The Instigator
evanallred123
Con (against)
Winning
20 Points
The Contender
Max.Wallace
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

On balance, economic globalization benefits worldwide poverty reduction

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
evanallred123
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/20/2015 Category: Economics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,243 times Debate No: 72073
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (3)

 

evanallred123

Con


This is going to be a clean debate. No insults or trolling.

Round Parameters:
Round 1: Acceptance of terms
Round 2: Cases, no rebuttals
Round 3: Rebuttal and new arguments if necessary.
Round 4: Rebuttal and new arguments if necessary.
Round 5: Final focus, no new arguments, just reiteration.

Definitions:

On balance:
Taking every factor into consideration.

Economic globalization:
The worldwide movement toward economic, financial, trade, and communications integration. [businessdictionary.com]


Poverty: The state of being extremely poor.


Poverty Reduction: Permanently lifting as many people out of poverty as possible.


Third-World Countries: Underdeveloped countries with widespread poverty.

Max.Wallace

Pro

I must say that this format of debate is foreign to me but I will do my best.

I accept. I will dictate no terms.
Debate Round No. 1
evanallred123

Con

Thanks for accepting my debate topic and terms. I hope this will be a fun debate for both of us!

Let's begin.

Framework (a framework is basically a criteria for who wins the round. My opponent can attack this if he likes):
Since the resolution is specific to economic globalization, the Pro must prove that, on balance, economic 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. 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. International trade fell 30% because of the Great Depression. 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[4]. Having economic failure is not good for impoverished people.


C3: Dependence on Equality

Even if my opponents can prove that here are benefits of economic globalization, the benefits would only follow our framework if the country concerned actually has an effective system for distribution of wealth. 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[5].” 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[6].”

In conclusion, economic globalization does not decrease worldwide poverty reduction because of dependency theory, the fact that economic globalization increases global economic instablility, you can't pin down poverty reduction to economic globalization, and if economic globalization does increase nationwide income, it all goes to the already rich.

Max.Wallace

Pro

Max.Wallace forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
evanallred123

Con

I extend my previous arguments.
Max.Wallace

Pro

like an erection?
Debate Round No. 3
evanallred123

Con

No, not like an erection, like in debate. Since my opponent has made no attack, I once again extend my previous arguments.
Max.Wallace

Pro

So you are an attacker? Thanks for revealing that. Your words, not mine.
Debate Round No. 4
evanallred123

Con

I am not an attacker. Since you have yet to post your case, I have nothing to attack. I extend my previous arguments.
Max.Wallace

Pro

so be it, as you sayeth. tyrant? certainly not in yur legal ivory tower mind. GFL.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Max.Wallace 1 year ago
Max.Wallace
Ivory tower tards, rule us, to hell with they. period.
Posted by Max.Wallace 1 year ago
Max.Wallace
I am studying you argument.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
evanallred123Max.WallaceTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by Robert_Weiler 1 year ago
Robert_Weiler
evanallred123Max.WallaceTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Max was clearly just trolling this one.... Poorly.
Vote Placed by republicofdhar 1 year ago
republicofdhar
evanallred123Max.WallaceTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: What a waste of Con's time. Pro should never have accepted this debate if he intended to poke fun at it.