
2007-09-18 01:27:54
·
answer #9
·
answered by Ted T 5
·
1⤊
1⤋
that is "you." As in... "You suck." "you're terrible." Etcetera. via asserting "you," the participant, supervisor, or coach is making his argument very own and attacking you fairly of arguing the call. A participant, supervisor, or coach gets greater leeway if he says issues which includes "that decision replaced into terrible," "That sucked." "You" assaults the umpire's integrity. undergo in suggestions, nevertheless, that whether somebody does not say "you," he would desire to be ejected, for making obscene or threatening gestures, mocking an umpire's orders to obey the regulations, and for prolonging a controversy. "You" will bring about an ejection lots greater immediately, nevertheless.
2016-12-26 16:25:39
·
answer #10
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋