Globalization

The globalization argument is one that I doubt will ever be agreed on. There's the morality argument, the argument for peace and tolerance, the argument for freedom, the argument for neo-colonization, and the argument for isolationism.

The most difficult thing about this issue, however, is how abstract it actually is. All arguments are based on stereotypes and theory. While these theories are very well explained, they're not fact, and have not been proven or even disproven.

One theory is that globalization brings money into the host's economy. If a business from a developed country opens up a branch or outsources to one that is underdeveloped, they bring their business and everything that comes with it: jobs, income, technology, new ideas, and competition. Jobs open up for locals who can make money in that business, increasing the amount of income; technology that is brought can be given to other businesses and assimilated into daily life; competition forces local businesses to lower prices to compete. Idealy, globalization brings the standard of living up.

But this is theory, it's purely hypothetical.

What if the underdeveloped nation can't support the new business? What if all the new workers in this new company are leaving domestic businesses, and the domestic businesses go bankrupt because they can't compete with this new technology and income when it is receiving cheaper surplus goods from overseas that the local businesses don't have access too. Raising wages and lowering prices, businesses go bankrupt because globalization doesn't do much for local businesses' costs. This new business not only doesn't do anything for the local and domestic economy, but it destroys it. All those entrepreneurs who were going out on a limb with their new businesses, now go out of business because this new operation has access to technology overseas that they simply can't get ahold of.

Let's introduce another situation: The political structure isn't stable.
If people are rioting against the current government, they may not be so inclined to appreciate the new business from overseas. The government sees it as foreign direct investment, the people, who are already aggravated with their government, see it as another way for their politicians to hurt their domestic business in order to make friends with the Great 8 (is it 7 now?). The people may even riot against this 'foreign invader' and create an unsafe and unnecessary situation for all.

Globalization, I believe, works well with emerging markets that have been around long enough that they don't need the foreign direct investment, it simply adds to their economy. If a nation is just beginning to emerge, there is likely a lot of political unrest between classes that are probably have a huge gap between them. They can't support new business and new economies because they don't have a stable one to use for a foundation. The problem with globalization today, is that countries like the United States are sending FDI into this underdeveloped countries that simply can't handle it, and in many cases don't want it.