Emma Tyler, Chapter 12, Question #7

After reading Chapter 12 of Naked Economics I learned an immense amount about globalization and world trade. I was not aware that some people were against globalization (so much as to actively protest and boycott items that support global trade). When it came up multiple times in the chapter that people were against globalization or for "antiglobalization," I wondered how they could think that global trade is bad. Wheelan then mentioned a Hooters restaurant in Puerta Vallarta, Mexico and a Starbucks in the Forbidden City in Beijing which can be described as "cultural homogenization." Wheelan acknowledges the idea of "cultural homogenization" but then quickly says it "may not be true anyway" because in America we can now watch Iranian movies from our Netflix accounts (286), so it goes both ways. Then Wheelan mentioned sweatshops, here I was sure he would not be able to find an upside to the horrible conditions underage workers had to endure for such little pay, however, he did! The workers are willing to accept such low pay because it is "better than any other option they have" (287). This would mean that in order to help the impoverished sweatshop workers, we, in more developed countries, should buy more from their sweatshops, increasing global trade so the underage workers are not forced to work even worse jobs or live, abandoned, on the streets, or worse be forced into human trafficking. After all these rebuttals to antiglobalization there seems to be no reason to be against globalization because of all the benefits it has the potential to give to all countries, both poor and rich alike.