The Instigator
DylanAraki
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Interval
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/20/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 538 times Debate No: 72049
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

DylanAraki

Pro

In case a definition is needed: "Globalization is a process of interaction and integration among the people, companies, and governments of different nations, a process driven by international trade and investment and aided by information technology." (1)

First round is acceptance.

1-http://www.globalization101.org...
Interval

Con

I accept the debate. I await your arguments.
Debate Round No. 1
DylanAraki

Pro

Throughout history, the world has seen horrible things such as poverty, discrimination, and war. However, globalization can help counter these.

Many people say globalization only benefits the rich, but that's simply not true. Globalization has been one of the largest factors of decreasing poverty rates. Globalization has been decreasing poverty since its early days. For example, as European countries began trading with other countries in the Middle Ages, a new middle class of merchants formed and feudalism began to die out. (1) The world has also seen global poverty rates decrease dramatically in the past few decades. (2) Asian countries which were in poverty after World War II, were among the countries that have benefited the most from globalization. The first was Japan who had just been devastated after several American bombing raids. Japan began reestablishing its industries which produced things such as textiles and toys to be exported to wealthier countries (such as the United States). (3) Japan then continued its economic growth as it began relying less on exporting light manufacturing goods as mentioned above and more on products such as consumer electronics and ships. (3) The reason Japan had to begin growing its economy by exports to meet global demand was because the majority of Japanese people were in poverty so they were unable to purchase goods to help grow the Japanese economy. (3) Therefore, it is unreasonable to assume Japan would be the 3rd largest economy it is today without globalization. However, Japan is not the only example of this. Many East Asian economies went through the same process decades after Japan (3), four of the strongest being the "Four Asian Tigers", South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, and Hong Kong. (4) However, the most well known example is China. After World War II, China had little manufacturing and virtually no services. China attempted central planning, but as they shifted to a more free market approach and received foreign investment and began exporting manufactured goods, their economy boomed. (5 & 6) In fact, today China is now beginning to end its manufacturing dependence and shift to more of a service economy like countries like the US. (7) Finally, wealth gaps have shrunk in globalized developing countries and overall poverty too as shown in IMF studies. (8)

People across the world are often discriminated because of things such as race and national origin. (9) However, studies have shown the more people are surrounded by people of different races and ethnicities the more tolerant they will be. (10) Going off the definition of globalization, globalization sees "interaction and integration among the people, companies, and governments of different nations". Therefore, racism should go into decline due to greater interaction between people of different backgrounds.

Also, many wars throughout history have been started due to discrimination or differing beliefs (e.g. the Crusades). Therefore, with less discrimination in the world it is reasonable to expect there will be less wars. In fact, most of the wars that have been fought in the past few years haven't even been between foreign nations, but foreign nations and terror groups, (11) yet historically the majority of wars were fought between two or more countries, kingdoms, empires ,etc. (12) This is because countries that trade don't want to ruin a good trading relationship. (13)

Overall, globalization is good.

1-http://www.brown.edu...
2-http://www.economist.com...
3-http://www.brookings.edu...
4-http://oecdinsights.org...
5-http://en.wikipedia.org...
6-http://www.cato.org...
7-http://money.cnn.com...
8-http://www.imf.org...
9-http://www.dragndropbuilder.com...
10-http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
11-http://en.wikipedia.org...
12-http://en.wikipedia.org...
13-http://www.parisschoolofeconomics.eu...
Interval

Con

Because the resolution is so general, I will assume that it is "on balance". This means all things taken into consideration. Basically, when a resolution is "on balance" the judges must weigh the benefits and harms of the pro vs the benefits and harms of the Con.

Framework: Since the resolution is specific to globalization, the Pro must prove that, on balance, globalization is the main factor in poverty reduction.

C1: Dependency Theory
If economic globalization was able to be achieved and big countries were to expand, it could result in major economic problems in poor countries. Dependency theory is the idea that resources flow from poor countries to wealthy countries, providing the rich countries with resources at the expense of the poor. This is expounded on by The Development Economics Reader,[1] which says that poor countries export primary commodities to the rich countries who then manufacture products out of those commodities and sell them back to the poorer countries. The "Value Added" by manufacturing a usable product always costs more than the primary commodities used to create those products[1]. Therefore, poorer countries are never earning enough from their export earnings to pay for their imports. Economic globalization would not solve this problem; in fact, it could exacerbate it by raising the wealthy higher, therefore requiring more resources from poor countries. This would suck the money out of poor countries even faster than it is right now, and would not help the impoverished people living there.

C2: Economic Globalization Failure
If a country with a stronger economy crashes, then the repercussions are much more severe than they would be if there was not a global economy. A perfect example of economic globalization failure is the Great Depression. During the time before the Great Depression, the United States economically crashed and then dragged the rest of the world after it. The number of unemployed people reached an all-time high of 12,830,000 people[2]. International trade fell 30% because of the Great Depression[2]. This demonstrates the unsafe and unstable nature of economic globalization. Digital History says, "In contrast to the relatively brief economic "panics" of the past, the Great Depression dragged on with no end in sight. As the depression deepened, it had far-reaching political consequences. One response to the depression was military dictatorship--a response that could be found in Argentina and in many countries in Central America. Western industrialized countries cut back sharply on the purchase of raw materials and other commodities. The price of coffee, cotton, rubber, tin, and other commodities dropped 40 percent. The collapse in raw material and agricultural commodity prices led to social unrest, resulting in the rise of military dictatorships that promised to maintain order."[2] Dictatorships are very bad for the economy because over time, the dictator's interests shift from national interests to personal interests. "The longer a dictator is in power, the worse the economic performance," concludes economic historian Jan Luiten van Zanden from Utrecht University[3]. North Korea is a perfect example of this; it has been under a dictatorship for years and the economy is terrible. Having economic failure is not good for impoverished people.

C3: Attribution of Benefits
Many of the benefits of economic globalization are false positives. In a lecture from the MIT department of economics they stated that the "Countries that are rich for other reasons might trade more because they can afford to import more goods from overseas. Countries that pursue sound economic policies (i.e., that raise income) may also choose to pursue trade (another sound economic policy). Countries that are rich in natural resources may trade because there is high world demand for their goods, but it may be their rich endowments that account for their wealth, not trade per se."[4] Therefore, the alleged benefits of economic globalization are not, in fact, due to trade. Instead, poverty is reduced by sound economic policies, which lead to economic globalization; i.e. economic globalization is not the cause of poverty reduction.

C4 : Distribution Failure
Economic globalization makes the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer. Only large companies can afford to act with an international capability, and as such, only they can reap the benefits. All the other companies that cannot are forced to compete with a company that can outsource its labor at ridiculously low rates, and forces smaller businesses out of the market. A UN paper by David Woodward and Andrew Simms says: "In effect, the global growth model amounts to sacrificing the environment on which we all depend for our very survival to give yet more to those who already have too much, in the hope that a few more crumbs will fall from the rich man"s table. The scale of growth this model would require to eradicate poverty--surely our ultimate goal--would generate unsupportable environmental costs, which would fall disproportionately and counterproductively on the poorest, rendering the process self-defeating."[5]

Ultimately, globalization causes undeniable harms and pushes poor countries and people further into their own poverty by taking advantage of them. Globalization is inherently unsafe because of the risk of a second depression, and even if globalization creates monetary benefits, they are often absorbed into the high class of a country, preventing any actual benefits to the impoverished and poor.
[1]-https://www.mtholyoke.edu...
[2]-http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu...
[3]-http://www.rnw.org...
[4]-http://ocw.mit.edu...
[5]-http://www.un.org...
Debate Round No. 2
DylanAraki

Pro

Con did not rebut the claim that globalization will reduce discrimination or wars, so those stand.

Overall, globalization is the main factor in the decreasing global poverty rates mentioned above, because these countries' people did not have enough money to have their economies grow without producing products to be exported to other countries or if they didn't receive investments from foreigners. For example, the majority of Chinese would still be working rural jobs, such as farming, if they never exported goods across the globe. This was all mentioned in my previous post.

Using the definition from the source Con sighted, the Dependency Theory is "[Dependency is]...an historical condition which shapes a certain structure of the world economy such that it favors some countries to the detriment of others and limits the development possibilities of the subordinate economics...a situation in which the economy of a certain group of countries is conditioned by the development and expansion of another economy, to which their own is subjected." (1) The problem with this belief is that it has been proven false numerous times across the globe. The most obvious examples were the very famous examples in Eastern Asia, notably South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Singapore. (2) South Korea is a particularly interesting example because to its north is the economic failure of North Korea. After the Korean War though, both countries could be considered economic failures. However, they went in two very different directions. South Korea opened up to globalization, while North Korea did the exact opposite. (3) In fact, the less North Korea traded with other nations, the more its economy suffered. (4) One may say that North Korea's economy is only like that because of poor management, which although is true, the self-imposed isolationism was clearly a huge factor in North Korea's economic failures. (5) Another example that goes against the Dependency Theory is that India saw its economy really begin to grow when it became more open up to trade and foreign investment. (3) India's economic growth contradicts the Dependency Theory's beliefs regarding comparative advantage and mobility because outsourcing (a mobile form of capital transfer), was a huge part of India's economic growth. (3) Finally, not including African countries with oil, the 3 most successful economies (Egypt, South Africa, and Tunisia) have relied on trading for their growth, but the countries that haven't, such as Zimbabwe, have seen their economies suffer. (3)

Even though an economic crash in a wealthy country, such as the United States, would hurt countries in poverty, the only real chance these poor countries have to become wealthy, is from wealthier countries. This has been discussed throughout the debate.

Although sound economic policies are obviously important for economic growth, no matter how well a poor country's economy is run, if they don't globalize it is unreasonable to assume they will grow. Looking at the example of Japan in my previous post, although their economy was well run, the heart of their growth came from exporting goods. (6) Therefore, poor countries need to export, because their people are too poor to buy things other than the essentials, so they need to bring in money another way.

The whole argument that "the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer" is downright false. Yes, the rich often benefit from globalization, but all the data I've referenced shows that the poor are not getting poorer. Also, governments can do many things to promote domestic growth of small businesses, while still having corporations help lower poverty rates across the world. (7)

Overall, the facts show that globalization is the primary factor in reducing poverty across the world, which as Con quoted, should be "our ultimate goal".

1-https://www.mtholyoke.edu...
2-http://www1.tau.ac.il...
3-http://en.wikipedia.org...
4-https://www.aei.org...
5-https://www.youtube.com...
6-http://www.brookings.edu...
7-http://smallbusiness.chron.com...
Interval

Con

Pro has not rebutted my interpretation of the framework, so it must stand.

There is a fundamental principle that my opponent has failed to understand: globalization is not a requisite for a strong economy. Under certain conditions it may aid a developing economy, but it is not the primary cause of globalization. My opponent at no point in his argument proved that the primary factor in economic development was globalization. My opponent committed a logical fallacy in his claim. He stated that because globalization was present in some of the better economies, that it was the cause of economic increase. Unless my opponent can prove that his listed benefits occur because of globalization, and no other factor, he must lose this argument. My opponent cited an example of Japan's economic growth to prove his point, but he has failed to correctly interpreted his own evidence. When I examined it I found that Japan's economic growth was not limited to economic globalization. In fact, there were a number of variables that contributed to Japan's success. Near the end of the article there is a section titled "Lessons from Japan". It cites a number of factors as the cause of Japan's excellence: An excellent education system, effective quality control implementations, subsidies for targeted industries, and increased competition in the domestic market. Because of this my opponent has not, in fact, can not prove that globalization is the main factor in Japan's economic expansion.

My opponent's attack on my dependency theory is completely invalid. In fact, dependency theory has become more relevant than ever. According to a UN development report [1], more than eighty percent of the world's population live in countries where the wage differentials are widening. What can we attribute this to? Dependence theory. Additionally, there are other ways in which false positives can occur. Simply because a country is wealthy does not mean that the country is actually creating benefits in any way; a large percentage of the wealth in the said country could be held by a small percent of the population. This enables those that are richer to extract their money from those who already have very little. Not only is there no evidence that globalization is the sole cause of economic benefits, globalization is not even solving the problems that it is purported to.

My opponent's first argument is basically a citation of countries that have economically increased in the past. The burden of proof falls to the pro in this debate. As such, he must prove beyond a doubt that the main cause of any benefit is globalization. As he has failed to do so this argument must fall.

My opponents second argument is essentially that racism is decreased by globalization. This is completely false. We live in a time of semi-globalization, and there has been little to no decrease in warfare. If globalization decreased war, then as time progressed and globalization increased the number of wars occurring should decrease. As this is clearly not the case this argument clearly falls.

I have effectively proved that the benefits my opponent listed cannot be tied to globalization, as well as proved that the other potential benefits that he brought up do not occur. In addition to this I have invalidated my opponents attacks on my own case. It is for these reasons that I urge votes in favor of the Con.

[1]-http://www.theguardian.com...
[2]-http://www.brookings.edu...
Debate Round No. 3
DylanAraki

Pro

DylanAraki forfeited this round.
Interval

Con

Interval forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.