The Instigator
ColeTrain
Con (against)
Winning
21 Points
The Contender
stargate
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Economic Globalization

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
ColeTrain
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 11/29/2015 Category: Economics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,530 times Debate No: 83133
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (33)
Votes (3)

 

ColeTrain

Con

**Comment to express interest!!**

Resolution:

Resolved: Economic globalization is beneficial

I will be taking the CON position

Rules:

No trolling
No kritiks
No semantics
No forfeits
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

Round Structure:

Round 1:
Con - Rules
Pro - Acceptance
Round 2:
Con - Opening Arguments
Pro - Opening Arguments
Round 3:
Con - Rebuttals
Pro - Rebuttals
Round 4:
Con - Defense & Rebuttals
Pro - Defense & Rebuttals


Looking forward to a good debate! :)
stargate

Pro

I accept this debate, and may the best man win. Best of luck.
Debate Round No. 1
ColeTrain

Con

Framework:

Economic Globalization: “The trans-national increase in trade and capital transfers across national boundaries.” [http://tinyurl.com...] If I can prove economic globalization will have a net negative effect, I win. If my opponent proves the converse, he/she wins.


Environmental Concerns:


Generally, as income increases, so does production and consumption. These trends facilitate a rampant increase in pollution. Obviously, pollution isn’t something that is a net positive for society or for environment, as environment destruction has a subsequent negative effect on society. Pollution, as it is increased by economic globalization, creates an “Inverse-U” graph of environmental decay, called the Kuznets Curve. Environmental degradation is an irreversible cost of economic globalization, as demonstrated by the graph below:

[http://www.trunity.net...]

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.

This point is important, and I think it needs further explanation. It’s necessary to understand the effects of globalization are far-reaching, not confined to developed or developing countries. It applies to both of them, and that’s a basis for global environmental degradation. Though some proponent’s of economic globalization assert the Kuznet’s curve flattens its environmental effects, this does not include CO2 (carbon dioxide) emissions. Increase in production and consumption and easily induce further CO2 emissions, which subsequently results in global warming. There is “No evidence that Kuznet’s curve for CO2 ever turns down on its own.” [1]


Global warming is a subsequent effect of CO2 [2], and it’s generally common knowledge -- being backed by empirical studies [3] CO2 emissions are generally and primarily caused by increased production, which is what economic globalization facilitates. If it increases production, the only logical consequence is then furthered global warming.

Besides CO2 emissions, SO2 (sulfur oxide) emissions, which are pollutants [5], are another facet of considerable concern in regards to economic globalization. Yong S. Cho of Korea University explained in a study that there exists “a negative long-run relationship between SO2 emissions and income for developed countries…” [4] This clearly isn’t a positive consequence as there is less income. Even with SO2 emissions regressing, the effect on developing countries outweighs this slight benefit. The study continues, “while trade liberalization appears to increase environmental quality in developed economies, it has a detrimental effect on environmental quality in most developing countries.” Essentially, slight reduction in SO2 emissions in developed countries has little effect when weighed against *increased* emissions in developing countries and long-term lower income in developed nations.

Aside from these two specific negative impacts, the total impact is negative, as indicated by studies. The foundation of this conclusion rests on one main point: the “race-to-the-bottom” theory, which will be addressed in further contentions. Because of this, the environmental degradation facilitated by economic globalization is both highly detrimental and irreversible.

Labor Implications:

The “race-to-the-bottom” theory is essentially constructed of the idea that “to the extent that countries are open to international trade and investment, environmental standards will be lower than they would otherwise be.” [6] Competition is a primary factor of economics and the standards by which corporations and countries lead their policies and practices. When competition becomes international rather than limited to nation-wide, companies lower labor standards to compensate for increased competition. Lowered labor standards facilitate and directly alter labor practices in a regressive manner.


[http://cdn.static-economist.com...]

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. [7] 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.” [9] 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 [6] 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 [19]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.” [8] 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.” [10] 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.

Conclusion:

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.


Sources:

[1] http://pages.ucsd.edu...

[2] http://climate.nasa.gov...

[3] http://www.sciencedirect.com...

[4] http://ageconsearch.umn.edu...

[5] https://www.tceq.texas.gov...

[6] http://www.hks.harvard.edu...

[7] http://www.etsg.org...

[8] http://www.pbs.org...

[9] http://www.economist.com...

stargate

Pro

1. Now if we do not accept economic globalization, it will only isolate our nation and limit out options. We have been doing economic globalization for years sense we invest money over seas and even have people that work for us companies over seas. To stop now would make it so we lose a lot of money.

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.

http://www.ibef.org...
http://benefitof.net...
http://www.tradingeconomics.com...
Debate Round No. 2
ColeTrain

Con

Rebuttals

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." [1] 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.

4. Outsourcing
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." [2] 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." [3] 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." [4] Instead of helping the outsourcing nation, it erodes their dominance. Moreover, labor standards and practices in these outsourced companies is despicable. [5] 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.

Conclusion:
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.


Sources:
[1] http://tinyurl.com...
[2] http://www.forbes.com...
[3] http://www.cbsnews.com...
[4] http://www.globalresearch.ca...
[5]
http://www.worldaffairs.org...
stargate

Pro

stargate forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
ColeTrain

Con

Extend arguments.
stargate

Pro

I would post my argument but sense I forfeited the last round and the rules say no forfeiting I will admin that con wins.
Debate Round No. 4
33 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by ColeTrain 1 year ago
ColeTrain
@JuniorVarsityNovice -- Lol, ikr? :P
Posted by TheJuniorVarsityNovice 1 year ago
TheJuniorVarsityNovice
Oh my god, I wish I would have gotten this debate. THAT would be fun.
Posted by ColeTrain 1 year ago
ColeTrain
Man... Oh well.
Posted by stargate 1 year ago
stargate
Crap, and I was going to post it.
Posted by ColeTrain 1 year ago
ColeTrain
nac :)
Posted by Balacafa 1 year ago
Balacafa
I won't be bias.
Posted by ColeTrain 1 year ago
ColeTrain
Okay, sure, go ahead if you want. Just please try to make your vote devoid of bias.
Posted by Balacafa 1 year ago
Balacafa
*that
Posted by ColeTrain 1 year ago
ColeTrain
On Thai?
Posted by Balacafa 1 year ago
Balacafa
I'll be reading your team debate and this debate. If you trust thatvi won't be bias on Thai one then I'll vote
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by tajshar2k 1 year ago
tajshar2k
ColeTrainstargate
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by bballcrook21 1 year ago
bballcrook21
ColeTrainstargate
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture.
Vote Placed by Balacafa 1 year ago
Balacafa
ColeTrainstargate
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture by Pro.