Very few people, groups, or governm

Very few people, groups, or governments oppose globalization in its entirety. Instead, critics of globalization believe aspects of the way globalization operates should be changed. The debate over globalization is about what the best rules are for governing the global economy so that its advantages can grow while its problems can be solved.

On one side of this debate are those who stress the benefits of removing barriers to international trade and investment, allowing capital to be allocated more efficiently and giving consumers greater freedom of choice. With free-market globalization, investment funds can move unimpeded from where they are plentiful (the rich countries) to where they are most needed (the developing countries). Consumers can benefit from cheaper products because reduced tariffs make goods produced at low cost from faraway places cheaper to buy. Producers of goods gain by selling to a wider market. More competition keeps sellers on their toes and allows ideas and new technology to spread and benefit others.

On the other side of the debate are critics who see neoliberal policies as producing greater poverty, inequality, social conflict, cultural destruction, and environmental damage. They say that the most developed nations—the United States, Germany, and Japan—succeeded not because of free trade but because of protectionism and subsidies. They argue that the more recently successful economies of South Korea, Taiwan, and China all had strong state-led development strategies that did not follow neoliberalism. These critics think that government encouragement of “infant industries”—that is, industries that are just beginning to develop—enables a country to become internationally competitive.

Furthermore, those who criticize the Washington Consensus suggest that the inflow and outflow of money from speculative investors must be limited to prevent bubbles. These bubbles are characterized by the rapid inflow of foreign funds that bid up domestic stock markets and property values. When the economy cannot sustain such expectations, the bubbles burst as investors panic and pull their money out of the country.

Protests by what is called the antiglobalization movement are seldom directed against globalization itself but rather against abuses that harm the rights of workers and the environment. The question raised by nongovernmental organizations and protesters at WTO and IMF gatherings is whether globalization will result in a rise of living standards or a race to the bottom as competition takes the form of lowering living standards and undermining environmental regulation. One of the key problems of the 21st century will be determining to what extent markets should be regulated to promote fair competition, honest dealings, and fair distribution of public goods on a global scale

Kết quả (Việt) 1:

Rất ít người, nhóm hoặc chính phủ phản đối toàn cầu hóa toàn bộ. Thay vào đó, nhà phê bình của toàn cầu hóa tin các khía cạnh của quá trình toàn cầu hoá hoạt động nên được thay đổi. Cuộc tranh luận về toàn cầu hóa là về những gì các quy tắc tốt nhất cho chi phối nền kinh tế toàn cầu để lợi thế của nó có thể phát triển trong khi các vấn đề có thể được giải quyết.Trên một mặt của cuộc tranh luận này là những người nhấn mạnh những lợi ích của loại bỏ các rào cản thương mại quốc tế và đầu tư, cho phép vốn được phân bổ hiệu quả hơn và đem lại cho người tiêu dùng lớn tự do lựa chọn. Với toàn cầu hóa Việt, thị trường, đầu tư tiền có thể di chuyển unimpeded từ nơi họ có rất nhiều (các nước giàu) đến nơi họ đang hầu hết cần thiết (các nước đang phát triển). Người tiêu dùng có thể hưởng lợi từ các sản phẩm rẻ hơn vì thuế quan giảm làm cho sản phẩm được sản xuất với chi phí thấp từ xa xôi nơi rẻ hơn để mua. Nhà sản xuất hàng hóa đạt được bằng cách bán cho một thị trường rộng lớn hơn. Thêm cạnh tranh giúp người bán hàng trên ngón chân của họ và cho phép những ý tưởng và các công nghệ mới để lây lan và có lợi cho những người khác.On the other side of the debate are critics who see neoliberal policies as producing greater poverty, inequality, social conflict, cultural destruction, and environmental damage. They say that the most developed nations—the United States, Germany, and Japan—succeeded not because of free trade but because of protectionism and subsidies. They argue that the more recently successful economies of South Korea, Taiwan, and China all had strong state-led development strategies that did not follow neoliberalism. These critics think that government encouragement of “infant industries”—that is, industries that are just beginning to develop—enables a country to become internationally competitive.Furthermore, those who criticize the Washington Consensus suggest that the inflow and outflow of money from speculative investors must be limited to prevent bubbles. These bubbles are characterized by the rapid inflow of foreign funds that bid up domestic stock markets and property values. When the economy cannot sustain such expectations, the bubbles burst as investors panic and pull their money out of the country. Protests by what is called the antiglobalization movement are seldom directed against globalization itself but rather against abuses that harm the rights of workers and the environment. The question raised by nongovernmental organizations and protesters at WTO and IMF gatherings is whether globalization will result in a rise of living standards or a race to the bottom as competition takes the form of lowering living standards and undermining environmental regulation. One of the key problems of the 21st century will be determining to what extent markets should be regulated to promote fair competition, honest dealings, and fair distribution of public goods on a global scale