Friday, May 25, 2007
Saturday, May 19, 2007
Saturday, May 12, 2007
Term 2 Week 8 task 4
Is globalization a panacea for world economic development? - source from www.Worldpress.org
According to dictionary.com, globalization refers to increasing global connectivity, integration and interdependence in the economic, social, technological, cultural, ecological and political spheres. Many countries accredit the benefits from globalization and the word ‘globalization’ has become the buzzword mentioned in many countries. So, is globalization more of a blessing to the world as a whole?
Firstly, globalization helps to promote cultural exchanges between different countries. With the skyrocket rate of globalization, goods from various countries that are once out of reach are now emerging into the markets globally. Customs and cultures of the countries are unveiled; people from the world are able to learn more about a country’s cultures. This aids in promoting cultural exchanges globally and contributing to international communications. People who are interested in the goods or the country may even visit places that have never crossed their minds. It thus results in a global movement of people and the visitors, contributing to cultural exchanges, will expose local cultures.
With the improvement in cultural exchanges, it also brings about free trade between nations. Goods can be sold freely between nations; trade and capital flow across borders with unprecedented energy. As a result, more jobs will be created and countries will harbour the fruit of economy prosperity. This generates revenue for the country, boosts its development and improves the standard of living. This brings the steeping down from poverty for the poor nations.
However, globalization does not guarantee a promising betterment for one country. It has become painful, or rather, controversial to the developing world. For instance, it could result in widening the gap between the developed and developing countries and between the rich and the poor in countries. With the global shift, developed countries get to enjoy the cheapest labour forces from the developing countries. Agriculture products – which account for 30 to 60 percent of poor countries’ gross domestic product-, will be imported to rich countries, leaving inadequate food for its own people. This does not help the population to climb out of undevelopement. Adversely, deepens poverty and inequality — prosperity for a few countries and people, marginalization and exclusion for many — and implications for social and political stability, among as well as within nations. It thus not benefiting the world, but in fact, may be a disaster to some poorer countries.
Take for example, While China and India are now rejoicing the success of advance development, millions of their citizens are still living in poverty. They do not climb out of destitution. Ironically, globalization provides a rare platform for the rich to prosper. In fact, forty of the poorest nations, many in Africa, have had zero growth during the past twenty years. Ergo, what can we actually conclude from the beneficial of globalization?
Next, human labour forces would be depleted by the richer world. Rich companies from wealthier countries will take advantages of the cheap labours there. They will make use of the large pool of already available human forces. In developing countries, the literacy rate is low; people receive low education. As a result, they may not be a pool of skillful labour, and alternately end up in low wages. Poor countries will thus face a shrink in the work force and debilitates its own development. People may even migrant to other countries, deteriorating the already worsened condition of the nation. All these could cripple the economy, not flourishing otherwise.
Concisely, globalization is an advantage to the rich developed countries. It causes disastrous consequences in poor nations: widening the gap between the rich and the poor. This brings only social and political instability. Economic growth for the global will be distorted. To enjoy economic growth, globalization is not the must-route. Thus, I strongly think that it is not a panacea for economic development.
According to dictionary.com, globalization refers to increasing global connectivity, integration and interdependence in the economic, social, technological, cultural, ecological and political spheres. Many countries accredit the benefits from globalization and the word ‘globalization’ has become the buzzword mentioned in many countries. So, is globalization more of a blessing to the world as a whole?
Firstly, globalization helps to promote cultural exchanges between different countries. With the skyrocket rate of globalization, goods from various countries that are once out of reach are now emerging into the markets globally. Customs and cultures of the countries are unveiled; people from the world are able to learn more about a country’s cultures. This aids in promoting cultural exchanges globally and contributing to international communications. People who are interested in the goods or the country may even visit places that have never crossed their minds. It thus results in a global movement of people and the visitors, contributing to cultural exchanges, will expose local cultures.
With the improvement in cultural exchanges, it also brings about free trade between nations. Goods can be sold freely between nations; trade and capital flow across borders with unprecedented energy. As a result, more jobs will be created and countries will harbour the fruit of economy prosperity. This generates revenue for the country, boosts its development and improves the standard of living. This brings the steeping down from poverty for the poor nations.
However, globalization does not guarantee a promising betterment for one country. It has become painful, or rather, controversial to the developing world. For instance, it could result in widening the gap between the developed and developing countries and between the rich and the poor in countries. With the global shift, developed countries get to enjoy the cheapest labour forces from the developing countries. Agriculture products – which account for 30 to 60 percent of poor countries’ gross domestic product-, will be imported to rich countries, leaving inadequate food for its own people. This does not help the population to climb out of undevelopement. Adversely, deepens poverty and inequality — prosperity for a few countries and people, marginalization and exclusion for many — and implications for social and political stability, among as well as within nations. It thus not benefiting the world, but in fact, may be a disaster to some poorer countries.
Take for example, While China and India are now rejoicing the success of advance development, millions of their citizens are still living in poverty. They do not climb out of destitution. Ironically, globalization provides a rare platform for the rich to prosper. In fact, forty of the poorest nations, many in Africa, have had zero growth during the past twenty years. Ergo, what can we actually conclude from the beneficial of globalization?
Next, human labour forces would be depleted by the richer world. Rich companies from wealthier countries will take advantages of the cheap labours there. They will make use of the large pool of already available human forces. In developing countries, the literacy rate is low; people receive low education. As a result, they may not be a pool of skillful labour, and alternately end up in low wages. Poor countries will thus face a shrink in the work force and debilitates its own development. People may even migrant to other countries, deteriorating the already worsened condition of the nation. All these could cripple the economy, not flourishing otherwise.
Concisely, globalization is an advantage to the rich developed countries. It causes disastrous consequences in poor nations: widening the gap between the rich and the poor. This brings only social and political instability. Economic growth for the global will be distorted. To enjoy economic growth, globalization is not the must-route. Thus, I strongly think that it is not a panacea for economic development.
Saturday, May 5, 2007
Term 2 Week 7 task 4
Can Singapore go car-less? The newspaer. march 2007.
In view of the global warming, many countries are doing their part to conserve the environment. The main problem of global warming is the emission of carbon dioxide, a poisonous gas evolved from the burning of fuels. In car engines, petroleum burnt to produce carbon dioxide. This contributes to the amount of carbon dioxide in the air, ultimately, the result of global warming.
Global warming brings only harm to the people. It affects people’s health by increasing the global climate. People may even diagnose with skin cancer if expose to too much sunlight. Increase the global climate means that in general, countries near the equator will face problem of drought while countries near the brim of the world will encounter floods. Glaciers and icebergs will melt, causing an increase in sea level. Many small islands may even submerged. This brings disaster to the world.
To minimize cars in Singapore, is that possible? Yes, ii think that if everyone tries to take public forms of transport, like buses and the mass rapid transmit [MRT], the number of vehicles on the road would be brought down.
In my own opinions, I think that Singapore government should exercise the “no-car-day” more often, for instance, once a month, instead of the currently once a year. In this way, it does not only help in reducing the emission of carbon dioxide, but also prevents any traffic congestion in the near future. It is predicted that by the year 2020, Singapore would be clogged. If the cars in Singapore are arranged in bumper to bumper, it is estimated that it may stretch all the way to Beijing, China. This is breathtaking, are we sure we are going to live in a place like this where there’s no room for pedestrians; we have to squeeze our way out through the vehicles lying on the roads. How would this look like?
To solve the urgent problem of global warming, we should do our little part to conserve the earth. We can help in reducing the usage of plastic bags and anything that can cause the emission of carbon dioxide.
Cutting down on the usage of vehicles in Singapore would be an effective way. Singapore has always set high standards in managing the car populations here. She has won many countries’ compliments. In Singapore, her people have received top education and know what the root to global warming is. They would of course do their part to prevent global warming, if not, at least reduce the emission of carbon dioxide. Singapore has a well established transport network system. Getting the commuters from places to places within minutes means more people are willing to give up their own cars to board the public transports. If more and more people are willing to do that, I am sure there will be one day Singapore goes car-less.
However, there will be case when this does not work in Singapore. Many Singaporeans may find it a chore to haul a cab or run after the public transports, they would just stay in this way – drive their own cars. To many Singaporeans, driving their private cars would mean that they can go to their destinations at one go. Singaporeans living in a cosy city here would not want to squeeze in the bus with the city dwellers. They prefer their own private cars. Some people refuse to take public transports because they are some public figures and they do not want to expose their identity in the public transport. Some may owe cars due to the inaccessibility of their working places.
I think that the government can encourage its people to take the public transport by limiting the number of cars sold. The car ownership should be reviewed so that people do not get a car easily. These can help in bringing down the number of cars on the road. Thus reducing global warming and prevents traffic jam.
In view of the global warming, many countries are doing their part to conserve the environment. The main problem of global warming is the emission of carbon dioxide, a poisonous gas evolved from the burning of fuels. In car engines, petroleum burnt to produce carbon dioxide. This contributes to the amount of carbon dioxide in the air, ultimately, the result of global warming.
Global warming brings only harm to the people. It affects people’s health by increasing the global climate. People may even diagnose with skin cancer if expose to too much sunlight. Increase the global climate means that in general, countries near the equator will face problem of drought while countries near the brim of the world will encounter floods. Glaciers and icebergs will melt, causing an increase in sea level. Many small islands may even submerged. This brings disaster to the world.
To minimize cars in Singapore, is that possible? Yes, ii think that if everyone tries to take public forms of transport, like buses and the mass rapid transmit [MRT], the number of vehicles on the road would be brought down.
In my own opinions, I think that Singapore government should exercise the “no-car-day” more often, for instance, once a month, instead of the currently once a year. In this way, it does not only help in reducing the emission of carbon dioxide, but also prevents any traffic congestion in the near future. It is predicted that by the year 2020, Singapore would be clogged. If the cars in Singapore are arranged in bumper to bumper, it is estimated that it may stretch all the way to Beijing, China. This is breathtaking, are we sure we are going to live in a place like this where there’s no room for pedestrians; we have to squeeze our way out through the vehicles lying on the roads. How would this look like?
To solve the urgent problem of global warming, we should do our little part to conserve the earth. We can help in reducing the usage of plastic bags and anything that can cause the emission of carbon dioxide.
Cutting down on the usage of vehicles in Singapore would be an effective way. Singapore has always set high standards in managing the car populations here. She has won many countries’ compliments. In Singapore, her people have received top education and know what the root to global warming is. They would of course do their part to prevent global warming, if not, at least reduce the emission of carbon dioxide. Singapore has a well established transport network system. Getting the commuters from places to places within minutes means more people are willing to give up their own cars to board the public transports. If more and more people are willing to do that, I am sure there will be one day Singapore goes car-less.
However, there will be case when this does not work in Singapore. Many Singaporeans may find it a chore to haul a cab or run after the public transports, they would just stay in this way – drive their own cars. To many Singaporeans, driving their private cars would mean that they can go to their destinations at one go. Singaporeans living in a cosy city here would not want to squeeze in the bus with the city dwellers. They prefer their own private cars. Some people refuse to take public transports because they are some public figures and they do not want to expose their identity in the public transport. Some may owe cars due to the inaccessibility of their working places.
I think that the government can encourage its people to take the public transport by limiting the number of cars sold. The car ownership should be reviewed so that people do not get a car easily. These can help in bringing down the number of cars on the road. Thus reducing global warming and prevents traffic jam.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)