While capitalism is prevailing in the modern society, the issue on whether an amoral profit driven capitalist system is good for the society or not has been raised. Some believe that an amoral capitalist system is the best way to organize individuals together to serve the society. However, others argue that a amoral capitalist system will harm the society instead of benefit it. In this essay, I will be presenting the view of two neoclassical economists, Ricky Griffin and Adam Smith, who support the idea on the amoral capitalism is good for the society. I will also discuss the opposing view presented by Arthur Miller that suggests a profit drive, amoral capitalist system will do harm to a society .
In this essay I will discuss Globalization ruining the integrity of many countries and also is forcing many undeveloped nations into a bind, and is causing economic distress on some developed nations. Also, due to economic globalization the nations of the world are diluting their culture, sovereignty, natural resources, safety and political system. My goal is not to change your way of thought, but only to enlighten you of the negatives of global economic expansion. Now, before I bash globalization it is some positive I would like to discuss. Globalization is great for the American economy; we can supply the world with our goods and services, which in turn can possible, relieve the deficit we’re in.
Proponents of globalization put forward that the benefits of free trade out weigh the costs. International investment and trade have been the machines that drive growth and development... ... middle of paper ... ...developing nations it is the nation's lower standards of labor that make globalization possible and indeed profitable. Allowing a company to pay a laborer a fraction of what his counterpart would be paid in a developed nation. Globalization has a tremendous amount of support as well as a tremendous amount of opposition. While multinational companies tend to push for globalization and therefore higher profit margins, opponents work hard to make sure that developing nations are not taken advantage of in the process.
The world enjoys harmony due to thriving relationships derived from the formation of a global economy, as seen through the interdependence of nations, and free trade. If economies are intertwined with each other through trade, this form of economic interdependence promotes security and stability. A country would not go to war with another that they are trading with (Wong, Jan 6). Professor Wong of University of Toronto claims, this is a positive sum game and by not cooperating, a country going against the majority will lose. The idea of collecti... ... middle of paper ... ...unity to trade in order to reach their full potential to flourish economically (List 49).
In today’s global economy, free trade and globalization are deeply intertwined. Globalization makes free trade possible and vice versa. It is beyond doubt that as time goes by the speed at which international integration is increasing and reduction of barriers to free trade are decreasing have gone up. While there is some resistance against the forces of globalization and free trade (McMaken, 2016), most nations have come to accept it as a reality of the modern era. This large scale acceptance is generally regarded as progress towards a world with less conflict.
This is only said because the world is emerging into a global economy that blurs national law and dries countries of their resources. In this world corporations can move their operations to any country they want with no loyalty to that nation, only in the interest of their profits. Some corporations such a Nike even go as far as using a country broken political system to rig the market and rob the workers of their rights. As Nike became more wealthy and powerful, they decided that the American political standard was not working in its favor. Thus they decided that moving operations to countries with below minimum wage and nonunions, such as Vietnam; could help them make as much profit while essentially robbing citizens of their democratic birth rights.
Those living in poverty have few options and must embrace any deal that keeps them from the point of starvation. While the rich have many options and can choose those that’ll increase their profit rate, in other words... ... middle of paper ... .... Perkins believes people should protest against companies that exploit desperate people in sweatshops, demonstrating equality amongst people of different classes. Indeed, while there is conspicuous economic gain in the U.S., grassroots boycott can affect the approach of multinational corporations by eschewing products that are made by exploited workers and avail reduce self-eradication of the overall global imperil. These acts John Perkins presented, which include: cutting back on shopping and oil consumption,seek truth in every government related topic, and the awareness of products that weren’t made here in the U.S. Through the purchases you make everyday, a consumer creates an economy where child labor and sweatshops cease to exist, also having the power to influence and control great companies.
For example, when the bourgeois cuts employment because of technology, the bourgeois hurts society by "…instead of rising the laborers with the progress of industry, sinks them deeper below the conditions of existence of their own class... ... middle of paper ... ...both of their ideas. They seem to use similar methods, using logical statements to convey their points that seem to very much contrast each other. Marx’s philosophies deal with improving society for the better to reach industrial prosperity while Smith believes that the incentives of a free market will allow this happen and that human nature will cause Marx’s theory to fail. In the end both men want one common goal which is the best possible economic system for society because both realize that economics is single greatest controller of the major aspects of society. Bibliography: Works Cited Page Marx, Karl.
Naomi Klein’s No Logo states that corporations have been championing globalization using the reasons that globalization allows U.S. consumers to benefit from cheaper products produced abroad, while developing nations benefit from the economic growth stimulated by foreign investments. The generally accepted belief is that governmental policies should be established in favor of the corporations to facilitate the trickling down of corporate profits to the end consumers and workers abroad. Klein, however, contends that globalization rarely benefit the workers in the developing countries. Corporations seek out countries with cheap labor forces to lower their production costs. Consequently, they will engage in practices, such as banning labor unions and selecting a passive labor force, which frequently consists of young women, to ensure their policies on low wages are met with little or no resistance.
Michael Moore used comical tactics as a way to appeal to his audience in this piece of literature. Michael Moore’s argument is that capitalism is destroying the nation’s economy rather than helping to develop it. The poor are suffering, while the richer are getting richer. The arguments that Moore used may not be considered tangible by all, but he definitely did have the evidence to support his argument. Michael Moore purpose was to expose this ground breaking issue of the dominance of corporate America through video.