Globalisation’s Time is Up (The Guardian Weekly, 12-18 Aug. 2005), by James Howard Kunstler, starts off with a direct contradiction of Thomas Friedman’s statement, that globalisation1 is here to stay. Kunstler argues that globalization is not “a permanent fixture of the human condition” (1) and only persists under specific circumstances; the presence of “relative world peace” (1) and “reliable supplies of cheap energy” (1). The essay begins with Kunstler stating the premises for globalization’s stability and evolves into a superficial analysis of what Kunstler intends to be historically analogous examples. The audience is taken back to a productive phase of globalization (1870s-1914) as Kunstler illustrates a world possessing relative peace …show more content…
The audience must realize that the use of loaded-terms2 does not add to any reasoning of the argument, instead, emotional appeals reveal a passion for the topic and Kunstler’s passion is evident. He engages the audience through phrases like, “the dirty secret of the US economy” (7). In this example, the dirty secret is America’s heavy oil dependence (based on vast car-dependent suburban infrastructure). “Dirty secret” is a biased term because it implies that US oil dependency is shameful and concealed. For one, oil dependency isn’t present in the US alone, it’s depended upon by almost everyone in the world. Also, oil dependency cannot be shameful (as implied) because it’s one of Kunstler’s premises for globalization, “reliable supplies of cheap energy” (1). The term cheerleaders, in “significant that none of the cheerleaders of globalization takes this equation into account.” (2) can be worded as supporters, which is a more neutral term. Cheerleader hints at Kunstler’s own opinion, that implies supporters of globalization are mere performers. Again, when neutral wording is avoided, the unbiased logical reasoning of an argument disintegrates. “The sunset of the current phase of globalization seems dreadfully close to the horizon” (11) and “The American public has enjoyed the fiesta, but the blue-light special orgy … made by factory …show more content…
Within Globalisation’s Time is Up, there are many instances of over-generalized claims. For example, “The American suburban juggernaut can be described succinctly as the greatest misallocation of resources in the history of the world.” (8) There is truth to claiming that American suburban real estate is wasteful and overvalued, but claiming this industry to be the world’s greatest misallocation of resources is not easy to support. The degree to which a factual claim is true depends on reliable authority, recent evidence, accurate evidence, and no loaded terms, and here there is no reference to authority, no quantifiable evidence, and is full of loaded terms like “juggernaut” and “greatest” holding no ground in the argument. It may also be important to note that he does not mention any other great misallocations of resources like the American war on drugs or with Iraq, or wars in general. On another note, Kunstler claims exactly when globalization starts and stops quoting, “It fell apart in 1914, and a new round of globalization did not ramp up again until the mid-1960s.” (5) Kunstler isn’t an economist, and these topics are still debated upon amongst them, so how can Kunstler make it seem so easy to reveal when globalization starts and stops? It
Lisa Lowe’s introduction on the word “globalization” was interesting as it reminded me of the readings and lectures regarding colonization of the United States. Globalization is described conditions that increased economic, social, and political interdependence among people. The article allows for comparisons to be made with eighteenth century America. For example, the arrival of English colonists led to a change in the North American landscape. This could also be described as an invasion of native land as colonists felt the land belonged to them. Similarly, Globalization also mentions American invasion in the context of the conflicts against Afghanistan and Iraq. In addition, both seventeenth and twentieth century America appear to some effect
Kunstler begins to break down his general issue, the end of oil, into smaller conce...
When reading Virilio’s Crepuscular Dawn one must define each concept to fully grasp the theories proposed in his book. Virilio states “globalization is the world becoming too small, and not too big” (p. 89). For one to thoroughly evaluate this quote one must first understand: What is globalization and what does it involve? How does speed contribute to this occurrence? What is speed? How this lead to escape velocity? What does escape velocity entail? And finally, what does globalization lead to and what danger does it pose? Only after defining these terms can an individual discover is the world is becoming enclosed.
Regarding “The Age of Globalization” by Alan Brinkley I thought that the reading selection provides good details on timeline of significant events that significantly affected the global economy. The reading selection from the American History textbook starts off with a summary of event of September 11, 2001, and the role they played in the changes within global economy. On the next page we are presented with a timeline of events that will be described later in the reading selection. The purpose of this section is to illustrate how each of those events contributed to the world we live in today, particularly their influence on the global economy.
The world is ever changing and has been that way even before humans dominated Earth. However, what we are interested in for this topic is in the last few decades where globalization has had an impact in the early 21st century, making the world "flat". The phrase that the world has become flat is a metaphor for viewing the world level in terms of commerce and competition, meaning a level playing field where everyone has an equal opportunity. However, opinions are divided on how much globalization has actually impacted the world as a whole. Critics argue that Friedman’s term "flat" is grossly exaggerated as his view is from an American perspective. This paper investigates major arguments for both sides.
Welcome to college! You can only afford to maintain two of the next three options: adequate sleep, a social life, and good grades. In Dani Rodrik’s new book- The Globalization Paradox, a similar triangle is evinced. The author presents us with a “trilemma” consisting of Hyperglobalization, Democratic politics, and the Nation-State. You can efficiently balance two of these three triangle “corners”– but no more than two. Rodrik claims our current worldview on globalization is that the more of it- the merrier. Yet this is flawed thinking in the fact that bigger globalization isn’t necessarily better globalization, instead we need to strive for “smart” globalization over “maximum” globalization. Rodrik uses a vast amount of real world events, past and present theories, and statistics as evidence. In this essay I will first give a brief overview of Rodrik’s main argument and his evidence supporting it. Moreover, I will attempt to compare Rodrik’s argument(s) to Friedman’s. Finally, I will analyze the specific claim Rodrik makes (and one I found most interesting) concerning hyperglobalization’s hindrance on national democracies.
Globalization has several definitions, as Andrew McGrew underlines it. He uses four different ones in order to get a more complete definition. In this way globalization is defined as ‘the intensification of worldwide social relations which link distant localities in such a way that local happenings are shared by events occurring many miles away and vice versa’, ‘the integration of the world-economy’, the ‘de-territorialisation – or growth of supraterritorial relations between people’ and finally as ‘time-space compression’ (Giddens, 1990, p. 21, Gilpin, 2001, p. 364, Scholte, 2000, p. 46, Harvey, 1989, cited in Mc...
When the term “Globalization” is discussed, most academics, scholars, professionals and intellectuals attempt to define and interpret it in a summarized fashion. My main concern with this approach is that one cannot and should not define a process that altered decades of history and continues to, in less than 30 words. Global Shift is a book with remarkable insight. Peter Dicken rather than attempting to define the commonly misused word, explains Globalization in a clear and logical fashion, which interconnects numerous views. Dicken takes full advantage of his position to write and identify the imperative changes of political, economic, social, and technological dimensions of globalization.
In this essay I will give a detailed explanation of what sociologists mean by the term ‘globalisation’ and how they have tried to explain it.
Globalization is a broad concept and the angle taken to define it can lead us to interpret the idea in many different ways. There is much controversy about what globalization actually means and many definitions fail to encompass social, cultural and technological exchanges between world systems. John Pilger suggests that "it is a jargon term which journalists and politicians have made fashionable which is often used in a positive sense to denote a 'Global village' of free trade, hi-tech marvels and all kinds of possibilities that transcend class, historical experience and ideology." (J.Pilger 1998:63). Taking a broader point of view, Bilton et al defines globalization as "The process whereby political, social, economic and cultural relations increasingly take on a global scale, and which has profound consequences for individuals, local experiences and everyday lives."
...o we can achieve our dreams in life: “we are now living in a world where time and space don’t matter anymore” just like J.Mittleman said. Globalization as we just learned is relative, whether it’s an opportunity or an exploitation depends on where you sit and how you look at the world. Kent, J., Kinetz, E. & Whehrfritz, G. Newsweek. Bottom of the barrel. - The dark side of globalization (2008/March24). David, P. Falling of The Edge, Travels through the Dark Heart of Globalization..Nov 2008. (p62)
Over the last couple of years, the world has become increasingly globalized. After the cold war, all parts of the world were attracted to the process of globalization. The effect of globalization is uneven in different parts of the world and globalization suggests a world full of persistent cultural interaction and exchange, contacts and connection, mixture and movement. Different people view globalization in different ways. Some people feel it has done more good than harm, while others believe it has done more harm than good. This essay will give a deep intuitive understanding of globalization, world systems, and how globalization has affected society, culture, economics, and politics.
Stiglitz, Joseph (2005), “The Overselling of Globalization,” in Bradley A. Thayer, Nuray V. Ibrayomova (eds.), Debates in International Relations (New York: Longman), 86.
The start of globalization as we know it today came about in the 1980's, when Nestle decided to push its baby formula product in the global periphery. This led to improper nutrition for babies, as it was expensive and had to be watered down with un-sterile water, causing many deaths. Eventually Nestle was boycotted, because it cared only about making profits, and not the effects that it had upon the global periphery. It was now too late though, and the birth of globalization, headed by the trans-national corporations (TNC's) was in full swing. After the 1970's, when our world become more interdependent, the 1980's allowed for more intensification, and the driving factors of technology, international trade, and finance were facilitating globalization. The way in which globalization now operated economically was for the core countries to go into the periphery and exploit these countries for their cheap labor, abundance of primary goods, and lack of regulations. The TNC's would now ...
To complete a Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats (also known as SWOT) analysis presented to a developing country by globalisation, we must first understand the actual concept of globalisation itself. So how can we define this term? Joseph Stiglitz, a winner of the Nobel Prize defines Globalization as “the closer integration of the countries and peoples of the world ...brought about by the enormous reduction of costs of transportation and communication, and the breaking down of artificial barriers to the flows of goods, services, capital, knowledge, and people across borders.” Hence, we can understand that globalisation can be described as an expanding global marketplace for the trading of anything from transport of goods internationally,