Globalisation


The term “globalisation” has been an open and broad topic of debate in particularly today’s modern society. The term globalisation means, the process to which countries intervene with others providing money for either goods or services. But the word has been captured by many multinational corporations, and using it to their advantage. Many activists claim that this is hurting other developing countries, who are being exploited by. However, if one is aware of the good that comes out of globalisation, they will respect the people who use it. There is no denying it, it is a good thing, but only when enforced properly.


Australia, is here as a result of globalisation and foreign investment. It was in Port Jackson, of the year 1788, when the ‘First Fleet’ arrived. With them came construction, agriculture, live stock and government infrastructure. Although, of course they also brought with them diseases, greed and also a sense of disrespect for the aborigines and their sacred land. But people need to look beyond all that, Australia is a vast continent, with multiple purposes. It would be a waste of much useful and needed land to have let it stay idle, and as such, we cannot forget the medical purposes the land of Australia provides the human race with.


People may argue that the aborigines and many other indigenous people of third world developing nations are being disadvantaged by globalisation. Whereas, on the contrary, experience shows us that open markets, trade liberalisation (removal of tariffs and other barriers), and economic growth which has been facilitated by these countries, is boosting the living standards of the world’s poor. It has been researched that, in the twentieth century, the poorest quarter of the world’s population became almost three times richer. Economic growth is seen as the best way to dispose of poverty.


A constant claim made against globalisation, is that it is making the world’s rich, richer and the world’s poor, poorer. As we see with the case of Africa, there have not been much success in the sub-Saharan territory, where poverty is worsening. This worsening of poverty is a result of war, corruption or maladministration. All these factors have restricted Africa to participate and open up their markets to the good globalisation has to offer.


There are many activists in developed countries seeking to alert governments , and multinational corporations of the current state of these developing countries. These demonstrations such as, M1 and S11 are organised via the Internet otherwise known as the “World” Wide Web, its members fly the one “World” airline network to get to anti-globalisation rallies, and they organise demonstrations for “world” wide television coverage. Even though anti-globalisationists are against most, if not all things got to do with glonalisation, why are they using technology which is a result of foreign investment? So in a sense they are hypocritical to what they believe in, so why do they continue? This is easy to contemplate. They need to use globalisation’s riches to survive in today’s highly technological world.


These people continue to try and alert the public that inequality is rising in our world. A child born is Australia will have an income 74 times that of a child born in a least developed country. Forty years ago that gap stood at 30 to 1, 100 years ago it was 11 to 1. This happened because during those 40 years developing countries didn’t have foreign investment, whereas developed nations did. In a sense, they were ahead of everyone else were behind at the time. This opened up their doors to the new technology , new ideas and more wealth building opportunities. Australia has learned that Japan is ahead in the race of better technology, so to keep up, Australia have previously begun importing more goods from them. This is why Japan is currently Australia’s major importing destination.


In the end, people constantly claim that the workers in the factories that are being employed by multinational corporations are being paid poor wages. But on the contrary, people may find that for these workers it is better than their previous conditions. Being stricken by poverty, they have no wage, but being employed regardless of the wage is an increase in their personal wealth. By the same token, workers are