The Instigator
SofiLove
Pro (for)
Losing
12 Points
The Contender
repete21
Con (against)
Winning
33 Points

Globalization is way more prejudicial for third world countries than it is beneficial.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/13/2007 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,779 times Debate No: 395
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (15)

 

SofiLove

Pro

Today's technology brings the world together every day. Technologies like the internet have the purpose of making distances shorter and connecting people from across the world. Globalization is the main phenomenon that makes this connection possible. Globalization however, doesn't only concern global communication, but also global trade and business. Multinational companies are huge industries that benefit from the tax breaks they get in the U.S. and the extremely cheap labor found in third world countries. One would think that the jobs created by multinational companies would benefit third world countries. However, sweatshops do not help that country's economy. Those countries' governments overlook the horrible conditions these workers have to endure, and also pay these companies to stay because they believe it will benefit them in the long run. However, those companies take the money, until they can't exponentially increase their profit and then move to another country anyway.
repete21

Con

You have forgotten several things.

1-Sweatshops are still jobs, which boost the economy.

2-Globalization leads to more than just sweatshops. With the occurrence of globalization, aid has become more accessible in remote parts of third world countries, also, industries that would otherwise fail, can be successful because of globalization, for example the diamond industry in Africa.

3-Cheaper jobs means less costs to produce, which then leads to cheaper prices on products, making them more available to people who just have a job because of the flourishing industries created by globalization.

4-The three listed above lead to two of the most important aspects of an economy (according to Adam Smith) which are the pursuit of self interest, and the freedom of trade.

I would also like for you to explain how sweatshops hurt the economy of the workers.
Debate Round No. 1
SofiLove

Pro

Sweatshops are still jobs, as you say. However, I'm just saying that those people don't deserve the horrible situations they work under. The wages are incredibly low for 12-18 hour days. These jobs may boost the economy, but not in the long run, as minimum wages keep going down instead of up. In a documentary called "The Race to the bottom" it is shown how multinational companies advertise low wage jobs to other companies saying something to this effect, "In El Salvador you can get workers like Rosa, for only 47 cents an hour." 5 years later the same advertisement said 31 cents an hour. Even with the currency difference one can't survive with less than $4 per week. My point is that the main role players in globalization don't care about helping 3rd world economies, only about maximizing profits with minimum expenditures.
I would like to reiterate that I didn't say globalization was not helpful at all, but it costs way more than it is worth for developing countries. There is aid to people and industries in poor countries but not nearly enough. It is in developed countries' best interest to help and gain a good reputation, but they'll make sure not to give too much so that it takes away from their profits. For instance, the U.S. boasts of giving international aid when only less than 1% of the budget is for that purpose. This is the country that gives huge tax breaks to those multinational companies, the heads of globalization.
I must disagree with your third point. It's true that cheaper jobs mean less cost. But it definitely doesn't mean that the people who have those jobs will have more access to products. These people can barely survive, how will they buy those products? Assuming that not most of them are sent to the U.S. i.e. Nike's sports goods, they cost about 50 cents to make and are sold for about 500-1000 times as much. I hope this is what you meant by "people who have a job because of the flourishing industries created by globalization." (If not, I apologize for the mistake). The fact that there is less cost only benefits multinationals because, as I said before, this allows them to maximize profits without too much cost. Furthermore, they get to overlook working conditions regulations with which they wouldn't get away in countries like the U.S.,U.K.or any other developed nation.
Now, you finish off talking about Adam Smith and his "Inquiry into the nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations." He tried to answer the question "How does a society survive if everyone looks out for number one?" He said that profit-hungry entrepreneurs wouldn't take unfair advantage of consumers as well as other entrepreneurs because of competition, and that would keep the prices fair. However, remember that Adam Smith wrote during the 18th century. Now, in our 21st-century society globalization brings huge multinational corporations and conglomerates. That is, there is no possible way that local businesses can compete with huge mergers, therefore the country keeps selling their labor for which they receive little to no profit. I don't believe for one second that this practice benefits the country. Adam Smith's theories were correct for the time he lived in, but surely you know that the world has changed immensely since that time. One of the most negative changes has been the increase of unfair trade, and we have globalization to thank for that.
repete21

Con

What seems to have happened in this debate is that you have started a comparison of apples to oranges. There is no way to calculate the difference between the money made, and the personal sacrifices. But, one is measurable, and that is the money, so it is fair to say that we can base this debate on measurable, rather than the intangibles, which are feelings. You have stated that they make money, but not enough to live, MONEY IS MONEY, it is harsh to put it this way, but live or die, your earnings are your earnings, 47 cents an hour is better than no job at all isn't it? Sure, the people don't deserve the conditions they work under, but at least it gives them a fighting chance. You also state that "There is aid to people and industries in poor countries but not nearly enough", again, we cannot calculate the intangibles, some aid is better than none, and does not, as you stated, hurt the country, it is actually better compared to the country without jobs or aid. We cannot compare our lives to theirs in this debate, we are comparing a before and after globalization of their nations. I have clearly shown, and you have agreed, that the economy is increased, along with aid, with the occurrence of globalization, and the resolution is not that, "Globalization makes third world countries a worse place to live", but that "Globalization is way more prejudicial for third world countries than it is beneficial" which we have proven, and I admit, it is still not a GOOD place to live, but the economy is better, and the people have some sort of a fighting chance, which they may not have had before.
Debate Round No. 2
SofiLove

Pro

First of, I didn't mean for this debate to be misleading. But I did have to mention the moral part of this issue because I know how unfair it is from first-hand experience. I was born in Colombia and I have seen how super powers have destroyed third world countries' economies.
Let's start with your argument in which you state that 47 cents an hour is better than no money at all. You are right, and I'm definitely not afraid to admit it. But when you say "[...] but the economy is better, and the people have some sort of fighting chance, which they may not have had before." that, I have to disagree with. You see, you make it sound like (and correct me if I'm wrong)globalization has given the people of 3rd world countries a better life because they can at least earn some money no matter how little it is. However, globalization, as I have mentioned before, is led by developed countries which have injured those 3rd world economies so much to the point that those people have absolutely no choice but to work for multinational companies which developed countries own.
This is how it works, developed countries lend money to developing countries claiming they want to help their economy. This borrowing of money is done through organizations like the World Bank, the WTO and the IMF, which are led, again, by super powers. Now, in order for poor countries to borrow such money they have to agree with developed countries dictating how that money should be spent to the point where they often choose the minimum wage. Naturally, developed countries will will impose measures that benefit them. Now the developed nation has control of that country's economy, this is when local economy starts going down hill. It's at this time when the super power starts "trading" with the poor country and building more ramifications of huge multinational companies there. What that does is erase local businesses from the map thus doing away with millions of jobs provided by such businesses, this is when the workers have NO choice than to work for the huge foreign companies where the conditions are not advantageous at all, because of the problems initiated by the countries which own those huge companies. So you see, globalization cannot be the good guy pretending to rescue people from starvation by giving the sweatshop jobs, when it was the leaders of globalization that started the problem in the first place.
Now this is where my first-hand experience comes in. These are more specific examples. For years now the U.S. has tried to establish a free trade treaty with countries in Latin America such as Colombia. If that treaty is approved the U.S. would be able to choose the terms. This would allow the U.S. to impose huge companies such as pharmaceutical companies which would largely increase the cost of medicine which is very affordable right now. Another case is to impose huge quantities of clothes which are of lower quality but could still be sold and would do away with one of the best textile industries in the world not to mention thousands of jobs. These are just some of the conditions of that treaty, but there are many more which have made it very unpopular of course. Furthermore, it is because of treaties like this one that have been aproved in poor countries in Asia and Africa that their economies are now under the control of super powers.
A very dangerous way in which globalization has aided trade is the selling of weapons. Such is the case of countries like Nicaragua, Honduras and El Salvador where the U.S. sold weapons to the government as well as to the opposition which had a lot to do with this huge war that completely destroyed these countries' economies. Now, the U.S. is definitely not the only country that sells arms of course, but it sells the most. This is all due to trade between developing countries and profit-hungry industries which is a the key component of globalization.
These reasons and many more are why globalization cannot claim to be the savior of poor countries if it is one of the main reasons why they are in such a bad state to begin with.

Now, to get a little off track...I would like to thank my opponent in this last round. We have completely different points of view, but after all that's what makes debates so interesting.
repete21

Con

First off, I would like to go over the topic of sweat shops hurting economy. I am not an economist, but from the classes I have taken on ecenomics, I have picked up on some things. You say that "people have absolutely no choice but to work for multinational companies which developed countries own" but you have over looked one major factor, with these jobs, there is a demand created, not a demand for Nike shoes, or nice cars, or name brand electronics, but a demand for the necessities of life, such as food. I cannot see how Nike making shoes in a 3rd world country, will hurt the food industry, or the clothing industry, they don't have to compete with Nike. All Nike does is put money into the economy, but they don't sell their shoes there, they sell them elsewhere, where they know they will sell. So how can this possibly hurt the economy by putting money in, but not taking it out? If it is somehow happening, it is defying many of the simple philosophies of ecenomics. You also state that a textile industry is in jeapordy, because we "impose huge quantities of clothes which are of lower quality but could still be sold and would do away with one of the best textile industries in the world not to mention thousands of jobs". You don't have me convinced that a leading superpower, has decided that rather than sell clothes in their country, where they could make large profit, they will sell it in a third world country where they will make less profit, and at a very low price, which they would have to be doing to destroy the market that is already there. You have also claimed that weapon sales "had a lot to do with this huge war", and although I am not sure what "huge war" you are talking about, I don't think that we can blame the destruction caused by this war on the fact that the U.S. sold weapons, and I am sure there were reasons, which at the time of the sales, were thought to be more important than peace, such as brining the fall of communism, and the rise of democracy. You talk about the weapon sales in Nicaragua, but if you knew why the weapons were sold, I think you would have a different opinion, they were sold to the Nicaraguan's who almost entirely opposed the government, and were planning a revolution, they did overthrow the government, but the cost was the economy, which was destroyed, but none the less, the people got their independence, the exact same way we got ours from the British with the help from the French, they took a risk with there economy and lost, but they also were sucessful in their true goal. The same thing happened in Honduras, which is how they overthrew their oppressive government, and after that, there economy has actually started to grow, so the weapon sales are not always a bad thing, and are often done for what is beleived to be in the intrest of the people. I have shown that all the problem you show are not actually problems, but usually good, and in some cases, side effects of something better.

It also seems as though I was backed into making a choice between being a "good person and saying "yeah the sweat shops are horrible, people shouldn't have to do that for a living" or "good debator" going on the fact that the sweat shops are better than nothing". Both are true, and I agree that these people have it tough, and they have problems, but I don't think that we should pin their problems on Globalization. But the resolution shows that we must compare a before and after of globalization, not an us and them and tie in globalization, and I believe I have shown that although it is still bad, it is better than before.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by schoolglutton 9 years ago
schoolglutton
Sofi's best part is where she hints at globalization refusing the ability of third world local economies to develop. However, she leaves us filling in the gaps and assuming this local development will happen in the absence of globalization. She should provide a good example in order for us to believe so.

Repete establishes at best that gloabalization has a neutral effect on local economies and is not beneficial. However, this is good enough for the side Repete has taken because the arguments given here haven't established that globalization is detrimental, which is what Sofi is defending. Repete, I think introducing fairtrade would have helped your argument. If free trade has a neutral effect, then fair trade AND free trade should have a beneficial effect. Although fair trade is only a component of globalization, its part is still acknowledgeable.

Perhaps Sofi would do better if she established her claim as fair trade is better than free trade. THAT is an argument I would like to see. Anyway, nice work Repete.
Posted by SofiLove 9 years ago
SofiLove
I said multinational companies hurt 3rd world countries' LOCAL economy. Meaning that multinationals erase local industries and now the country is dependant on multinationals. Now the people are forced to buy from those companies...probably not NIKE because super expensive sneakers are not a necessity, but there are huge companies that do sell food and people there do buy that.
Posted by Klashbash 9 years ago
Klashbash
You're referencing a movie as your source I amMe90? How sad. I saw the movie and it was nothing more than an emotional drama. Overpopulation (straining of resources), brutal dictatorships (no means of state protection, entrepreneurship or freedom to prosper) and foreign aid (creates dependency) are the reasons why the African people suffer.
Posted by DrAcula 9 years ago
DrAcula
it's also an industry. nothing good comes out of Africa, so you have to take pretty much everything "good" with a grain of salt
Posted by IamMe90 9 years ago
IamMe90
Did con seriously mention the diamond industry of Africa as an example of the good things globalization can bring? Are you KIDDING me? You've heard of the movie "blood diamonds" haven't you? It's pretty much common knowledge now that the diamond industry in Africa has brought civil war and suffering to the people of the continent...
15 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by behindblueeyes 9 years ago
behindblueeyes
SofiLoverepete21Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by wheelhouse3 9 years ago
wheelhouse3
SofiLoverepete21Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by schoolglutton 9 years ago
schoolglutton
SofiLoverepete21Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by evl_yn 9 years ago
evl_yn
SofiLoverepete21Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by MitsyPoodle 9 years ago
MitsyPoodle
SofiLoverepete21Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by mrmatt505 9 years ago
mrmatt505
SofiLoverepete21Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by PreacherFred 9 years ago
PreacherFred
SofiLoverepete21Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by SofiLove 9 years ago
SofiLove
SofiLoverepete21Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Ineffablesquirrel 9 years ago
Ineffablesquirrel
SofiLoverepete21Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by jathan 9 years ago
jathan
SofiLoverepete21Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03