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 (จีนดั้งเดิม) 3:

很明显，全球化未能消除世界贫困。而不是一个发展的不可阻挡的力量，现在看来更像是一个经济全球化的风月，有前途的财富都只提供给少数。虽然全球人均收入增长强劲在第二十世纪，富国和穷国之间的收入差距已经几十年的扩大。全球化并未奏效。
原因全球化并没有工作是因为没有足够的。如果一个国家，包括富裕的工业化国家，摆脱了他们所有的贸易保护主义措施，每个人都会从导致国际贸易增加的好处：它是简单的经济学。如果不必要的政府管制可以消除，投资者和企业可以自由行动，结果将是繁荣的一个整体的增长为“看不见的手”的市场做它的工作。告诉那些

遵循这条路线的国家。我怀疑在阿根廷的许多人都会同意。许多发展中国家所做的正是自由市场的福音如国际货币基金组织告诉他们并没有看到的好处。事实是，通过这样的政策发展没有工业化社会。美国企业的保护，在第十九世纪的外国竞争，以及公司在最近的“成功故事”如韩国。信仰自由市场与历史和统计证据

。你看了错误的统计数字。在大多数情况下，低收入国家，一直无法融入全球经济尽快他人的人，因为他们选择的政策，部分是因为他们控制之外的因素。事实是，没有任何一个国家，尤其是贫穷的，能够保持孤立于世界经济

。即使这是真的，那么全球化的其他有害的影响？电力公司和全球金融市场产生不利影响的限制政府确定的税收和汇率政策以及其对企业的行为实施监管能力的主权国家。国家正在参与“竞次”来吸引和留住投资；跨国企业正在利用这种雇佣廉价劳工，然后撇掉巨额利润而支付很少的税。

第一，政府的主权没有受到损害。与政府相比，最大的企业的权力，没有。一个公司能增加税收或军队吗？第二，国家不参与“竞次”。去年的统计数字表明，世界各国政府都在平均收集稍微税实际上比他们10年前。并认为贫穷国家的工人被剥削是很难支持。他们显然是更好的为跨国企业工作。如果他们没有，他们没有工作，他们就。事实上，研究表明，外国企业支付给贫穷国家的工人的工资是翻倍当地制造业的工资。

但对这些所谓的多边组织如国际货币基金组织，世界银行和世界贸易组织？我不记得选他们，那么是什么让他们有权说国家如何管理自己的事务？这不是很明显，这些机构只服务于美国利益和在较小程度上的其他发达国家？他们唯一的作用就是推销新自由主义的正统的华盛顿共识，只有贫困最贫穷的国家和跨国企业利润的最大化。

只有通过组织这样的欠发达国家有机会提高他们的情况。国际货币基金组织有救助陷入财政困难的国家。政府向国际货币基金组织可差多了。如果IMF和其姐妹组织，世界银行，被关闭，资源向发展中国家流动会减少，让发展中国家的情况更糟。在WTO是一种不同的组织和运行在一一国一票不尊重每一个国家的经济实力；每一个成员有一票否决权。此外，没有一个国家可以强迫遵守WTO规则，它反对在第一位。