It is clear that globalisation has

It is clear that globalisation has failed to rid the world of poverty. Rather than being an unstoppable force for development, globalisation now seems more like an economic temptress, promising riches to everyone but only delivering to the few. Although global average per capita income rose strongly throughout the 20th century, the income gap between rich and poor countries has been widening for many decades. Globalisation has not worked.
The reason globalisation has not worked is because there has not been enough of it. If countries, including the rich industrialised ones, got rid of all their protectionist measures, everyone would benefit from the resulting increase in international trade: it's simple economics. If unnecessary government regulation can be eliminated, and investors and corporations can act freely, the result will be an overall increase in prosperity as the "invisible hand" of the market does its work.

Tell that to countries that have followed this route. I doubt many people in Argentina would agree. Many developing countries have done exactly what free market evangelists such as the International Monetary Fund told them to and have failed to see the benefits. The truth is that no industrialised society developed through such policies. American businesses were protected from foreign competition in the 19th century, as were companies in more recent "success stories" such as South Korea. Faith in the free market contradicts history and statistical evidence.

You're looking at the wrong statistics. In most cases, low-income countries are the ones that have not been able to integrate with the global economy as quickly as others, partly because of their chosen policies and partly because of factors outside their control. The plain truth is that no country, least of all the poorest, can afford to remain isolated from the world economy.

Even if this were true, what about the other unwanted effects of globalisation? The power of corporations and the global financial markets adversely affect the sovereignty of countries by limiting governments' ability to determine tax and exchange rate policies as well as their ability to impose regulations on companies' behaviour. Countries are now involved in a "race to the bottom" to attract and retain investment; multinational corporations are taking advantage of this to employ sweatshop labour and then skim off huge profits while paying very little tax.

First, governments' sovereignty has not been compromised. The power of the biggest corporations is nothing compared with that of government. Can a company raise taxes or an army? No. Second, nations are not involved in a "race to the bottom". Figures last year showed that governments around the world are on average collecting slightly more taxes in real terms than they were 10 years earlier. And the argument that workers in poorer countries are being exploited is hard to support. They are clearly better off working for multinationals. If they weren't, they wouldn't work for them. In fact research shows that wages paid by foreign firms to workers in poorer countries are about double the local manufacturing wage.

But what about these so-called multilateral organisations like the IMF, World Bank and World Trade Organisation? I don't remember electing them, so what gives them the right to say how countries run their own affairs? Isn't it obvious that these organisations only serve the interests of the US and to a lesser extent the other rich countries? Their only role is to peddle the neoliberal orthodoxy - the Washington consensus - that only impoverishes the poorest nations and maximises the profits of multinationals.

It is only through organisations such as these that the less developed countries have a chance to improve their situations. The IMF is there to bail out countries that get into financial difficulties. Governments go to the IMF because the alternative is much worse. If the IMF and its sister organisation, the World Bank, were shut down, the flow of resources to developing countries would diminish, leaving the developing world even worse off. The WTO is a different kind of organisation and is run on a one-country-one-vote basis with no regard for the economic power of each nation; every single member has a veto. In addition, no country can be compelled to obey a WTO rule that it opposed in the first place.

ผลลัพธ์ (สโลวีเนีย) 1:

To je jasno, da globalizacija ni uspela znebiti svet revščine. Namesto da se neustavljivo silo za razvoj, globalizacija zdaj zdi bolj kot gospodarski Zavodnica, obetavne bogastvo vsem, ampak samo dali za nekaj. Čeprav svetovni povprečni dohodek na prebivalca močno narasla po vsej dvajsetega stoletja, je bila razširitev dohodek vrzel med bogatimi in revnimi državami za več desetletij. Globalizacija ni delal.Razlog globalizacije ni delal, ker ni bilo dovolj za to. Če države, vključno z bogato industrijsko tisti, znebili vseh svojih zaščitnih ukrepov, vsakdo bi imeli korist od porast mednarodne trgovine: to je enostavno ekonomika. Če mogoče odpraviti nepotrebne vladne uredbe, investitorjev in korporacij lahko delujejo svobodno, rezultat bo skupnega povečanja blaginje, kot "nevidna roka" trga počne svoje delo.Povej, da državam, ki so sledile tej poti. Dvomim, da veliko ljudi v Argentini strinjale. Številne države v razvoju narediti točno kaj evangelistov prostega trga, kot so mednarodni denarni sklad jim povedal, da in ni uspelo vidijo koristi. Resnica je, da ni industrijske družbe razvil skozi takšne politike. Ameriška podjetja so bili zaščiteni od tuje konkurence v 19. stoletju, kot so podjetja v novejših "zgodbe o uspehu" kot so Južna Koreja. Zgodovina in statistični dokazilo v nasprotju s vero v prosti trg.Iščete na napačnem statistika. V večini primerov, nizkimi dohodki so tisti, ki niso mogli povezati s svetovno gospodarstvo čim hitreje kot drugi, delno zaradi svojih izbranih politik in delno zaradi dejavnikov zunaj njihovega nadzora. Navaden resnica je, da nobena država, vsaj za vse najrevnejših, lahko privoščijo, da ostati izolirana od svetovnega gospodarstva.Tudi če bi bilo to res, kaj pa druge neželene učinke globalizacije? Moč družbe in na svetovnih finančnih trgih neugodno vpliva na suverenost držav z omejevanjem sposobnost vlad za določitev davka in tečajnih politik, kot tudi njihovo sposobnost, da nalagajo predpisi o obnašanju podjetij. Države so zdaj vključeni v "dirko do dna" pritegniti in obdržati naložbe; multinacionalne korporacije so izkoristili to sweatshop dela in nato posname ogromne dobičke, pri čemer zelo malo davka.Prvič, vlad suverenost ni bila ogrožena. Moč največjih korporacij je nič v primerjavi s to vlado. Lahko podjetje dvig davkov ali vojsko? ne. Drugič, narodi niso vključeni v "dirko do dna". Številke lani je pokazala, da vlade po svetu so v povprečju zbiranje nekoliko več davkov realno, kot so bile 10 let prej. In trditev, da se izkoriščajo delavce v revnejših državah je težko podpreti. So očitno bolje delajo za multinacionalke. Če ne bi bili, ne delajo za njih. V resnici raziskav kaže, da plače tujih podjetij za delavce v revnejših državah o dvojno plačo lokalne proizvodnje.Toda kaj o teh tako imenovanih multilateralnih organizacij, kot so IMF, Svetovna banka in Svetovna trgovinska organizacija? Ne spomnim se izvolitvi, torej tisto, kar jim daje pravico reči, kako države vodijo svoje lastne zadeve? Ali ni očitno, da te organizacije samo služi interesom ZDA in v manjši meri druge bogate države? Njihova edina vloga je Torbariti neoliberalni pravovernosti - Washington consensus -, ki samo impoverishes najrevnejšim državam in poveča dobičke multinacionalk.Je le prek organizacij, kot so te manj razvite države imajo priložnost, da izboljšajo svoje situacije. IMF je tam prezadolženim državam, ki zaidejo v finančne težave. Vlade iti MDS, ker alternativa je veliko slabše. Če MDS in njena sestrska organizacija, Svetovna banka, so zaprli, pretok sredstev državam v razvoju, bi se zmanjšala, zapušča razvoju celo slabše. WTO je drugačna vrsta organizacije in poteka na osnovi ena-država-en-glas brez upoštevanja za gospodarsko moč vsakega naroda; vsak član ima veta. Poleg tega nobena država lahko prisiljeni poslušati WTO pravilo, da nasprotuje na prvem mestu.