A topic that I found interesting was from this last weeks reading on Political Globalization. In Joseph E. Stiglitz article titled "Globalism's Discontents", he claimed that globalism itself doesn't have any problems, there are just problems with how it is being managed across the globe. He stated an example that included the IMF, or the International Monetary Fund, in which a third-world country borrowed 100 million dollars from the United States. In order to receive these funds however, the countries government must put aside the same amount in order to lend it to the U.S. On top of that, the money that is being borrowed must be paid back with interest. This is where globalism doesn't work. The United States is cashing in, but those who actually need the money in order to expand their infrastructure and education systems are put even farther in the hole. This also got me thinking about how the United States has often used less developed countries and their workers in order to fulfill their own needs, even though the other country may not benefit nearly as much. From a market standpoint, the U.S. is using Mexico as a means of selling their products for less than it takes to make them. In another reading about political globalization, Tina Rosenberg spoke of how American grown agricultural products are ruining the Mexican farming business. With enhanced technology and new methods to maximize production, Americans are able to produce goods on a grand scale without using many resources. Let's say the U.S. wanted to grow wheat. They could grow a massive ton of wheat in a short amount of time in a state-of-the-art megafarm in the U.S. Producing in large quantities would be cheap for the U.S., cheap enough to where they could undercut all of the local farmers in Mexico. The Mexican farmers are forced to sell for dirt cheap, or face the consequences. This lack of capital flowing through industries across the world just goes to show how holding developing countries to the globalized standard can be detrimental to their growth.

The other day in class, we watched clips of what it is like to work overseas for massive corporations like Walmart.  These videos specifically looked at working conditions in Bangladesh,  and all I could think of was United States capitalism.  United States capitalism is a strange beast, one that allows Americans to shop cheap, while those who create those products are kept from even the most basic things that most of us take for granted. Americans whine all the time about an 8 hour work day, but what if they themselves were forced to slave away for 15 to 20 hours a day, seven times a week? Some say that the American dream is made possible through plenty of hard work and grit, but is the American dream actually made possible by those slaving away overseas? We could not live the way we do without someone else struggling to make ends meet, so even though global capitalism makes it possible for us at home to live in luxury, I believe it is ruining developing countries by working young people to death in factories that are not suitable to sustain general wellbeing. In a society that places profits and personal gain over the lives of those that work hard to give Americans rock-bottom prices, one might ask if a change needs to be made or not. If massive corporations like Walmart could simply take a break on their profits, they could invest in overseas production, make factories safer and cleaner to keep people healthy, and pay the damn workers a little more than what they are currently, and the U.S. could keep their prices low and improve the lives of millions of workers who make the entire operation possible. Why hasn't this happened already? Because of profits, and capitalism.

Something that really piqued my interest this week was a reading, specifically Thomas Friedman and his article about how the world is flat. That really is an interesting way to look at globalization, one that I can agree with in some ways and disagree in others. Our world has become somewhat streamlined, and certain things are easier to access than ever before.  Our world has become streamlined  especially in the realm of global commerce and global economy. There are many areas of the world that greatly benefit from this sort of thing. Countries like the United States, Canada, and China, just to name a few, are able to seamlessly trade and transfer capital in the blink of an eye. Thus, Thomas Friedman has made the claim that the world is flat. Certain economies are benefitting, but what are the implications for those countries dealing with severe economic disparities? Pankaj Ghemawat challenged Friedman and his argument about the world being flat in his article "Why the World Isn't Flat". This is also where I start to disagree with Friedman. Although certain areas of the world are thriving in many different ways, others are struggling. Friedman only took into account the global superpowers of this world and left out all else. The world is not as globalized as it seems, and to assume the world is flat from merely an eeconomic standpoint leaves much to be discussed. What causes these disparities in ease of access to resources, how are some countries more globalized than others, and how can one talk about globalization without including every aspect of our globe? These are just a few questions that I would like to learn more about in the coming weeks, and hopefully we can all come to a consensus on a globalized world that benefits all.