Much of the means of payment are usually almost controlled by a reduced number of countries, with adds and selfpromotion. They have bank technologies more easily. Globalization seems and can be a new form of exploitation of ones for others.

Globalization can create new opportunities, new ideas, and open new markets that an entrepreneur may have not had in their home country. As a result, there are a number of positives associated with globalization:

--it creates greater opportunities for firms in less industrialized countries to tap into more and larger markets around the world

--this can lead to more access to capital flows, technology, human capital, cheaper imports and larger export markets

--it allows businesses in less industrialized countries to become part of international production networks and supply chains that are the main conduits of trade

https://www.boundless.com/users/235420/textbooks/business-fundamentals/international-business-for-the-entrepreneur-14/globalization-opportunities-and-threats-to-developing-country-business-55/negative-and-positive-effects-of-globalization-for-developing-country-business-253-15556/

https://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjD6_70g_zJAhUCS44KHU-qBs0QFggsMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.iiste.org%2FJournals%2Findex.php%2FDCS%2Farticle%2Fdownload%2F8180%2F8274&usg=AFQjCNERYu-vjvFX8XBBGhOseFjOTDZcXg

The question is, can we stop it? The globalization of knowledge and technical supremacy, something to be afraid of. The control  becomes absolute. The people know less and get submerged by information. What we need stays covered and we have to search very deep to find some reference of truths.

For sure, we are at a crucial point of evolution of mankind. We must use our voice in a good way. 

Globalization is the gift to the entire world.Scientific & technological development has become our world a smaller place for our movement & to spread the knowledge to

the remote place of the world .To add to this our computer ,internet ,ipad ,mobile ,tablet have become the member of our family & for our morning to say our good night time

time works for the closeness of our friends,family ,relative living a far distance place.

It is in this line the benefit of globalization to developing countries in course of time remain un

measurable & we can proudly say that for this ''-----THE SKY IS LIMIT ''.

For benefit of the developing countries,the environment in the early phase remain a watchful items ,things from the well develop countries now the dream of luxury

remain a part of developing countries.This is i believe is my personal opinion .

no doubt there are benefits. But also many of us suffer from the negative points/influences:

-culture of individual countries will be mixed up uniformly

-huge companies/concerns of the industialised countries  determin the world market

- competition among developing countires reduces the environmental standards

-protectionist policies in industrialised countries, see EU f.e., hinder third worl countries to serve for the international market

-weak financial structures in developing countries have a high risk to manage/live with  the volatility and volumes of financal transactions of industrial countries

Peter

Globalization has led to both positive and negative effects in developing countries those countries. On one hand these countries are able to attract foreign investors and foreign capital; on the other hand, automation in the manufacturing and agricultural sectors has lessened the engagement of unskilled labour and unemployment rises in those sectors. The major benefit of globalization is that it has facilitated trade between countries and flow of new knowledge and technologies. While there has been an influx of foreign companies and foreign capital, selective use of funds and resources has widened disparity in incomes of peoples and thus their living standard.

Globalization has very limited advantages to developing countries which "dream" about economic growth. Influential stronger countries will benefit much more in terms of hegemony over a wide range of issues. Diversity, prior to this trend for globalization, was a source of richness to this world.

When I was living in England (1978-1983), there was still the traditional life style in many parts of that country. After 17 years, a British citizen, who came to visit my country, told me that England has been "Americanized" & that there is a new England which differs from what I knew. Well, I do not like it if globalization enters into the social fabric of a certain country & turns it upside down.

Elizabeth King define globalization as:

...all those processes by which the peoples of the world are incorporated into a single world society.

There are many definitions of globalization but what is troubling with this process is shaping the future of all societies is that it is being imposed without any concerned about what people in these different socieities , that had a long history that established important fundamental societal values, really wanted for their future.  Even the ordinary people living in the west have nothing to say about it and it is imposed on them as it is on everybopdy else.  It is a global autocratic colonialism of those who have capital against everyboddy else, against any local democratic or undemocratic political power.  Yes we are condemned to live together on the same planet but at least we should have a say on how that is going to be accomplished.

Dear all

Greetings and Happy new year to you all.

Your ideas are great.

From Human slavery to Economic slavery is what Globalisation is.It is forced by the financial corporations including IMF. Provide paper loan, get interest, enslave the Nation in the name of globalisation and progress. Buy cheap, sell expensive, force shut down small businesses.

Has anyone seen any country on lesser debt now than before?

Has anyone seen more value of any currency compared to previous value?

Has anyone seen reduction in the number of poor in quantity and quality in any country? 

Is Globalisation not for those who have either run out of abundance of their own resources, or directly want to drain others' resources for their own amassing wealth, and, or to get control of the world in their hands ...and thus countries are forced to join these power tactics called economic reforms. 

Please can anyone tell me a place, a country or a continent where economic reforms have not made rich richer and poor poorer, as well as increased the number of poor (sweating under employment slavery) as a result?

I wonder how and why I do not see anything but disaster for increasing number of people and countries under this monetary system of economy and forced globalisation on all!!

Regards

Suresh

Another fine threads are happening in the next rooms.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why_do_some_countries_benefit_from_globalization_much_more_than_the_others

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Are_we_exploiting_the_poors_in_the_name_of_development_and_globalization

https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_can_education_make_humanity_wise_enough_to_thrive_in_an_interconnected_evolving_global_landscape

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Has_globalization_qualitatively_impacted_the_research_directed_towards_addressing_major_challenges_that_confront_the_whole_of_humanity

I understand the questions regarding the economic aspects. From that point of view, all "improvement" of Globalization is momentary and not absolute. And benefits a few, because it brings chained for most individuals negatives aspects , such as: labor flexibilizacioón, decreased individual rights , etc.

I see this as regressive aspects and not beneficial to society as a whole.

In my country, Argentina, this has happened

In a 2004 column,Thomas Friedman (the famous American journalist who was an advocate of globalization) wrote: ". . . globalization is in so many ways Americanization: globalization wears Mickey Mouse ears, it drinks Pepsi and Coke, eats Big Macs, does its computing on an IBM laptop with Windows 98. Many societies around the world can't get enough of it, but others see it as a fundamental threat."

Please read the short Reference:

http://flatworld.typepad.com/flatworld/2009/04/are-globalization-americanization-synonymous.html

Globalization has its pros and cons. First it needs competent people to understand it and to adjust to it. It needs as well more education standards to people, to regulate and to adapt to the flow of information and to the diversity of cultures. Globalization at marketing level needs full regulation for products quality and competition. For developing countries it is a gift for their independence in the choice of their economic partners and their ability to make products able to fit with  a global market. For science and technological advance it is a real progress for human dissemination of knowledge and its progress and a real knowledge (savoir) democracy.

Dear Fairuz Bettayeb, you say: "for developing countries it is a gift for Their independence in the choice of Their economic partners and Their Ability to make reliable products to fit with a Global Market for science and technological advance it is for real progress. dissemination of human knowledge and Its progress and real knowledge (savoir) democracy. "

But, in my country, Argentina, in full implementation of the Glabalización (90') the opposite has occurred. National industry disappeared, was the highest unemployment rate in the country's history, the science of our country became dependent on major world centers and there was "brain drain" to Europe and the USA. UU ..... I think that globalization brings the opposite of what it preaches ....

And this is an empirical test ..... not Marketing!!

Dear Marcelo, you are right globalization was not useful to all developing countries. Same in my country a severe brain drain, bad economical planing and chaotic marketing running policies were cause or effects of the rapid change from the administrative to the liberal political and economical state. However many countries who were poorer, and/or under dominance, colonialism or dictatorships have  adjusted intelligently to the  globalization and are now belonging or near to the emerging countries and economies.  I think globalization has its pros when it is understood and used with intelligence. May be it needs smart and competent political and managing people and the liberty of entrepreneurship and opinion inside the societies.

Dear Brenda James:

The first article says in one paragraph:

"Experience with the empirical foreign trade and investment in the Developing World has-been overwhelmingly positive." I wonder who measures the empirical experience?

a risk company ?, paid by a financial capital, I imagine ... can be objective measurement!? .... I think not! .... the rrespuesta is in the word "overwhelmingly" which takes off all scientific rigor in the phrase.

In the second article, it says: "...... while Argentina eliminated all import licenses (Sebastian Galiani and Pablo Sanguinetti 2003)." That removes import licensing, results in an opening the free exchange where products are manofacturados in a central countries, and results in the loss of jobs in countries that implement such a policy.

So the question should be: The globalization at that benefits peripheral economies?

Dear Fairuz Bettayeb,

The positive effects of globalization policy introduced ECONOMIC momentary changes in dynamics of a country, which according to their degree backwardness of its productive forces will bring economic growth, until they need to expand this productive forces in their own territory, it is there where the policy of globalization begins to contradict a that momentary benefit. Therefore any globalization policy is a short-term policy, and is not final.

Dear Fairuz Bettayeb,

I quote from your answer “However many countries who were poorer, and/or under dominance, colonialism or dictatorships have adjusted intelligently to the globalization and are now belonging or near to the emerging countries and economies.”

Could you please give some example.

Dear Anup,

My thoughts are about the South East Asian countries as Singapore independent from 1965, and Malaysia  from 1957  with their ethnic populations and religions diversity were able to development  and be part of a global market. Philippines  as newly democratic country from 1986. Vietnam too young independent country from only1975 and who exhibits an outstanding economical growth according to the IMF and who will become the world's 21st-largest economy by 2025 according to Goldman Sachs forecasting analysis.  Brazil as emerging Bric countries and being civilian and stable only from 1985 is the largest national economy in Latin America and the world's eight largest economy at market exchange according to IMF.....etc...

Dear all,

First Happy New Year of 2016 !

Here is what the current  globalization in general and its basis locally believe and do: make the rich richer, let money rules and only those that are connected to the rich in a skewed way rises and have better lives while the poor labors and  made by law to live the most destitute life for ever as long as this economic system of business people turning in to politicians continues. When Plato, Aristotle and other Greek philosophers discussed about what person should be a leader, I do not think they proposed, business people.

Recently in a republican presidential debate of America, candidates almost agreed not to increase the minimum wage of workers, not to enable them financially, the minimum requirement to make a living of lowest standards, and yet these same people argued taxes are high and be minimized to the lowest level almost to pay nothing and take away all the money they gained free (the highest form of mindless greed) which simply means they are running to be a boss to build a socio-economic system of only finance and its power, in which only the rich benefits, lives, rules and the laws will be made  to protect them.  Globalization is the extension of the ideas and deeds of these people who happen to be business people themselves who have no social purpose at all but profit at the expense of society. 

If in a company workers are paid $7.00- $8.00/hr and  pay taxes and the bosses take millions of dollars for themselves and not paying taxes and argued that this is even not good for them but for the poor,   it is hard to say whether we are humans, creatures who are supposed to think and reason and this is precisely what globalization does in a large scale to every poor member of poor countries.  

Unless we humans become reasonable in every relations we create within our selves, unless we develop social purpose in what we do, resources of earth will be abused and owned by few greedy individuals of no souls and life for citizens of earth will become hell.  The tragedy of all of this is that citizens of earth have no alternative place to go but to live here on earth and live that life or bring revolution.

Our mother earth has enough resources from inside, form the surface and on air to sustain humanity happily if used wisely and sustained properly with social purpose. It is this life that is worth living with greater value than the other. 

Dear Cris

While you suggest globalization is the agriculture solution I do not concur with that point of view.

Indeed our modern globalized food system is being commanded by centralized influences which have led to an oversimplification of the production schemes.

This centralized industrialized model does not fit well with outputs which will optimizing our food and health.

In 1960 less than 6% of US gross national product was devoted to health care and over 22% to food costs, currently we are devoting over 22% of our gross national product to health care and less than 6% on our food costs. This disasterous change of place I like to call the very high cost of cheap food.

Globalization which leads to cheap food has also lead to increasing issues related to continued degradation of the soils our crops depend upon. Indeed the idea that Maize Maize Maize farming is preferable does not prove out as more and more effort in terms of inputs he needed to float the system in fertilizer and pesticide inputs and altered genetics we did not adequately test before their implementation.

While current conventional agriculture is an output that is demonstrable cheap in terms of cost of production it is demonstrable costly in environmental and health issues were not considered seriously.

I believe that supporting non monopolistic agriculture systems which are regionally supported is a more worthy goal which needs a return to public focused education and outreach rather than a strictly megalithic global corporation emphasis.

Globalization needs to return to public educational systems who are not allowed to be sold to monied interest but response to more common good.

Well debated, Paul and Dejenie

Totally agree to what you have said in addition to the monetary schemes and what not ...to me, certainly it is an eye wash like 'sustainable development, IMF, corporate social responsibility, win-win strategy, healthy competition' and many other buzz words that have slipped in to daily abuse since the corporatisation, managerilisation control was put on all other professions that were scientific oriented/service oriented and natural resource orientation.

One of the health sector CEOs in NZ (who used to be an ordinary worker in beer bottling plant and then a supervisor in the bottling plant used to say, "waiting lists in hospitals - no problems ...they need nothing but management like I used to do when we bottled beer in our factory." Now tells doctors what is important and what is not. When to discharge a particular illness patient from the hospital, etc. etc.

Doctor's receptionist/assistant tells the doctor, "doc., please hurry up, lunch is ready and there is one 'breast' and one 'prostate' waiting outside." This is a clear indication that now we do not have people who are suffering and need service, but prostates and breasts ....

Thank you!

Suresh

I suggest read this book:

"Confessions of an Economic Hit Man"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confessions_of_an_Economic_Hit_Man

In general, developed countries want to keep the developing countries as crude sales only.

If political people are business people or ruled by business people nothing could be positive in a globalization scheme, in dictatorial ship or in a democracy. Those could be only servant of money and their sponsors ' interests,  impossible to be full servant of their societies. Same as an employee  paid by his employer  who should follows the employer's interests unless he could lose his job. If political people become employees of financial sponsors, they are automatically under their dictate, unless they could loose their sponsor and their power. The problem is not within the globalization itself, but with the politics

Dear Alireza and dear all,

Indeed what we are witnessing today is economic hit men/women changed the global socio-political and economic structure of mankind  in to one - profit making structure.  

As a matter of fact, we can say the current economic phenomena of what is called "capitalism" creates a different kind of species different from the human species. It is a clear sign of evolution, that emerges by non biological factors in which humans mutate to a different quasi inanimate and less intelligent beings that are determined to destroy earth and suffocate its inhabitants - a different path from that of Darwinism. 

Science always searches for the best solution to a problem and that means it does not compromise the search for the best solution and will not opt to use shady and non functional ones as solutions. Indeed, developing countries were and still are in awkward inept political structures because of the people who run the structures but that does not mean a working and better structure should not be devised and a non working systems be avoided. 

Principals of most of the multinational companies (MNC) are from the developed countries. In the name of globalization they put threats on both Food and education sectors. This is a very important issue because these two sectors are related to the sovereignty of a nation.

“In 1970, Norman Borlaug was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his work in developing high-yielding varieties (HYVs) of wheat. The "Green Revolution", launched by Borlaug's "miracle seeds", is often credited with having transformed India from "a begging bowl to a bread basket", and the Punjab is frequently cited as the Green Revolution's most celebrated success story. Yet, far from bringing prosperity, two decades of the Green Revolution have left the Punjab riddled with discontent and violence. Instead of abundance, the Punjab is beset with diseased soils, pest-infested crops, waterlogged deserts and indebted and discontented farmers. Instead of peace, the Punjab has inherited conflict and violence.”[1]

In the name of Green revolution Monsanto, an MNC, forces the use of GM crops along with the associated fertilizers developed by them. Use of GM seeds destroys the biodiversity. Thereby a nation becomes totally dependent on them.

[1] Vandana Shiva, “The Green Revolution in the Punjab”, The Ecologist, Vol. 21, No. 2, March-April 1991

Globalization is not something we can hold off

Well said, Anup, Dejenie, Alireza and all the contributors.

The more we know, the more we know how less we know and this keeps on changing our perception.

Has anyone been following TZM (The Zeitgeist Movement). Check it out if you love, or hate globalisation.

Happy New Year that I celebrated (in NZ) 9 hours and 5 minutes ago, earlier than most of us ...

With love

Suresh

Talib,

It is a mistake to think that the economic system is established naturally. It is put in place by humans and it is our responsibility to fashion it for the common good which at this point in the history of humanity, has to be a common common good.  Thinking it as outside of human control is abdication of our responsibility to fashion it for the common good.  We have to together come to think what this common good may look like through the eyes of many traditions. We have the responsibility to understand the deep dynamic of our economical system, how it came to be, its history, what were the motivations of those who forged the ideas that created it, the material processes that supported it.  It is a gigantic machine of human interaction that has to be mastered by humans for their coordinate living together on this planet.  Can we afford any neutrality or indifference to the nature of this gigantic process of human interaction?  

When people say. "get along with globalization because it cannot be stopped anyway!" It makes me shutter. To me it smacks of moral absenteeism. If slavery is everywhere then I guess we just live with it and do the best we can. Unacceptable if we strive for something better that stagnant status quo.

If I know something is not in right order but I cannot opine because it would not matter anyway I become the projector of my own failure.

Not only can I opine but I will and since the pen is mightier than the sword ideas always win sooner of later.

That is why what we think and say and do are so critically important because they do influence whether we that or not.

 In that way of unconscious defeatism people project their own pitiful outcomes. Pathetic.  

As Robert F. Kennedy once said, "I prefer not to look at the World and ask Why but rather to look at what could be and ask Why no!"

In once sense we can  be successful in celebrating what cannot be done to our own the World's dishonor. Defeatist hat attitude never allowed anyone to do anything except meager subsistence and that in turmoil.

Regardless of the international agenda I can indeed grown my own food when and if I want. The British Empire in its height said Ghandi could not make his own salt but indeed he did.

Thank you Paul (and all)

"Taken cumulatively, the integration of world as a whole, particularly in terms of economic globalisation and the mythic qualities of "free market" capitalism, represents a vertical empire in it's own right ...Few have been able to escape the "structural adjustments" and the "conditionalities" of the World Bank, the International Monitory Fund, or the arbitration of the World Trade Organisation, those international financial institutions that, however inadequate, still determine what economical globalisation means...

Such is the power of globalisation that within our lifetime we are likely to see the integration, even if unevenly, of all national economies in the world in to a single global free market system."

Jim Garrison

President, State of the World Forum

Taken from TZM movie Zeitgeist addendum movie facebook

http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/tzm-media

Regards

Suresh