In the text Derber says "Globalization has supported new "emerging democracies" in many parts of the world, even if it bolsters other ancient repressive regimes." Is globalization worth it if these "repressive regimes" are supported or is it just progress/evolution of the human interactions?
In the text Derber states, "We look through the glasses of our respective nations, seeing national economies, national interests, and feeling like a member of our own country" (39). How does looking through the lens relate to "Race to the Bottom"? Are the multinational companies looking through the lens?
Derber states, "...some who see globalization as a new form of colonialism have already begun to pick up their gun," how can globalization not be considered colonialism if there will always be someone who is not benefiting from globalization, such as Samima?
Derber states that Globalization is good for the American business, does it serve as the American Dream for America as country? Is Globalization a positive thing only for the industrial or more "wealthy" country or is it suppose to be for all countries involved in globalization?
Within the reading, Derber states that nations are divided into one of two groups - the core or the periphery. Do you think that with time it would be possible for countries to become a part of the core? How would they be able to? Also, why do you think we (members of a core nation) choose "to ignore how our own power stacks the odds in our favor" (43)? Are we really just that selfish?
Derber addresses how globalization is economically beneficial to the wealth of the world, he also highlights that "Sinclair's graphic look at the sweatshop economy still scorches the brain and shapes our understanding of the nature of the robber-baron economy." Can one claim that it's correct if there are negative impacts on workers although the economy of their nation is flourishing?
In the reading Derber writes that the only problem with sweatshops in poor countries is "that there are not enough of them". Do you agree or do you believe that the real problem is the exploitation of natives and raw materials?
Why does this passage claim that Globalization increases wealth, but widens the gap between the rich and the poor?
ReplyDeleteIn the text Derber says "Globalization has supported new "emerging democracies" in many parts of the world, even if it bolsters other ancient repressive regimes." Is globalization worth it if these "repressive regimes" are supported or is it just progress/evolution of the human interactions?
ReplyDeleteIs moral responsibility the true purpose of the core's globalization? Does free trade always have a positive effect on the globalization trinity?
ReplyDeleteIn the text Derber states, "We look through the glasses of our respective nations, seeing national economies, national interests, and feeling like a member of our own country" (39). How does looking through the lens relate to "Race to the Bottom"? Are the multinational companies looking through the lens?
ReplyDeleteDerber states, "...some who see globalization as a new form of colonialism have already begun to pick up their gun," how can globalization not be considered colonialism if there will always be someone who is not benefiting from globalization, such as Samima?
ReplyDeleteDerber states that Globalization is good for the American business, does it serve as the American Dream for America as country? Is Globalization a positive thing only for the industrial or more "wealthy" country or is it suppose to be for all countries involved in globalization?
ReplyDeleteWithin the reading, Derber states that nations are divided into one of two groups - the core or the periphery. Do you think that with time it would be possible for countries to become a part of the core? How would they be able to? Also, why do you think we (members of a core nation) choose "to ignore how our own power stacks the odds in our favor" (43)? Are we really just that selfish?
ReplyDeleteDerber addresses how globalization is economically beneficial to the wealth of the world, he also highlights that "Sinclair's graphic look at the sweatshop economy still scorches the brain and shapes our understanding of the nature of the robber-baron economy." Can one claim that it's correct if there are negative impacts on workers although the economy of their nation is flourishing?
ReplyDeleteIn the reading Derber writes that the only problem with sweatshops in poor countries is "that there are not enough of them". Do you agree or do you believe that the real problem is the exploitation of natives and raw materials?
ReplyDelete