Third, the integration of peoples, cultures, and languages minimizes the differences between countries and reduces a good deal of the friction that used to separate them. Fourth, globalization has forced the development of global financial systems that equip the world market for even more global trade.
This is not to say that globalization is without perceived drawbacks, which have been liberally addressed by its opponents. Nobel Prize winner Joseph Stiglitz said of globalization that it had certainly made some richer but that statistics showed that the poorest countries had gotten poorer as well (OÆShea). He cited as an example the fact that the U.S. maintains agriculture subsidies greater than the total income of sub-Saharan Africa. ôHow can they compete?ö he asked (OÆShea). Stiglitz was referring to $3- to $5-billion subsidies given to U.S. cotton farmers, lowering the price of cotton and hurting 10 million sub-Saharan cotton growers.
Opponents also complain that although connecting the worldÆs economies improves living standards, ôit also accelerates the pace of change, and pain, as competition and technological innovation phase out jobsùsometimes whole industriesùand replaces them with new onesö (Aase).
Although the truth of these accusations can be acknowledged, placing the blame for these problems on globalization is like blaming the invention of the telephone for phone fraud. Yes, inequities can exist with globalization, just as they can for any approach, but globalization cannot be considered the cause of the United StatesÆ giving subsidies to its farmers. Yes, there is some change in pace and pain in changing to a new approach or a new technology, but these are growing pai
...