On balance, economic globalization benefits worldwide poverty reduction

Let's begin. Framework (a framework is basically a criteria for who wins the round. My opponent can attack this if he likes): Since the resolution is specific to economic globalization, the Pro must prove that, on balance, economic globalization is the main factor in poverty reduction. C1: Dependency Theory If economic globalization was able to be achieved and big countries were to expand, it could result in major economic problems in poor countries. Dependency theory is the idea that resources flow from poor countries to wealthy countries, providing the rich countries with resources at the expense of the poor. This is expounded on by The Development Economics Reader[1], which says that poor countries export primary commodities to the rich countries who then manufacture products out of those commodities and sell them back to the poorer countries. The "Value Added" by manufacturing a usable product always costs more than the primary commodities used to create those products. Therefore, poorer countries are never earning enough from their export earnings to pay for their imports. Economic globalization would not solve this problem; in fact, it could exacerbate it by raising the wealthy higher, therefore requiring more resources from poor countries. This would suck the money out of poor countries even faster than it is right now, and would not help the impoverished people living there. C2: Economic Globalization Failure If a country with a stronger economy crashes, then the repercussions are much more severe than they would be if there was not a global economy. A perfect example of economic globalization failure is the Great Depression. During the time before the Great Depression, the United States economically crashed and then dragged the rest of the world after it. The number of unemployed people reached an all-time high of 12,830,000 people. International trade fell 30% because of the Great Depression. This demonstrates the unsafe and unstable nature of economic globalization. Digital History says, “In contrast to the relatively brief economic "panics" of the past, the Great Depression dragged on with no end in sight. As the depression deepened, it had far-reaching political consequences. One response to the depression was military dictatorship--a response that could be found in Argentina and in many countries in Central America. Western industrialized countries cut back sharply on the purchase of raw materials and other commodities. The price of coffee, cotton, rubber, tin, and other commodities dropped 40 percent. The collapse in raw material and agricultural commodity prices led to social unrest, resulting in the rise of military dictatorships that promised to maintain order[2]. ” Dictatorships are very bad for the economy because over time, the dictator’s interests shift from national interests to personal interests. “The longer a dictator is in power, the worse the economic performance,” concludes economic historian Jan Luiten van Zanden from Utrecht University[3]. North Korea is a perfect example of this; it has been under a dictatorship for years and the economy is terrible[4]. Having economic failure is not good for impoverished people. C3: Dependence on Equality Even if my opponents can prove that here are benefits of economic globalization, the benefits would only follow our framework if the country concerned actually has an effective system for distribution of wealth. Many of the benefits of economic globalization are false positives. In a lecture from the MIT department of economics they stated that the “Countries that are rich for other reasons might trade more because they can afford to import more goods from overseas. Countries that pursue sound economic policies (i. e. , that raise income) may also choose to pursue trade (another sound economic policy). Countries that are rich in natural resources may trade because there is high world demand for their goods, but it may be their rich endowments that account for their wealth, not trade per se[5]. ” Therefore, the alleged benefits of economic globalization are not, in fact, due to trade. Instead, poverty is reduced by sound economic policies, which lead to economic globalization; i. e. economic globalization is not the cause of poverty reduction. C4 : Distribution Failure Economic globalization makes the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer. Only large companies can afford to act with an international capability, and as such, only they can reap the benefits. All the other companies that cannot are forced to compete with a company that can outsource its labor at ridiculously low rates, and forces smaller businesses out of the market. A UN paper by David Woodward and Andrew Simms says: “In effect, the global growth model amounts to sacrificing the environment on which we all depend for our very survival to give yet more to those who already have too much, in the hope that a few more crumbs will fall from the rich man’s table. The scale of growth this model would require to eradicate poverty--surely our ultimate goal--would generate unsupportable environmental costs, which would fall disproportionately and counterproductively on the poorest, rendering the process self-defeating[6]. ”In conclusion, economic globalization does not decrease worldwide poverty reduction because of dependency theory, the fact that economic globalization increases global economic instablility, you can't pin down poverty reduction to economic globalization, and if economic globalization does increase nationwide income, it all goes to the already rich. [1] - . https://www.mtholyoke.edu...[2] - . http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu...[3] - . http://www.rnw.org...[4] - . http://www.vox.com...[5] - . http://ocw.mit.edu...[6] - . http://www.un.org...