The Global Village

1
The Global Village
An Interconnected World
2
Marshall McLuhan
The Canadian who introduced the term Global
Village

• Key Concepts
• technology is making the world seem smaller
• we know more about what is going on in other
  parts of the world much more quickly
• trade and transportation has become much
  easier and more efficient

3
Communication

• Telephones
• Cell Phones

• Internet spread of information (literature,
  news, arts, sports, etc.)
• Media Television, Radio

4
Goods, Foods, Travel

• We eat foods from all over the World.
• We wear clothing and shoes produced in other
  countries.
• We drive cars made in foreign countries.
• We are able to travel around the World in a
  matter of days.

5
Interconnectedness
The decisions and events in our country affect
the lives of people in other countries, just as
the decisions and events in other countries
affect us. For Example The War in Iraq has
increased the World oil prices and our gas has
become more expensive. Therefore less people are
driving large vehicles, taxis and public
transportation have become more expensive, and
they have a greater demand on them.
6
Where were your clothes made?

• Take a look at the labels in your clothing and
  in those of the people sitting around you.
• Label all of the places on the map and draw
  lines showing how you think they got to the point
  of purchase.

7
Pros and Cons of Globalization MINUSES--
Millions of Americans have lost jobs due to
imports or production shifts abroad. Most find
new jobs--that pay less.-- Millions of others
fear losing their jobs, especially at those
companies operating under competitive
pressure.-- Workers face pay-cut demands from
employers, which often threaten to export
jobs.-- Service and white-collar jobs are
increasingly vulnerable to operations moving
offshore.-- U.S. employees can lose their
comparative advantage when companies build
advanced factories in low-wage countries, making
them as productive as those at home. PLUSES--
Productivity grows more quickly when countries
produce goods and services in which they have a
comparative advantage. Living standards can go up
faster.-- Global competition and cheap imports
keep a lid on prices, so inflation is less likely
to derail economic growth.-- An open economy
spurs innovation with fresh ideas from
abroad.-- Export jobs often pay more than other
jobs.-- Unfettered capital flows give the U.S.
access to foreign investment and keep interest
rates low.
8

• Globalization is an integration soon to happen in
  this 21st century. But this fast approaching
  concept is seen in two different views.
  Globalization can be seen as a sign of a hopeful
  future by some. By others this is a disaster for
  the world economy. Many experts argue for and
  against this new move in the economy. Both groups
  are standing their ground to protect their own
  beliefs towards the future. 
• To fully understand globalization one must look
  at its definition first. 
• Globalization simply means freedom of movement
  for goods and people, and it is hard to be
  violently hostile to that. But behind this fight
  lies an older and more fundamental
  struggleagainst economic liberalization, and
  against the chief representative thereof, which
  is the United States. (Revel) 
• This term has become a common word within the
  last few decades. Although the term is a new one,
  the concept has been around for a while. This is
  a coming event and some people are looking
  forward to the coming events. Others fear and
  protest away from it. Some even see it as a
  defining point soon to come to change our lives.
  The restructuring of our political and economic
  life due to globalization may be as significant a
  process as the industrial revolution. (Danaher)
  The next industrial revolution is a big shoe to
  fill. But a globalized economy would definitely
  make for big and possibly better changes. 

9

• The debates are strong and fierce for and against
  globalization. To take a look closer at this, we
  view the pros and cons of globalization itself.
  According to an April 200 issue of Business Week
  these are the most common Pros and Cons. 
• Pros- Viewing both the Productivity grows more
  quickly when countries produce goods and services
  in which they have a comparative advantage.
  Living standards can go up faster. - Global
  competition and cheap imports keep a lid on
  prices, so inflation is less likely to derail
  economic growth. - An open economy spurs
  innovation with fresh ideas from abroad. -
  Export jobs often pay more than other jobs. -
  Unfettered capital flows give the U.S. access to
  foreign investment and keep interest rates low.
  (Baker) 
• The Pros for globalization show that prices will
  be kept at one set price and that money will be
  quickly made by all. That help with foreign
  countries could also speed up technology as well.
  Technology could help the underdeveloped
  countries in the long run, and help everyone
  overall economically. 
• Cons - Millions of Americans have lost jobs due
  to imports or production shifts abroad. Most find
  new jobs - that pay less. - Millions of others
  fear losing their jobs, especially at those
  companies operating under competitive pressure.
  - Workers face pay-cut demands from employers,
  which often threaten to export jobs. - Service
  and white-collar jobs are increasingly vulnerable
  to operations moving offshore. - U.S. employees
  can lose their comparative advantage when
  companies build advanced factories in low-wage
  countries, making them as productive as those at
  home. (Baker)
• The Con list shows that the concerns are that
  smaller businesses will be put out of business by
  larger ones. Also stating that only the
  white-collar or richer people will be making a
  benefit in the changes. 
• Both pro and cons list make good points and only
  time will tell to see which ones will be found to
  be correct. But this does not stop either side
  from moving forward and fighting for their cause.
  Especially the anti-globalist whom are fighting
  against this transformation towards
  globalization. 

10

• The Anti-globalist groups stand hard against the
  changes in their countries to make sure
  globalization does not happen. Starting in the
  early days of the 1970s and of the simple
  protests. These protests often featured an Uncle
  Sam in a Stars-and-Stripes costume as their
  supreme scapegoat. The anti -groups seem to
  think the United States represented the ultimate
  view of capitalism, one of their biggest fears.
  But the simple protests have stopped and as more
  time progresses and more things are changing,
  their acts have become more violent. 
• Todays anti-globalists are much more than false
  prophets. Their violence has gone far beyond
  legitimate protest into real savagery. They have
  killed people through charming acts like bombing
  McDonalds restaurants. In Seattle, Nice, Genoa,
  and other cities, rioters destroyed millions of
  dollars worth of property and attacked officials
  and police. Anti-globalists have tried to replace
  democracy with despotism of the mob, advancing
  the brutal proposition that street demonstrators
  are more legitimate than elected governments.
  Wherever they have been active, their goal has
  been to prevent elected heads of state or
  appointed officials of international
  organizations from meeting. Like other
  totalitarians, they treat the mere __expression
  of ideas contrary to their slogans as a crime.
  (Revel) Their violent protests have only but a
  damper into the production pushing forward
  globalization. 

11

• The Anti-globalist groups stand hard against the
  changes in their countries to make sure
  globalization does not happen. Starting in the
  early days of the 1970s and of the simple
  protests. These protests often featured an Uncle
  Sam in a Stars-and-Stripes costume as their
  supreme scapegoat. The anti -groups seem to
  think the United States represented the ultimate
  view of capitalism, one of their biggest fears.
  But the simple protests have stopped and as more
  time progresses and more things are changing,
  their acts have become more violent. 
• Todays anti-globalists are much more than false
  prophets. Their violence has gone far beyond
  legitimate protest into real savagery. They have
  killed people through charming acts like bombing
  McDonalds restaurants. In Seattle, Nice, Genoa,
  and other cities, rioters destroyed millions of
  dollars worth of property and attacked officials
  and police. Anti-globalists have tried to replace
  democracy with despotism of the mob, advancing
  the brutal proposition that street demonstrators
  are more legitimate than elected governments.
  Wherever they have been active, their goal has
  been to prevent elected heads of state or
  appointed officials of international
  organizations from meeting. Like other
  totalitarians, they treat the mere __expression
  of ideas contrary to their slogans as a crime.
  (Revel) Their violent protests have only but a
  damper into the production pushing forward
  globalization. 

12

• The biggest fear of the anti-globalist is
  capitalism taking over. The simplistic article
  of Marxist faith that capitalism is absolute
  evil, and that it is incarnated in and directed
  (Revel) America is often seen as something most
  countries do not want to achieve. The
  anti-globalists want to dominate and destroy the
  ways of the United States. The anti-globalist
  want to destroy liberal democracy and
  free-market economics. (Revel) They want to
  continue on with their old ways of living,
  despite its conditions. 
• The anti-globalist believe globalization will
  make the poor even poorer and the rich even more
  rich. Their fear is that this will be caused by a
  major loss of jobs due to the competitive nature
  the global factor will make and to lower paying
  countries getting their jobs. The fear of little
  nations being completely ruled and dominated by
  the more industrial nations such as the United
  States, Russia, and Japan, is also a fear they
  have. 
• But many argue that the anti-globalist have no
  facts to prove their points. The anti-globalist
  have no ambition to advance a program by
  democratic means, for the simple reason that they
  dont have a program, or coherent ideas, or facts
  on their side. So instead they beat relentlessly
  on the archaic anti-capitalist and anti-American
  drum. (Revel) They are often seen as more
  anti-American then anti-globalization. 

13

• But besides the fact that the anti-globalist seem
  like a group of rebels or just anti-Americans,
  their points are practical and idealistic. In
  their eyes, globalization stands for capitalism,
  job loss, and the rich only becoming more in
  power. This is a probably outcome for
  globalization. 

14

• Before the dawn of the 21st century, the debate
  over globalization was largely confined to the
  halls of academia.
• That changed in November 1999, when massive
  protests erupted during a World Trade
  Organization summit in Seattle. By the end of the
  session, there had been 600 arrests and an
  estimated 3 million in property damage.
• The new debate over globalization has brought
  people out onto the streets, said Anthony
  Giddens, director of the London School of
  Economics and Political Science, who delivered
  the Zellerbach Distinguished Lecture as a guest
  of the School of Social Welfare Oct. 25. It is
  no longer a debate about whether it exists. Its
  more about the consequences of it being here.
• Were the events of September 11 one such
  consequence?
• Globalization is not an out there phenomenon,
  as if some external forces are at work. September
  11 showed that its an in here phenomenon,
  said Giddens. With interdependence comes
  vulnerability, a shift in our institutions, our
  emotions, our anxiety something that, as a
  European citizen, I am very familiar with.
  Giddens believes the globalization debate is
  the most important dialogue taking place in the
  social sciences today. It is a debate that
  shapes what form the century will assume, what
  society will assume, he said.
• The first major conversation about globalization
  took place between the mid-1980s and the
  mid-1990s, when academics debated whether the
  world was changing. It was a debate between the
  advocates of change and those who were skeptical
  of it, said Giddens, a social theorist who has
  written 35 books published in more than 30
  languages.
• Weve accumulated evidence that shows the
  skeptics were wrong. In the last three decades,
  changes have been more profound and comprehensive
  than ever imagined, he said.
• Today, he said, there is only a partial
  understanding of globalization on either side of
  the debate the international institutions like
  the World Bank, who are promoting globalization,
  and the people in the streets, who question the
  enterprise.
• They only think about it as an economic
  phenomenon, he said. Granted, economic
  globalization is accelerating at a rapid rate.
  More than 2 trillion are turned over every day
  in world currency markets. Weve seen an
  acceleration of economic interdependence. But
  globalization is also social, political and
  cultural, driven by the communications
  revolution.
• Besides expansion of the marketplace and global
  communications, Giddens said globalization was
  fueled by the end of the Cold War, an era when
  divisions between nations were more clearly
  established.
• Today, globalizations opponents argue that
  corporations have too much power in the world.
• A world run by corporations is not a democracy
  when you have expansion of commercialism and
  dominance of corporate power. There is some
  validity to that, Giddens said. But the idea
  that corporations are equivalent to nations is
  false. Nations control territory, laws and
  military power. They have the power to regulate
  what corporations do.Global inequality is part
  of the debate as well. The division between the
  rich and poor grows, and they believe it benefits
  rich countries at the expense of poor countries.
• But they need to take into consideration not
  only income inequality, he said, but also many
  other factors such as education, health care and
  womens rights.
• Giddens concluded his talk with a warning against
  isolationism If a country lurches toward
  protectionism and isolation, its not a good
  thing.

15
References http//www.biblehelp.org http//www.wy
ndham.com/corporate/technology/main www.webcom.com
/duane/global.html http//www.graphics.jsonline.co
m www.iliumsoft.com/site/fg/dw_pix.htm www.triplep
late.com www.last-bid.com