Globalization: Policy or Process
Tabb projects the image of globalization as a policy used to benefit
capitalism and big corporations. Such organizations like WTO (World Trade
Organization) are pure examples of the reality of globalization.
Globalization's agenda is one of giant corporations have a numerous
amounts of freedom for transitional capital, creating an unsustainable
pattern of production and consumption, and a pure domain of the economy.
(Pg 3) Globalization does not concern themselves with the governments,
labor, small businesses, and consumers with only corporate greed. (Pg 7)
Globalization does not place blame or regulate policy on labor conditions,
environment, human rights, and trade for underdeveloped countries but
place trade rights that represent the interests of capital.
Moore and Tabb have opposite views of what the reality of globalization
is. Moore's globalization is one of the WTO framework liberalism on trade
and investment to lead to competition and eventually a greater market.
This would lead to a better standard of living, improvements in
environment, labor, and economy. Also, this would allow the average person
to think they are contributing and have a choice in the matter. Tabb's
globalization pierces through the framework to the reality where
corporations control globalization and the "small" people have no say.
Moore argues on behalf on underdeveloped countries, the poverty stricken,
who desperately need globalization in order to gain a flowing economy.
Tabb argues big corporations want to "level out the playing field" with
all countries meaning superpower countries will be dominate over weaker
countries destroying and misusing all resources. Moore leads the reader to
think globalization is a positive process by informing that it may not be
the complete answer to the world's problems it gives hope and all around
security. Tabb leads the reader to think globalization is a policy used...
Don't See a Point
Like my title above, I don't really see where you're going toward. Is this essay just supposed to present both arguments? Aren't you usually supposed to try and persuade the reader to your side of the argument? It's written well, and I can understand it... However, to me, I feel that there isn't much point to this essay unless you're trying to make a point.
1 out of 1 people found this comment useful.