Role-Play Debate for course EngC 1015

I've heard two main arguments about globalization. One that brings the positive side to light says that globalization is good because it brings people together allowing for increases in commerce and scientific research. The argument against globalization that I'm familiar with argues that globalization ignores cultural differences for profiteering. Furthermore, it destroys the unique cultures that have developed over the centuries and is replacing it with a single uniform culture.

Whats facinating about globalization is the fact that it is the only real word we know right now to describe the direction humanity is moving. If we are not flattning the world, if we don't globalize, what are we doing? Going backward? Back to putting up walls? What other direction can we move, if not out? The only way to bring about true change to China, Iran, Korea, Saudi Arabia, or even Russia is the free exchange of ideas and information that allows even the most invisible of people to have incredible influence. Look at Bahrain. First to introduce free trade in the Middle East, first to elect a woman to parliament in the Middle East. Thats no coincidence.

I know very little about globalization, but of what I know about it, is that it's greatly related-maybe even the cause-of much of the talk of American jobs being outsourced to developing countries such as India and South Asian countries. Usually, the topic is introduced as a threat to American's security-especially such people as Lou Dobbs. Personally, I'm ambivalent towards globalization; globalization brings good things such as greater communication and contact among cultures, which can help us better understand each other. However, I sometimes feel that countries may lose their identity-not voluntarily but gradually as it becomes the norm to go to McDonalds, for example, or sing Britney Spears songs in broken English.

Like Vanessa, I know very little about globalization. What I have gotten from the reading is that how globalization is basically a new world order. Tom Friedman describes how the cold war era was the world order before "globalization." Unlike the slow moving bureacracy during the cold war, the globalization era is fast paced motion. People can go from zero to hero and vice versa very quickly for almost any reason that can be thought of. In a way globalization is a good thing because it offers anybody the chance to be somebody. Globalization is bad because it can take away everything that a person has very quickly. Unlike in the cold war where certain things can be forseen. This new high speed order is completely un-trackable. Responding to the cliche comment. I don't really feel that globalization is becoming cliche. Globalization is a fact, it is happening every day in all sorts of places. Facts, to me, do not become cliche.

I have heard of globalization in many ways, some being positive and some being negative. The negative argument that people have made is that there is not much less security, less person to person contact, and jobs being sent to other weaker countries with cheaper labor. However, I believe globalization can only be a positive movement in this world. Globalization allows for an even playing ground for all countries to try and compete in today's economy. Also, globalization is turning more economies capitilistic which has proven to be the best growing economy to this day. Production has also become a lot more efficient due to the increase in competition for goods. Goods in general are now much cheaper and better. But through all this, communication is probably the key. All this is possible because of a great increase in communication throughout the world. The internet being a big reason why.

Globalization is difficult to really tell if it's positive or negative, since there are both answers. On the negative side, I think globalization can be a bad thing since too much of the worldwide spread of cultures will take away from the individuality of each and every country. Eating at a Pizza Hut in Italy might taste good but you'd be losing the true sense of real Italian food. But on the other hand, globalization can be a good thing. People from all over the world are finally being able to communicate quickly with little or no cost by using the Internet. Without the Internet, many economies would be much slower and technology wouldn't make advances as quickly either. In todays world, I think it would be hard to try and stop spreading globalization. The world today is still pretty diverse, and if you think of the damage that could be done by globalization, we're just getting started!! I doubt that the powerful governments and large corporations of countries will ever try stopping globalization since it's bringing prosperity and a new light to what were recently seen as third world countries. People like globalization and enjoy seeing new Mexican or Chinese restaurants being put into their cities. It's new, exciting changes that make people forget about their countries history and how it used to be. I don't think globalization is a bad thing, but I think it could get out of control.

In an end-game situation, do you want to cure Africa of AIDS and HIV or help them maintain their culture? If globalization is the only way to do it, which it is, then we as a people have a moral delema: Either watch the continent die out or send globalization into hyperdrive to help save an entire people.

The word "globalization" if used in a strictly neutral sense is something that everyone wants. "Globablization" by definition just means international integration. So if used completely neutral it is something I definitely want, and I hope you would too. The term has in itself been the driving force for labor unions across the world since the early 19th century. There is a reason why almost all labor unions are called "international", not because they are, but because they strive to be. So when hearing "globalization" in a neutral sense, the first thing that should come to mind is "I want that". But only recently the term has come to denote something completely different. When people here the term now they are only thinking of a very very very specific system of international ECONOMIC integration. Globalization is great, just understand the word and its real implications before you draw any conclusions.

I really didn't know what globalization meant so I looked it up online which people all over the world can now do too because of technology. I agree with Alex. I think that it CAN be both positive and negative. Kayla made a good point before too...having an American restaurant may taste good in a foreign country but you're not really having any authentic food. That's not so positive and either is the fact that Americans are losing jobs because the price of labor in China, for example, is cheaper. Yet on the other hand, globalization is good because it brings the world together as one. We're coming together to make a specific product. It's not going to be like oh the foreign countries make better cars than Americans or Americans make better...something else than a different foreign country. I don't feel as if it's such a competition to see which country does better at what, it's more of a working together situation to make the world a better place. I'm not saying there's no competition though because there always will be and everyone wants to make the most money possible.

If it weren't for the internet or phones, I'd never be able to talk to my relatives living in Taiwan. America offers so many opportunities but the other countries do too, if not more. It's a totally different style of living yet we all still have to do the necessities such as brushing our teeth, cleaning around the house, eating, etc. In the end, I think globalization can be both positive and negative, it just depends on the way one sees it.

I don't think the world is shrinking for the sake of it shrinking. Or for the sake of people with a desire to make the global community smaller. Modern economc globalization is what is shrinking the world. Money. Yes, the word has been thrown around for many years with many meanings, but the only thing that matters now is that we are in an age of ruthless economic reform, and economic globalization is driving it. I don't believe using the word globalization today is describing a very very very specific form of globalization (economic)--for our generation, I think it is the only one.

I guess my comment was misinterpreted in a way. Using the term "globalization" now a days doesn't refer to globalization by definition at all. It now refers to a specific form of economic integration that gives more rights and privileges to investors, lenders, corporations, banks, and financial institutions instead of the workers.

The world is not shrinking, people are getting bigger. And I'm not trying to get into a discussion about the world's obesity problem. The boundaries for growth and expansion are limitless today. All someone needs is the internet and way a to distribute their product and they instantly have access to billions of consumers all over the world. If I had the desire I could order a pair of wooden clogs carved by an old, Dutch lady in her basement and have them in a week. To say whether globalization is good or bad totally relies on ones perspective of good and bad. Is it worth giving up the true authenticity of a culture to learn from and grow with another? One major benefit that I see coming from globalization is the breaking down of stereotypes and racism. Having the opportunity to interact with a diverse population like we have at the U of M lets us look into the lives of other cultures and see why they do things differently and also to see that we are all so much the same.

In my discussions of globalization, it has always been in a school setting. Not once have I ever talked about it outside of school with my friends. I know you may think of course, but my friends and I can get pretty political/deep in our conversations. Two of them are going for economics majors and it can get pretty intense.

Also in my experience it has been a positive thing. It is the world coming together into one. It is the connection of all the countries, the "new system."

In my personal opinion I like globalization. I can communicate with my german friend, as if he were standing right next to me. I can find news fast, here about disasters, all without having to wait for the mailman on a horse to come. In general GO GLOBALIZATION!

I think a lot of people view globalization in a negative way, and for good reason. Two big ideas that go along with globalization are outsourcing and homogenizing. Outsourcing is certainly happening, taking away American jobs and putting them overseas (most notably Asia). But these jobs will be replaced, and there are many professions that can't be outsourced -- or at least easily outsourced. Homogenization of the world has also definitely occured, but that too is limited. Sure, people in India watch U.S. movies, but they also have their own movie industry that's even larger than ours. Another example of this: 'Globalization' in Britain is spelled 'globalisation.' We're always going to have unique characteristics that define our cultures.

I don't know yet if all of this globalization is a good or bad thing. On one hand, as "That" Guy pointed out, we're now able to send in help to poorer countries for AIDS prevention; but it's also globalization in large part that has spread the disease so fast throughout the world.

I agree with Mike, along with mostly everyone else, that globalization is being looked at in a negative way. Mike makes a good point that outsourcing and homogenizing are a major part of the world today. I believe that in a way homogenization can be a good thing. Sure every country and culture has their differences across the world, but globalization is intertwining everyone throughout the world. If we didn't have the internet, we wouldn't know half of all that is going on throughout the world as we do now. I don't know about everyone else, but I enjoy the more "friendly" Globalization era than that of the Cold War era. I wouldn't enjoy being in the middle of two powerhouses that are only concerned with who has more power or who has more missles. The "new system" seems to be uniting everyone as one now. Hopefully, without becoming a complete homogenous world, everyone will be able to have their unique qualities AND work together as one.

I also want to comment that I strongly agree with the Parag Shah's point that "Globalization allows for an even playing ground for all countries to try and compete in today's economy." That is a great example of why globalization should be looked at in a positive way.

I think Justin makes a pretty decent observation about our current "globablization era" in opposition to the Cold War mentality that is still giving us headaches. The build-up of a nuclear arsenal by countries who were essentially trying to one-up each other is part of the reason terrorism is such a major threat. Arms depots in a much maligned Russian military are now fodder for any upstart group with enough money and the right connections. While it is true that globalization has brought some of this arms dealing about, it is also true that the only way for countries to solve these problems is through joint efforts. The idea of coalition building and multinational peace-keeping forces has insured that many people are invested in the process of keeping the peace, not just one superpower swooping in to save the day whenever necessary.
While it is true that America is quite often at the forefront of these types of operations it is only a result of the prosperity and "power" relegated to a country that has used globalization to some of its greatest potential. Sometimes we end up being the world's bank or the world's police, but it's a role that we have accepted willingly for a number of years.

The trend of globalization seems to have taken off since the second world war, and has affected people both economically and culturally. Economically, globalization has brought about the creation of the WTO, OPEC, the IMF, the controversial outsourcing of jobs; and it has encouraged free trade by reducing tariffs and setting up free trade zones. Culturally, globalization has brought about the spread of multiculturalism, increased travel and tourism, and even worldwide sporting events (the Olympics).

Globalization has both positive and negative effects, but personally I believe the positive outweighs the negative. I think many people fear the results globalization might be economical and political insecurities, increased inequality, and the uneven distribution of wealth. However, globalization has the potential to create a system where everyone in the world would be represented in some degree. It brings countries together through free trade where all countries can benefit from the worlds resources, which then leads to lower prices and more employment.

I feel globalization is something that is not only good, but necessary as well. I have read several accounts of Soviet citizens during the Cold War, and all they knew was what they had. Their refrigerators broke on a regular basis, their ovens would not last more than a year or two, and they still needed cobblers to repair defective footwear. With the advent of globalization, citizens were able to embrace a higher quality of life. There are now decent materials available for a person previously shunned a world of "less-thans."

Another example would be the motorcycle market. There was a point in the 1980's where Japanese import bikes were easily overtaking sales of American machinery. So easily that the U.S. government at the time felt it necessary to impose a tariff on Eastern manufacturers. Sure enough, it's quite difficult to go a summer day without spotting a Harley-Davidson barreling down the streets. It is doubtful that such a threat could have ever formed with a globalizing international market.

The same is relatable to the current status of automobile manufacturers. Ford and GM are looking to cut jobs, as profits are hitting rock bottom. Why? European and Asian vehicles are outclassing them in quality and price. American companies have no choice but to adjust and become even better. The true benefactor becomes the consumer in all of these instances.

Sorry, I meant "withOUT a globalizing market international market" at the end of paragraph two.

Globalization is unfairly being used to describe a happening around the world that no one can really truly define. Changes occur through out history since the beginning of time. People and societies evolved. We have reached a point where so many different things have changed for so many different people and societies. Nobody can keep up with it anymore to really define it. There isn’t enough time anymore to hold down and justify what is happening to the world. That could mean the increase in chemical warfare all the way to the spreading of AIDS. It’s such a broad term that it seems almost impossible to stand for so many things at once. Can you really chalk up this many different happenings and changes to one word? I can’t believe that you can. It’s an area of study that needs to be broken down into different parts, sections and branches. Globalization would sit at the top of the today's world like it would on a family tree. It’s a neither good nor evil. It’s what man makes of it. It’s a tool that could lead to disastrous ending or glorious growth.

Globalization is a two-faced entity. I'm not so sure it can be divided into clean sections and utilized when wanted. In most deals, there are positives come negatives. One must balance these. You can have some world market, but you have to forget your cultural past to do so. Until someone figures out how to do take the cake and eat it too, globalization will cause upswings in one area and dips in others, which is sort of a shame. How does one balance these successfully? Is it possible?

Globalization is similar to the "geist" or "world spirit" that Hegel describes.

Hegel was skeptical of the individual and thought the these various systems, from families, to governments, to any other various ways life is organized, were "more" than the individual, and that it's moreover more than the sum of the individuals that make it up. (Think about it, people talk about "the economy" like it's a person. They want to feed the economy at the expense of the very people who make it up. Economies were made to benefit individuals, therefore the individuals are more important than the economy. To many nowadays, the economy is more important than the individual). It treats people as cells that make up the “body” of globalization.

What matter is the individual, the starting point from which all this stems. Globalization helps individuals in many ways, like giving them more information to work with, more choices, and the ability to breach the situation they were born into. However, we seem to be losing that balance as resources are being consumed and Big Brother turns from watching us into holding our attention every moment we’re awake, making sure we’re always distracted and fully absorbed.