Globalization is way more prejudicial for third world countries than it is beneficial.

First of, I didn't mean for this debate to be misleading. But I did have to mention the moral part of this issue because I know how unfair it is from first-hand experience. I was born in Colombia and I have seen how super powers have destroyed third world countries' economies. Let's start with your argument in which you state that 47 cents an hour is better than no money at all. You are right, and I'm definitely not afraid to admit it. But when you say "[...] but the economy is better, and the people have some sort of fighting chance, which they may not have had before." that, I have to disagree with. You see, you make it sound like (and correct me if I'm wrong)globalization has given the people of 3rd world countries a better life because they can at least earn some money no matter how little it is. However, globalization, as I have mentioned before, is led by developed countries which have injured those 3rd world economies so much to the point that those people have absolutely no choice but to work for multinational companies which developed countries own. This is how it works, developed countries lend money to developing countries claiming they want to help their economy. This borrowing of money is done through organizations like the World Bank, the WTO and the IMF, which are led, again, by super powers. Now, in order for poor countries to borrow such money they have to agree with developed countries dictating how that money should be spent to the point where they often choose the minimum wage. Naturally, developed countries will will impose measures that benefit them. Now the developed nation has control of that country's economy, this is when local economy starts going down hill. It's at this time when the super power starts "trading" with the poor country and building more ramifications of huge multinational companies there. What that does is erase local businesses from the map thus doing away with millions of jobs provided by such businesses, this is when the workers have NO choice than to work for the huge foreign companies where the conditions are not advantageous at all, because of the problems initiated by the countries which own those huge companies. So you see, globalization cannot be the good guy pretending to rescue people from starvation by giving the sweatshop jobs, when it was the leaders of globalization that started the problem in the first place. Now this is where my first-hand experience comes in. These are more specific examples. For years now the U.S. has tried to establish a free trade treaty with countries in Latin America such as Colombia. If that treaty is approved the U.S. would be able to choose the terms. This would allow the U.S. to impose huge companies such as pharmaceutical companies which would largely increase the cost of medicine which is very affordable right now. Another case is to impose huge quantities of clothes which are of lower quality but could still be sold and would do away with one of the best textile industries in the world not to mention thousands of jobs. These are just some of the conditions of that treaty, but there are many more which have made it very unpopular of course. Furthermore, it is because of treaties like this one that have been aproved in poor countries in Asia and Africa that their economies are now under the control of super powers. A very dangerous way in which globalization has aided trade is the selling of weapons. Such is the case of countries like Nicaragua, Honduras and El Salvador where the U.S. sold weapons to the government as well as to the opposition which had a lot to do with this huge war that completely destroyed these countries' economies. Now, the U.S. is definitely not the only country that sells arms of course, but it sells the most. This is all due to trade between developing countries and profit-hungry industries which is a the key component of globalization. These reasons and many more are why globalization cannot claim to be the savior of poor countries if it is one of the main reasons why they are in such a bad state to begin with. Now, to get a little off track...I would like to thank my opponent in this last round. We have completely different points of view, but after all that's what makes debates so interesting.