Globalization: Another System of Inequality

Globalization is clearly an economic system that has helped America succeed financially. However, it is causing people who were already lower class to be forced into extreme poverty all over the world. It is a system of pure social inequality for the lower class-not a system of wealth.

My opponents will try to make globalization seem friendly by painting a picture with falsehoods. America has stated several times that the problems with globalization stemmed from "criminals, religious extremists, and anachronistic elements" and all those are "easily defeated." Yet, I can tell you that the reason why globalization is impaired is because the money is not trickling down to the lower class.

One out of six people, globally, do not receive a safe home, clean water, health care, sanitation, or adequate nutrition (Sachs). They live on one dollar a day or less which causes 200,000 deaths a day-Most of these people are in Africa. Globalization has only made their living conditions worse.

The number of people in poverty that live in Africa has had a substantial increase since globalization has taken effect. For every 10% rise in wealth, 18% more fall deeper into poverty. Yet, Clifford argues "why tinker with a globalization formula that demonstrably works?"

There are a million reasons why. The more pressing reason is because globalization has brought another level to social inequality. Just because the rich are not equally distributing the wealth and becoming richer does not mean that the formula works. In places globalization has effected in a bad way are often called poverty traps. These countries do not have enough money to invest in health care, education, and infrastructure-what some experts say are the foundations of a prosperous nation. If globalization worked as great as people argue then it would not be holding these countries back-it would be lifting them up.

My challengers argue that these countries are failing and poverty exists because governments are not opening up their markets and taking too many bribes. They believe that these countries would flourish if they were more organized. The people who say this were probably never in charge of a country in extreme poverty, nonetheless lived in one, so how can they decide if the country would flourish or not? It should probably go on a country-by country basis; not by wrapping all the countries together and discrediting them with the term "bribe taker."

My adversaries also believe that poverty can be eliminated completely through globalization. Yet, economic growth depends on more than that. It needs an infrastructure, education, health and technology to support it. If these things are unavailable to a country then globalization will not save it. Also, you can imagine that the money would be distributed unevenly and that the poor would receive less. If a country is already "geographically disadvantaged" the wealth will only reach the rich and they will not be able to make an infrastructure.

It seems like foreign aid or charity would help these countries set up an infrastructure. However, that does not conclude that it would lead to globalization, help the poor, or make their country gain anything in relations to other countries.

A major reason why countries in poverty are not receiving a lot of aid is simple. A poll in America asked people how much foreign aid they believe is sent overseas. People estimated, on average, thirty times higher than the real amount. Many believed that these countries did so little to improve themselves with foreign aid that they "failed." This proves that America does not want to donate to charities and that the United States greatly exaggerates how much money they give out to other countries.

Tucker Matias, a proponent of globalization, says that foreign aid may make a difference but he doubts it. "Yeah, I'd say I'm for globalization...foreign aid probably wont help poverty though because it would go towards, hopefully, community things, I guess. Then the poor couldn't afford going to the community things. Poor people are always going to exist." To conclude our interview he looked around confused and confessed that it did not seem fair to the families living in poverty.

Essentially, the government needs to realize that the reality of globalization is social inequality. While social inequality may always take place, is it really moral to make a whole population unequal? I mean, so unequal that they are subjected to starvation, disease and death everyday of their life? If you feel deep down in your heart that it is fair then you can stay on the other side. For those who believe it is immoral and unjust can join me in the fight.