Culture And Culture: The Consequences Of Globalization

In the contemporary world, globalization has become an irresistible trend. Globalization exists in different forms in ordinary life, such as the desire to learn languages to connect with friends internationally, or the surge in imported merchandise with the best quality at a lower cost. However, Jimmy Carter believed, “Globalization, as defined by rich people like us, is a very nice thing... you are talking about the Internet, you are talking about cell phones, you are talking about computers. This doesn 't affect two-thirds of the people of the world.” Carter accentuated an idea that inspired me to look further into the nature of globalization, which is that we are seeing mostly the surfaces of the phenomenon, or the formal consequences that

Christoph Mertl suggested that “The more frequently we use a term, the less we are clear what we are talking about. What is culture? What is a process? None of these very common words is based on a solid scientific definition.” Since globalization has become a worldwide trend, the problem is not that it doesn’t have a definition, but that it has too many definitions. An ordinary person can simply describe globalization as the process of exchanging views, ideas, products and cultural differences. George Ritzer defined it as “a trans-planetary process or set of processes involving increasing liquidity and the growing multidirectional flows of people, objects, places, and information, as well as the structures they encounter and create that are barriers to, or expedite, those flows.” Both definitions might sound different because of the way the words are structured, but it’s apparent that they both mentioned the most basic characteristics of globalization: process of exchanging ideas and products, flows and differences. One obvious result that globalization mostly affects is the global economy, which is the system of economic trading around the world. The intuitive of trading is not as simple as one might think: one country has something to offer, and the others have something to exchange in return. In the end, both

Additionally, they were allowed to resign and get away with rewards of billions of dollars. More interestingly, no companies had been prosecuted for the compensation system. The responsibilities and morality of Wall Street firms were again questioned: during the crisis, should the firms have responsibilities to the workers that had been laid off, or simply seek a simple solution such as declaring bankruptcy and get away with the money that affected millions of poor people who once believed in globalization? For that reason, Americans were desperately hoping that the Presidential administration in 2009 would change the bailout policies and would help the distressed homeowners. However, the same Wall Street insiders were appointed again - they are now the economic advisors in the new administration. The example shows a close relationship between the economy and politics - one can intensely affect the other and vice versa. The former Wall Street insiders were appointed again to preserve the institutional knowledge of the financial world, because even though in a formal economy, there are still secrets that need to be hidden from the