I believe that the author is anti-globalization.
I expected some deeper analysis about these issues started from the " job threatened by overseas labour". however, I was disappointed because the author was like a irrational person just simply against that some benefits of the Western countries have been take away by the 3rd world countries, without thinking about globalization comprehensively in a big picture.
However, globalization is not only negative to the western countries.
People against corporate globalization, who are from different part of the world, might have opposite opinions. While some Westerners are supporting protectionism to protect their jobs, the people from peripheries want to get into markets in advanced countries and more capital flows to increase their job opportunities. Some movements in the West are even accused of attempting to block poorer countries from undertaking the same path that led to their own stage of prosperity and that allows them the freedoms to voice their concerns about the state of global inequality.
The Anti-Globalization movements are against unfair wealth distribution, deepened polarization. For the advanced countries, redistributing the share of global resources to the poor reduced the share of the rich. Untrammelled free trade and reduction of public-sector regulation have brought benefits, such as foreign investment, to poor countries. However, it has reduced employment opportunities and welfare quality for the people in the advanced countries.
 |
| ALMOST $4 billion worth of government goods and services will have to be sourced from Australian companies first in a ban on "made in China" products which is to be imposed in tomorrow's State Budget. |
Since the author is discussing how the Australian employment opportunities had been threatens by the flow of labour, he was blaming the labour from the 3rd world countries.
For the less advanced countries, the result of market-led globalization in the South has been unsatisfactory since the 1980s. Global policies practiced by supranational organizations have legitimized the hugely disproportionate gains obtained by the top 10 percent of world income distribution, by global firms based largely in the West, and by the USA. Many developing countries can hardly get foreign investment and get into global markets; and these countries in difficult situations are treated unconcerned by these supranational institutions. For example, Africa has experienced economic turmoil that frustrates hopes for market-base development. Meanwhile, even in the China, the most successful case of corporate globalization, the economic growth has been unprecedented and there have been profound inequalities. In these circumstances there is a legitimate worry that the current course of corporate globalization may not be appropriate to meet the development challenge that lies ahead.
I expected some deeper analysis about these issues started from the " job threatened by overseas labour". however, I was disappointed because the author was like a irrational person just simply against that some benefits of the Western countries have been take away by the 3rd world countries, without thinking about globalization comprehensively in a big picture.
However, globalization is not only negative to the western countries.
People against corporate globalization, who are from different part of the world, might have opposite opinions. While some Westerners are supporting protectionism to protect their jobs, the people from peripheries want to get into markets in advanced countries and more capital flows to increase their job opportunities. Some movements in the West are even accused of attempting to block poorer countries from undertaking the same path that led to their own stage of prosperity and that allows them the freedoms to voice their concerns about the state of global inequality.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete