Globalisation on China.... (1 Viewer)

[adrian597]

MY question is discuss the impact of globalisation on China... should be about 500 words... What is it other then inequality, environmental pollution.....

 

[gnrlies]

MY question is discuss the impact of globalisation on China... should be about 500 words... What is it other then inequality, environmental pollution.....

Why do you instinctfully go for the negatives?

China is by far the fastest growing major economy on the planet. Theres a starting point.

 

[z600]

growth, political structure, social stability, technology, labour, financial system, monetary/fiscal policy, inflation, unemployment, education.....and many many more

 

[leisl1990]

i think u should mainly focus on trade
say something about its huge trade surplus.

 

[Satiric]

i agree.
talk bout its huge trading. trade surplus of 2.5% in the last yrs or something along those lines.
FDIs have massively increased. it is now the top recipient of foreign investment in the world overtaking china in 2003 due to its cheap labour. double check on that.
yea go on to growth, development, income inequality, inflation and enviroment.

 

[gnrlies]

Spend about 250 on positives and 250 on negatives. If it were me I would for positives talk about trade flows and the benefit of this on the GDP and economic growth while for negatives I'd talk about the growth in inequality between urban and rurual provinces. Those are the two major impacts globalisation has had on China.

Just a note in general about globalisation and inequality.

Dont fall into the trap of thinking that inequality caused by globalisation is a bad thing. It just is how it is.

Most of the inequality (almost all) comes from one section of the community (usually urban as is the case in china) experiencing faster rates of growth than other parts (usually agriculture). This is just a consequence of structural change within an economy as agriculture tends to be a lower value added sector whereas manufacturing and services tend to be higher value added sector.

The average Chinese farmer is unlikely to be worse off. In fact they are more likely to be better off (as they will undoubtedly enjoy some of the benefits of faster economic growth in China). Its just that growth is not uniform. This is not unusual. No country who has experienced a similar revolution (e.g. the industrial revolution) has had completely uniform growth. But to say that positive, non-uniform growth its a negative simply for this reason is absurd.

If I had ten dollars in a room with twenty people and could only give one dollar to one in every two people, inequality would rise. But that doesn't mean it would be better for me to burn the ten dollar note in order to achieve some kind of uniform income.

It sickens me to think of all the undercover socialist teachers out there teaching this garbage. Whats worse is that the textbooks do not provide a clear enough explanation. They usually say that globalisation has increased inequality without assessing the nature of the inequality. Often the inequality results from a lack of globalisation, or the imposition of trade barriers (such as in the EU).