Is globalisation really beneficial?

Article

Globalization - Good or Bad?
By Floyd Mann
Created 10/09/2003 - 23:00

"Globalization is not a phenomenon. It is not just some passing trend. Today it is an overarching international system shaping the domestic politics and foreign relations of virtually every country, and we need to understand it as such." As thoughtful people concerned about world affairs, our job is to pick up "globalization," examine it from all sides, dissect it, figure out what makes it tick, and then nurture and promote the good parts and mitigate or slow down the bad parts. Globalization is much like fire. Fire itself is neither good nor bad. Used properly, it can cook food, sterilize equipment, form iron, and heat our homes. Used carelessly, fire can destroy lives, towns and forests in an instant. As Friedman says: "[Globalization] can be incredibly empowering and incredibly coercive. It can democratize opportunity and democratize panic. It makes the whales bigger and the minnows stronger. It leaves you behind faster and faster, and it catches up to you faster and faster. While it is homogenizing cultures, it is also enabling people to share their unique individuality farther and wider."
Globalization has dangers and an ugly dark side. But it can also bring tremendous opportunities and benefits. Just as capitalism requires a network of governing systems to keep it from devouring societies, globalization requires vigilance and the rule of law. Anti-trust laws, the Securities and Exchange Commission, labor unions, charities, the Federal Trade Commission, and countless other agencies and organizations keep American capitalism in check. Similar transparent mechanisms are needed to make sure globalization is a positive force in the world. Globalization will always have cheerleaders who are blind to the destruction globalization can cause. And it will always have strident opponents blind to the way globalization gives some people their first opportunity to fulfill basic aspirations. As with most issues, the majority of people will be in the middle. They will see globalization not as something to worship or demonize. Instead, they will see it as something to mold, shape and manage for the betterment of everyone.




Commentary
Globalisation seems to be a reason as well as a solution to everything. People claim that some things, odd they might be, are done because the world is globalised. Such examples would be Englishmen making a Chicken Tikka Masala on a regular basis, claiming it as their own dish. This is despite the known north-Indian origin of the Chicken Tikka Masala. Enough said about globalisation, but is it really good or bad for the world? Will we humans be better off in a globalised world? To me, the answer is maybe. While globalisation has sensational implications in some areas, it does have its drawbacks in other areas. This is an essay to discuss and try to evaluate some of globalizations implications and outcomes.
On one hand, globalisation has done a few remarkable things for today’s workforce: Outsource. In his amazing book “The World is flat”, Thomas Friedman outlined some examples of outsourcing. He explained how most MNC’s have an office in India, where accountancy firms in America that “do” your taxes are outsourcing this work to accountants in India. There are even call-centers in India that take calls from all over the world. But how exactly does outsourcing benefit the world? Looking back, one can observe the answer. In the past, the world was a largely bipolar world: US vs. USSR. However, with ever more globalization, we are slowly stepping out of that phase and moving into a more multi-polar world, where there is the EU, BRIC, ASEAN, US, Gulf and so on. This “levelling” of the economic playing field has been an impetus to great economic growth.
On the political front, globalisation has also done great things. Ideas sharing and co-operation between governments has been very beneficial to the whole world. Furthermore, it has become much harder for governments to oppress its people. An apt example would be from Iran. This occurred when the election was supposedly rigged in Iran. Supporters or the opposition candidate were protesting in defiance of the government’s order’s, who threatened them that they would be arrested. Despite attempts to remove internet connection, mobile phone networks and foreign news, pictures and updates were still reaching all corners or the globe daily. This shows us how globalisation has brought a positive change in terms of certain restrictions on governmental power.

On the flip side of the coin, we see how crime and terrorism has become much more pronounced in a globalised world. In the past, countries not so connected and swift travel between different countries restricted to the rich. Nowadays, the world is so inter-connected and air fares are dropping. Crime is now an international threat. For instance, orders to hijack and crash a plane given from Afghanistan were carried out in New York. There are so many examples of criminals who carry out crimes in one country, before fleeing to the other side of the world. On a bigger level, criminal enterprises have become a global business. With such good connectivity, drug cartels and gangs communicate over the internet like all other humans do. This coupled with the cheap air fares could be one reason for the increase in drug crimes around the world, especially America. Drugs are transported from Latin America to the US through many different ways, including shipping, planes, border crossings and many more. Though the world has been trying to fix this problem by stepping up the battle to crackdown on drugs, it is believable that it is a lost cause. The problem has become too pronounced, and new crackdowns do not stop drug crimes, but just slightly lessen it. This justifies the claim that globalisation has brought some bad to the world.
There are other areas of human society like culture that have been short-changed through globalisation. The self-degradation of ethnic practises has been detrimental to betterment of society. In fact, very few people actually have their own culture. People and ideas move around some much and so fast that single nationalities are not really around. Global movement of people has contributed to “hyphenated identities”. For example, some people could be Indian-Chinese or Chindian, European-Asian or Eurasian, Australian-Indian etc. With such mixed up identities, things like art, music, food and other cultural activities are affected. You see British people claiming the Chicken Tikka Masala as their own favourite dish, and many “fusion” restaurants sprouting up in many places. You see interior designers furnishing rooms with a Indian-Ottoman theme. Such oddities might seem to add another dimension to a culture, but what you are actually doing is just losing 2 or more different cultures.
To conclude, I believe that that globalisation has both beneficial outcomes and constraints. Whether culture and crime prevention should come at the expense of promotion of economic activity and better political environment is impossible to decide. I think that maybe if people become aware of the changing nature of the world, we can actually make some changes to these issues and policies that shape our world. After all, “WE are the change we wish to see” Barack Obama

ERP 1--- 1a

1a. To me, my grandfather is one of the greatest men to have ever lived. From the moment that I set foot on the face of this planet, he has always been there supporting and guiding me. He is really my role-model. All throughout my childhood and early years, my granddad never failed me or let me down. At the age of 91, I have never seen anyone quite so active, friendly, alert and kind as him. In fact, when I was 8 years old, I told my grandfather that even I knew how to use a computer and that he should learn to as well. To my surprise, he actually enrolled for a computer class, and drove almost 50 miles from his farm into the nearest city to learn computer skills. Men like him do not come along everyday, and when they do, they are not appreciated until they are gone.

However, just a year back, my grandfather was admitted into the hospital for low sodium levels. His condition worsened, causing him to spend weeks in the Intensive Care Unit. Our entire family went to visit him at the hospital during his illness. However, due to the adverse effects of hid condition, my grandfather was not able speak or move his body voluntarily. “All the time I spent with him was gone” I thought to myself. Indeed, it seems that you only appreciate something when it is first taken away from you. I hoped that I might be able to interact with my grandfather like I had done for the past 14 years. A relationship between a boy and his grandfather is priceless, and mine was about to take a turn for the worse.

After leaving hospital, life for him was never the same. He could only read or walk with difficulty. If life for him was hard, could you imagine what my life was like? My mind was always on him, constantly wondering whether he is okay. The things that he had done with me, like pick jackfruits, catch spiders and play monopoly could never be done again. This interaction with an eighty year age difference would never exist again. Even though he could still continue living his life, the effects of his illness were devastating to me. Every word he spoke was like a dagger being thrust into my chest, as he tried fastidiously to speak words that were audible and clear. Many of my family members had sacrificed their own personal lives and commitments in order to help my grandfather. As for me, every time I visited him, I would spend my time just sitting next to him and talking. Though the roles in this relationship were reversed, I felt it to be my duty to take care of him, just as he had done for me. The time I spent with my grandfather from then on was spent taking care of him, by giving him company. I believe that my relationship with my grandfather has not been dampened, but rekindled. We still spend time together, and though it was not like 10 years ago, I am happy to have him around.

Now a year on, my grandfather’s illness stomped an everlasting imprint on my life, but the lessons I learnt is priceless. He still gets by with the help of my uncles and aunts. Our relationship has not been hindered, and I still call him often. I think that though his sickness may have left him worse off, the bond and attachment between has only grown stronger as we have both realized that the time we spend together will not last forever. My grandpa’s illness has taught me that we should learn to appreciate things and people more, as they will only be missed and remembered once they have already left. As Martial said in the Epigrammata, “Life is not just being alive, but being well.” My grandfather may not be fully well, but our relationship burns on like a raging fire, never relinquishing hope. I know our relationship will not last forever, so I think that I should appreciate it and value it like it is going to end tomorrow. People do not value their relationships until it is taken away from them. I know that this event in my life has made my relationship with my grandfather stronger, and I intend to value it for the rest of my life.

Goodness

I believe that there is a plethora of reasons for human altruism. It does seem probable that Darwin’s explanation of altruism in animals, citing that the “gene” for altruism has been passed on from generation to generation, and that bees are willing to be altruistic in knowledge of the fact that their fastidious lives have been given up for their relatives. However, I do not agree that this is the only way that altruism is shown and expressed. In fact, Hamilton’s theory of evolutionary biology being related to altruism is completely contradictory to my belief. I believe that it is paradoxical that Darwin postulated his theory of animalistic altruism, recalling his ground-breaking and radical idea of Natural Selection and “survival of the fittest”, as they contradict one another. All in all, I believe that altruism may be hereditary, but the natural intrinsic ability of humans to do good to one another is also entirely plausible.

Gun control- should civilians be allowed to own guns or not?

SUMMARY

The issue of gun control is complicating. Guns are the main cause of some of the calamities that have taken place. It has been proven from the Virginia Tech shooting that a man with a mental illness was able to procure guns and bullets. This can have disastrous implications, as seen from the bloodbath in Virginia. It also shows that some individuals who have the access to guns can cause devastation to a large extent.

COMMENTARY
Since 1996, there have been 11 school massacres across Europe, which has left 70 students dead and about 80 injured. Across the Atlantic, in the superpower of the world known as the USA, 2 high-profile massacres have occurred, with the latest one resulting in the death of 32 people. Does it mean that because someone lost his temper and handled it in a bad way or that someone had a psychological issue of incontrollable rage, that so many innocent civilians died? Clearly, without a gun, such pain and devastation would not have been experienced. The issue of gun control is a controversial one, though in my opinion, it is clear that civilians should not have the power to own guns. This question of whether citizens can own guns or not can be divided into 2 sub-questions: 1. Whether the government has the right to ban gun ownership? and 2.Whether the act of banning gun ownership would make the country safer? In this essay, I will prove that the government does have the power to ban gun ownership and that banning guns would improve public safety.

Many people think it is their right to decide whether they want to own a gun. They have a qualified reason for this: the LAW. According to the 2nd amendment to the American constitution which says “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” As such, the American citizens defend their right to own guns.
However, just as this is true, it is also true that the government elected into office by the people of America as supposed to act in way to ensure the safety of that population. Hence, in the interest of public safety, surely the government has the right to ban guns? If the government deems something to be dangerous to the public, the government has the right to ban gun ownership.
However, just because the government has a right to ban gun ownership does not necessarily mean that gun control will actually increase public safety. Some advocates of gun ownership say that a gun is a tool of self-defence. Imagine being confronted by a robber, it does seem entirely plausible that the robber might be deterred by the fact that you own a gun. Also, people might feel a sense of self-assurance if they own a gun. BUT, just as the people who are defending themselves have guns, allowing gun ownership also means that criminals and other unlawful citizens might have access to these means of “self-defense”. This may enable them to carry out their sinister intentions with less difficulty. Hence, the argument that guns will act as tools of self-defense does not stand.
Now, let us examine facts. Guns were invented as a means to cause harm to another person. Its main function is to kill, not to give a back massage to someone. In order to ensure public safety, the government should try to weed out as many “killing-machines”, or devices that threaten to cause harm to members of that society. Thus, banning gun ownership will improve public safety.
Also, some people argue that it is not a gun that kills a person; it is a person that kills a person. This makes that gun not a killer, but a means to kill. At the end of the day, a finger has to pull the trigger. Yet, when the facts are examined, it would be impossible for an angry student to go and murder 37 people with his hands. Such disasters such as the Virginia Tech and Columbine High shooting would have been avoided, or at least reduced in impact, if the offender did not have a gun. Even if guns were allowed, seeing that a man with a mental illness was allowed to buy 2 guns and bucket loads of bullets shows that if guns do get into the wrong hands, which IS POSSIBLE, there will be severe destruction. Thus, even though the finger must pull the trigger, it is the use of a gun that caused the devastating tragedy. Hence, banning gun ownership will make public safer.
IT must be said, by banning guns, it does not mean that all robberies will be prevented. It does not mean that crime rate will become 0%. It also does not mean that we as the public will be safe for ever. But, it is an empirical fact, based on past events and facts, the use of the gun in such massacres are key. The gun made such violent actions possible, and to prevent such acts, gun ownership should be banned. In the end, guns have been proven to cause great harm to the public, and so civilians should not be allowed to own guns. IF you are still not convinced, consider this: Your kid/ you are in school when an angry person kills your kid/you and others in cold blood. Remember, that without his gun, he would not be able to do such harm.

Orchard Road facelift- was is really worth it?

The statistics have shown that the recently proposed and completed have not been well-received by the public of Singapore. Furthermore, the purpose of the orchard road facelift was not throughly achieved and for $40,ooo,ooo, it's really something not to be condoned. In this essay, I will attempt to convice and eventually prove that the Orchard Road facelift was not really worth it, because many businessman are doubting its results and that the Singapore public has not been aware of the recent improvements to Orchard road.



However, there is conclusive evidence that significant improvements have been made to Orchard Road. The Singapore Tourism Board has released statements detailing the upgrade to orchard Road. STB's renovation includes: introducing new street lamps, co-ordinating the street furniture, adding decorative glass panels and potted flower totems. These are indisputible facts which state that STB did make improvements to Orchard Road. When interviewed, the director for shopping and dining said of the works as " ...covers the cost of the works which included starte-of-the-art lighting, power upgrading,landscaping,repaving ,works and consultation. "This again tells us that significant improvements were made to the infrastructure of Orchard Road. This improvements were made to beautify the surroundings and improve the standard of living in Singapore, and as Orchard Road is the main shopping area of Singapore, this attractiveness of the surroundings might give Singapore an edge in influencing the future tourists to choose Singapore as their new holiday destination.

Just because something was done and was expensive, does not at all costs mean that it was useful and worth it. This suits the Orchard Road upgrading very well, as even though $40m was spent to improve the state or Orchard road does not make it money well and wisely spent. When you hear that $40m was spent to upgrade one stretch of road, you would logically be expecting to be wowed when you step on to that road. However, this was not the case with the Orchard Road renovation. Even the local Singaporeans failed to notice the improvements before their very eyes. Clearly, if the government was attempting to entice other tourists and people to shop and experience Singapore and when tourists hear about the $40m spent, they will have sky-scraping expectations. From the looks and responses of the locals, this does not seem possible. Thus, I can say that the renovation was not worth $40m, as something that costs that much should be expected to amaze and enthrall an audience. Hence, the money spent on the upgrading was not worth it.

Moreover, the upgrading was also not useful. Some people argue that a few of the upgrades made have done more harm than good, while others say that it could have been put to better use. People who argue that harm was a product of the renovation refer to the narrowing of Paterson road.In order to accomodate more space for passing pedestrians, Paterson road has been narrowed by a lane. This perpetuates the already present bottleneck of human and vehicle traffic along this road every evening. The narrowing only makes it harder enter the area. Compounding this, because the details, have not been released to some mall owners, they argue that not knowiing the details might have adverse effects on their business and revenue. Due to this, the government must realise or take into account that their upgrading could jeopardize its Singapore's reputation as a premier tourist destination and to attract more Singaporeans to shop at Orchard.

Hence, I can say that due to the fact that the money was not worth it and not well spent, I have not other choice but to conclude that the $40m rejuvination of Orchard Road was not worth it.

Students should be allowed to set their own rules.

In the interest of promoting responsibility and independence of next-generation youth, students should be allowed to set their own rules. As the schools and even government is trying their hearts out to implement new systems and school practises to increase self-dependence and responsibility among youth, surely allowing students to set their own rules is the ultimate form of independence and responsibility. Moreover, by allowing students to set their own rules, it creates a safer and more conducive environment to learning. This is because even if the students make a mistake, it will not be so costly as in the real world, as the school environment is more conducive to learning. This early exposure to rule-making and decision-making will be indescribably beneficial to the future of Singapore. Hence, students should ballowed to set their own rules.

An exposition is a type of writing. Its purpose is to explain & describe, or define the subject that the author is writing about to the reader. In general, expositions are non-fiction, and come in almost all forms, from coking recipes to argumentitve essays. Also, some expositions are written regarding literary texts.