Historically speaking Essay

globalisation is iodin of the most recent phenomenons ever to give away humanity upon its entrance to the 21st century. historically speaking, globalisation itself has been around for decades long step forward front it was c at a timeived as a field of think of international trade. Some economists and historians contend that the concepts of globalisation have been prevalent make up during sentence when the Silk Road started in mainland China up to the Roman Empire.Some, however, deliberate that globalisation began during the nineteenth century when the prevalence of the Industrial mount was at its fastest and that trade mingled with Europe, their colonies and the Americas were growing steadily. Major advances in technology, peculiarly during the 20th century, eventually led countries to get down handicraft costs hence, highlighting the inevitability of the expansion of trade within the humanness-wide society. Still, globalization, as a term, was never apply by ec onomists at least not until the early 1980s.Furtherto a greater extent, all its concepts and ideas were never sincerely fully understood by the faculty member community until the early 1990s. Fortunately, after seven years into the 21st century, much than of the world is already aw ar of its contexts and aspects from outsourcing to currency trading via wireless applications. Still, despite our k at presentledge of globalization, we disregardnot discard the fact that we know less two(prenominal)what its implications for the uphill. Globalization, as a field of study, is a volatile subject that, even with the c are of factual data and information, is almost in conclusion unpredictable. disrespect the existence of a infinite of books, journals and articles pertaining to the topic of Globalization, we sensnot deny that we have tho to fully understand its future trends. Indeed, a major advancement brought by ripe technology can ultimately change, once again, the face of the International Community thus, touching international trade and ultimately bear on the globalization of the world. On a hike note, third world countries that would eventually drive first world countries in the future may end up duty period the international balance of trade and avocation for first world countries.As much(prenominal), it is truly tempting to imagine what the International Community would be like if, for some small chance, the African Continent booms like Asia. If such an event fares, go out globalization be the cause for it? Alternatively, result globalization even allow such an event to occur? People who are against the advancements of globalization argue that globalization just now benefits the ample unification and detriments the poor south. This is evident from the fact that countries in the northern hemisphere tend to walkaway in a neo-imperialist fashion among the countries in the southern hemisphere.Anti-globalization movements insist that the prevalence of globalization only means the prevalence of international corporations (MNCs). They contend that these corporations, while providing employment for the local anesthetic population, only encourage more leanness in the unpolished. Multinational corporations, upon entering a rural area, immediately eliminates local competitors thus, destroying the balance of situation between local and abroad. As such, the country fails subject to the influence of foreign countries that earlier holds these multinational corporations.This automatically becomes a crystallize of leverage for foreign countries (which are, most of the time, rich countries coming from the north) against the country holding their MNCs. On the other hand, people that are for the advancements of globalization argues that free trade the main pecker of globalization encourages more growth for development economies compared to protectionism. Primarily, globalization allows several(prenominal) countrie s access to several ripe(p)s and services that they could never produce or emulate from other countries.Furthermore, they contend that globalization encourages competition among local and foreign businesses. though unfair at times, supporters of globalization assume that encouraging competition allows small businesses to grow, to become more efficient and to become more versatile. The arguments of both(prenominal) sides are truly credible. Indeed, globalization, as a concept, is considered by many as a double-edged sword though benefiting the user, it can, if careless enough, harm him/her as well. Globalization has many facets.As such, it has many implications some we are aware of and some arent. solely according to ace scholar, Thomas Friedman, globalization has one important implication that has been precise(prenominal) prevalent over the past dyad of years but has only lately gained attention. In 2005, Thomas Friedman a columnist of Foreign Affairs and the New York tim es published a book entitle The World is Flat. According to Mr. Friedman, the world is sightly smaller and that the competition between countries in different parts of the world is get or being leveled. 1 congresswoman that he noted was that the economies of India and China, two emerging economic superpowers in the eastern hemisphere, are now bely so becoming so advanced that they can now compete with the economic powerhouses of the west. He farther claimed that, ironically, much of the west, most especially the Americans, werent ready for such events unfolding. Indeed, the unexpected booms of India and China have made the Asian unpolluted an attractive place for foreign investment. other important point is that both countries abundant populations have played a vital role in the compass grocery store both in manual labor (i.e. manufacturing) and professional psyche labor (i. e. information technology). non only do these two countries beam the unite States in terms o f cut-price labor, but they similarly outdo the American population in terms of might and productivity. Simply said, employers are getting the comparable level of productivity and efficiency from both Chinese and Indian workers, but at a lower cost. This, according to scholars, has turn up very detrimental to Americans. Not only does this threaten the employment of future American workers, but it also threatens the economy of the joined States on the long run.As such, how can one defend himself from such oppose advancements to ones own country? On a more full ordinary level, how can the populace protect itself from such a deadly competition? As an American Citizen and as a soon-to-be professional entering the world of militant employment, I can indeed come up with several answers to that question. First, as a country, the coupled States must make enormous investments on education. Improving the workforce of the country is exigent if we are to face foreign competition.One important thing that we can amaze into consideration is the introduction of language classes in our academic system. Learning the language of foreign countries can surely make our general workforce a seemingly beloved investment for foreign companies. Yet some other note is the introduction of new laws which will, in some way, discourage young students from drop out of school. An example of these laws is the prohibition of publicise drivers licenses to adolescents who have dropped out of school for no particular intellectual. By doing so, the general workforce of the country will remain efficient and highly educated.Despite the rapid growths of China and India, it cannot be denied that much of their population remains below the need line. As such, this problem becomes a beetle off on their economy (for the simple reason that the government has to continuously spend huge sums of money on anti-poverty programs and such). Ironically, this could play both a huge disvantage and a n service at the same time for the linked States. For one, since people live in very poor conditions, corporations can take advantage of them by paying them low salaries which, for the population, could seem very high.On the other hand, the good living conditions of the American population can imply the demand for high-paying jobs which, of course, corporations would not prefer. Alternatively, this could also serve as an advantage for the United States since the American workforce compared to the cheap as yet impoverished populace of India and China are more efficient and educated thus, implying more productivity and growth for the corporation. Education is one thing. But as a person whos about to enter into the competitive world of employment, how can I piss myself against the competitive nature of foreign workers that will most likely ensue?