Walt friedman and nayan stephen composition
Excerpt coming from Essay:
Only $13.90 / page
Friedman also added that most of the countries which can be least globalized don’t trade in goods and services, pluralism or tolerance and ideas to countries simply because they have no opportunity to communicate freely or move freely without constraints nor maneuver their services and goods freely without being charged.
Friedman also states that the positive effect has its advantages and disadvantages but also for a country to succeed, it should strategy it with the obligation institutions and governance in order that it can get the best out of it. He also gives that those countries which have been successful have globalized sensibly but steadily and so they have wound up to open noteworthy.
Friedman as well added that in those countries which may have globalized, many people prefer to move faster even though some prefer to stage out foreign currency controls and subsidize slowly but surely leaving behind the west countries where some college students and academicians remain debating whether they should globalize or not really.
Friedman argues that the positive effect should be produced fairly by simply convincing the rich european countries to open their marketplaces of goods and services which the poor countries are best able to sell for case in point, food and textiles since most poor countries have got inadequate food supply.
I find Friedman’s argument persuasive seeing that globalization features so many results on the countries and the people of the world. Globalization is important for the country since goods from part of the region are able to proceed to the different part of the globe at an increased speed because of lack of tariff barriers which can slow down the activity of goods and services on the borders plus the export charge is not charged.
The biggest countries in the world such as India and Chinese suppliers have globalised and since globalization leads to economic interdependence, the speed of conflict in those countries have reduced being that they are able to interact with different people from different countries and share ideas, goods and services consequently improving their very own economy.
The positive effect has reduced movement of individuals from one spot of the world to a different whereby they are able to influence and stay influenced by different values. People surviving in the global community choose in which they wish to live with no anxiety about political outcomes and more flexibility is awarded to the consumer and local merchandise can be transferred to remote control areas. In global town understanding and tolerance are really valued since people get to know each other without interferences.
Alternatively I also find Jayan’s argument powerful in such a way that on this planet people live differently whereby others reside in world of legal tests in which the academic reformers, politicians, collect to assurance equality, rights, prosperity and security for everybody while others live in the world of realities where group of people consider powers inside their hands whereby they apply there upon visions which usually inflict violence, humiliation and death after majorities who have are weakened and have zero power to guard there rights.
Jones. L. Friedman, (2002). The positive effect, Alive and Well. Retrieved November eight, 2011 via http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/22/opinion/globalization-alive-and-well.html.
Bigardo Nayar, (2007). People’s Law: Decolonizing Legal Imagination. Gathered November eight
2011 coming from http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/law/elj/lgd/2007_1/nayar/
Sophie M. Walt (2010). Hawks, Doves and Realists. Gathered November eight, 2011 by http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/07/28/hawks_doves_and_realists