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) 1:

很明顯，全球化並沒有消除世界上的貧困。而不是正在不可阻擋的力量，促進發展，現在全球化似乎更像經濟的妖婦，前途財富為每個人都只提供給少數。雖然在整個 20 世紀，全球人均年收入強烈上升，富國和窮國之間的收入差距一直持續擴大許多幾十年。全球化不工作了。全球化已不工作的原因是因為沒有足夠。如果國家，包括富裕的工業化的國家，擺脫了他們的一切保護主義措施，每個人都將受益于國際貿易的增加： 它是簡單的經濟學。如果可以消除不必要的政府監管，而投資者和公司可以自由行動，結果將在繁榮，整體增加市場的"無形之手"一樣的工作。說到國家後, 跟這條路線。我懷疑很多人在阿根廷會同意。許多發展中國家已經完全自由市場傳道，如國際貨幣基金組織所告訴他們，未能看到好處。事實是，沒有工業化的社會發展通過這種政策。美國企業受到保護免受外國競爭在 19 世紀，正如在最近的"成功案例"等韓國公司。在自由市場的信仰違背歷史和統計上的證據。你看統計數字錯了。在大多數情況下，低收入國家是那些尚未能夠融入全球經濟儘快地把其他人，部分是因為他們選擇的政策，部分原因是他們的控制之外的因素。明擺著的事實是，沒有一個國家，至少是最貧窮者能夠保持孤立于世界經濟。即使這是真的，其他什麼有害的全球化的影響？公司和全球金融市場的力量產生不利影響的主權國家通過限制政府的能力，以確定稅收和匯率政策以及實施條例對公司的行為的能力。國家現在正參與"到底部的種族"來吸引和留住投資 ；跨國公司正在利用這種聘用血汗工廠的勞工，然後很少納稅而撈取巨額利潤。第一，政府的主權不被破壞。最大的企業的力量是不能相比的是政府。一家公司可以增加稅收或軍隊嗎？號第二，聯合國不參與"到底部的競賽"。去年的數字顯示，世界各地的政府在收集略有更多的稅，實質比起 10 年前的平均水準。較貧窮國家的工人正在受到剝削的論點很難支撐。他們會清楚地更好為跨國公司工作。如果他們不，他們不會為他們工作。事實上研究表明外國公司在較貧窮國家的工人的工資大約是兩倍本地製造業工資。但這些所謂的多邊機構像國際貨幣基金組織、 世界銀行和世界貿易組織嗎？我不記得選舉他們，所以什麼給他們說國家如何運行他們自己的事務的權利嗎？由此可見這些機構只達到美國和程度較輕的利益其他富裕國家不是嗎？他們唯一的作用是兜售新自由主義正統觀念 — — 華盛頓共識 》 — — 那只需要量最貧窮的國家和跨國公司的利潤最大化。它是只能通過這些機構較不發達的國家有機會改善他們的處境。國際貨幣基金組織的工作，就是要紓困陷入金融困境的國家。各國政府向國際貨幣基金組織去，因為另一種方法是更糟。如果國際貨幣基金組織和它的姐妹組織，世界銀行，被關閉了，資源向發展中國家的流動會減少，使發展中世界甚至更糟。世貿組織是一種不同的組織，它與不尊重每個國家 ； 經濟實力的一國一票基礎上運行每一個成員有一票否決權。此外，沒有一個國家可以被迫遵守世貿組織規則，它反對放在第一位。

ผลลัพธ์ (จีนดั้งเดิม) 3:

是確切全球化未趕走世界貧窮。而不是發展的，全球化擋不住的力量現在似乎更多像經濟引誘人的女人，對大家的有為的財寶，但是只交付到少量。雖然全球性平均國民平均收入在20世紀期間強烈上升了，富有和窮國之間的收入差距加寬在許多十年。因為沒有足够它，全球化沒有worked.
The原因全球化未工作是。如果國家，包括富有工業化那些，擺脫了所有他們保護貿易主義的措施，大家將受益於在國際貿易的發生的增量：它是簡單的經濟。如果可以消滅多餘的政府規章，并且投資者和公司能自由地行動，結果將是在繁榮的整體增量， 「無形的手」市場做到國家跟隨這條小路的它的work.

Tell。我懷疑許多人民在阿根廷會同意。許多發展中國家正確地做了什麼自由市場福音傳教士例如國際貨幣基金組織告訴他們對和未看好處。真相是工業化社會沒有通過這樣政策開發。美國企業被保護了免受外國競爭在19世紀，像在最近「成功案例的」公司例如韓國。信念在自由市場上抗辯歷史，并且統計evidence.

You看錯誤統計。在許多情況下，由於在他們的控制之外的因素低收入國家部分是未能一樣迅速集成與世界經濟像其他的那个，由於他們選上的政策和部分。赤裸裸的真相是沒有國家，尤其是最窮，能保持與世界economy.

，即使這是真實的，怎麼樣隔绝全球化的其他不需要的作用？公司的力量和全球性金融市場通過限制政府的能力不利地影響國家主權確定稅和匯率政策以及他們的能力強加章程給公司的行為。國家在對底部的「種族現在介入」吸引和保留投資;跨國公司利用此使用血汗工廠勞方然後提出精華巨大的贏利，當支付很少tax.

First，政府的主權時未妥協。最大的公司的力量是沒什麼比較那政府。公司能否提高稅或軍隊？否。其次，國家在對底部的「種族沒有介入」。圖去年表示，政府環球比他們是平均按實際價值計算收有一點更多稅的10年前。并且論據工作者在窮國被剝削是難支持。他們是肯定更好工作多民族的。如果他們不是，他們不會為他們運作。實際上研究表示，外國公司付的薪水對工作者在窮國是關於雙地方製造的wage.

But怎麼樣這些所謂的多邊組織喜歡IMF、世界銀行和世界貿易組織？我不記得選舉他們，如此什麼賦予他們權力說國家怎麼管理他們自己的事物？不是否是顯然的這些組織只為美國和較小程度其他富有的國家服務的利益？仅他們的角色是販賣新自由主義者正教-只使最貧窮的國家貧困并且最大化multinationals.

贏利的華盛頓公眾輿論-仅是通過組織例如這些欠發達的國家有一個機會改進他們的情況。IMF在那裡救助進入財政困難的國家。因為選擇是更壞的，政府去IMF。如果IMF和它的姐妹組織，世界銀行，被關閉了，資源流程對發展中國家將減少，留下發展中國家更壞。WTO是一种不同的組織和跑根據一國家一表決依據沒有每個國家的經濟實力的尊敬;每一名成員有否決。另外，國家不可以被迫服從WTO裁決它首先反對。