**Comment to express interest!!**
Resolved: Economic globalization is beneficial
I will be taking the CON position
Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere
Any citations or foot/endnotes must be provided in the text of the debate
No new arguments in the final round
The BoP is shared
Failure to comply to these stipulations or following round structure renders an automatic loss
Con - Rules
Pro - Acceptance
Con - Opening Arguments
Pro - Opening Arguments
Con - Rebuttals
Pro - Rebuttals
Con - Defense & Rebuttals
Pro - Defense & Rebuttals
Looking forward to a good debate! :)
Essentially, when economic globalization begins, the short-term effects on environment are empirically harmful. However, assuming economic globalization is successful in poverty reduction, the curve is completed and environmental degradation slows. Regardless, the initial impact on environment is irreversible and extremely harmful. For the preservation of the environment, it’s imperative we don’t utilize economic globalization as an international policy.
The graph above exemplifies the impact of lower labor standards on practices, and demonstrates the regressive trend over a period of 17 years. The graph is derived from an empirical time-series investigation study conducted by Ronald B. Davies of UCD School of Economics.  The study typifies these concerns: economic globalization has a net negative impact on labor practices and econometric spatial lag between the labor-rights index and actual labor practices. Lower labor standards allows unethical labor and wage abuse to employees, which could potentially apply to every working individual. This is a huge problem in regards to generating a net benefit. The Economist summarizes the findings as such: “If the labour standards across all other countries decline, those of the excepted country also tend to fall.”  These demonstrate the negative effects of economic globalization, and affirm the “race-to-the-bottom” theory.
Moreover, the same conclusion can be applied to regulations in environmental protection, indicating due to increased competition, regulations would be lowered to lure polluting businesses to contribute to their GDP. These large companies would settle in areas with the least environmental prevention to their company. The same study from Harvard  explains, “by limiting trade and investment in some way, we might be able to attain a better environment for any given level of GDP.” This would negatively affect the environment as these companies would be permitted to release vast amounts of emissions known to contribute to global warming and general degradation of the environment.
But beyond environmental attributes, labor practices and the facilitation of income inequality. Osvaldo Sunkel, professor of economics in Chile explains, “Since the 80s, when the new [globalization] policies have been implemented more or less all over the world, income distribution has worsened, both within countries and among countries.”  Income distribution is being degraded by economic globalization since the 1980s, and no evidence seem to suggest that trend will skew in favor of economic globalization.
Indeed, Marc Bacchetta, economics research and statistics division of the World Trade Organization, furthers that globalization results in an “economy [that] is characterized by less job security, lower incomes, an absence of access to a range of social benefits and fewer possibilities to participate in formal education and training programmes – in short, the absence of key ingredients of decent work opportunities.”  Opportunities for “most” individuals to obtain “good” jobs are lacking, labor standards are degrading, and income inequality is rampant; all of these necessitate refraining from economic globalization.
Due to large concerns in regards to the environment and the implications on labor, economic globalization does not generate a net benefit and certainly is not appealing or desirable.
2. Due to economic globalization nation's economies increase, and more money flows into these nations. A lot of these nations need that money to try to being moderation programs in these nations. Some such nations that have benefited from it in such a way is china. After china opened it doors for economic trading china's economy greatly increased and the nation started to become more modern because of it. Another nation that is also benefiting economically from globalization is India. India's economy had a strong growth rate until the global recession in 2008. But it is continuing to recover from
3. Due to trade deals witch is a result of economic globalization nations now have access to food they other wise wouldn't have. For example you can now go to a market place and buy banana's from nations all the way in Africa. They helps both nations, because now that nation that sold the bananas will have more money going into there economy. The nation that bought them can now sell them to the people in that nation.
4. Also due to economic globalization companies are starting to open stores in third world nations that originally did not have them. This is a great thing for these nations, for these companies need people to fill in new jobs. So there are more workers now in the workplace, witch means more money is now going back into the economy. This will help the people there, and help aging bring the government closer to being a first world nation. These new jobs will help create a whole new marketplace in some cases and there business will boom. Here is a great example of this, aging I will use India. Due to globalization more IT, and technological jobs are opening up in India. This causes more to be in the work force, and aging benefit the nation by more money going into it.
So this is my first round, I will address cons points in the next round and whatever he brings up against me. So back to con.
1. Isolation if we don't accept globalization
This point is objectively false for a number of reasons:
1. First of all, this is the black or white (false dilemma) fallacy. My opponent falsely asserts there is only two options: isolation, or accepting economic globalization. However, this is quite false, as there are other options, similar to the one for which I advocate.
2. Per the definition, which my opponent did not attest or challenge (and thereby accepts), economic globalization is "The trans-national increase in trade and capital transfers across national boundaries."  Increase, as denoted, is the key word here. Not accepting economic globalization doesn't prohibit trade, it just doesn't advocate for the rampant increase.
3. Thusly, a country isn't by default isolated by nonacceptance of globalization. The claim that the countries would be much poorer is unfounded.
2. More money flow
Here's a few responses:
1. While money can flow in an easy manner, that doesn't necessitate countries being richer. In fact, I've shown how labor implications render this point false.
2. My evidence points to the fact that income distribution has worsened. Job opportunities have failed because of this (my evidence also supports this) and subsequent poverty is not solved.
3. In the end the flow of money =/= to a richer population, as the money can become transparent for the common people.
3. Economic globalization and bananas
A couple of responses here, as well:
1. Trading, again, doesn't require economic globalization. Before the term was even implicit of an increase in trading, trading existed.
2. The rampant increase, as economic globalization would advocate, actually detriments the environment, as I've demonstrated. This would logically destroy the environment in which bananas grow. How can we justifiably advocate for something that would harm banana trade? The argument here is turned: environmental impact of globalization destroys the banana assertion.
I have some responses of clarification and argumentation:
1. What my opponent is claiming here is not just globalization, it's outsourcing. Yet, this doesn't justify globalization for a few reasons as I'll mention.
2. Outsourcing is harmful. While it is acclaimed to be good for individual business, it has unintended consequences, a few of which include the following: "[it] leads to fragmentation and disintegration of the supply chain, inviting new competitors into the industry. It also nurtures corporate complacency; and it undermines a company’s relations with its labor, customers, and the domestic and local communities."  These harms can lead it to being a bad business strategy as well as bad for the individual.
3. Outsourcing lowers quality. CBS News notes "Many firms that provide outsourcing quickly cut the quality of component parts in order to increase their margins."  Desperation leads companies to cut down on quality to make more cash for their business itself.
4. Outsourcing in regards to progress. Global research finds "Beginning in 2002 the US began running trade deficits in advanced technology products with Asia, Mexico and Ireland. As these countries are not leaders in advanced technology, the deficits obviously stem from US offshore manufacturing. In effect, the US is giving away its technology, which is rapidly being captured, while US firms reduce themselves to a brand name with a sales force."  Instead of helping the outsourcing nation, it erodes their dominance. Moreover, labor standards and practices in these outsourced companies is despicable.  It's not progress for poverty alleviation and human rights activism when a consequence of globalization degrades labor practices as well as the labor laws themselves.
Environmental concerns coupled with labor concerns should be sufficient to negating the resolution. However, accompanied by falsehood's that lie in the affirmative (economic impact isn't there), there is no option but to negate.
stargate forfeited this round.
|Who won the debate:||-|
|Who won the debate:||-|