Unit 9 paraphrase Flashcards
At the edge of a new century, globalization is a double-edged sword: a powerful vehicle that raises economic growth, spread new technology and raises living standards in rich and poor countries alike; but also an immensely controversial process that assaults national sovereignty, erodes local culture and tradition and threatens economic and social instability.
At the turn of the century, globalization has two contradictory outcomes. It could not only be a powerful tool to stimulate economic growth, popularize new technology and improve living standards in both rich and poor countries, but also an disputable process that attack national sovereignty, wears away native culture in different regions and possibly could endanger economic and social stability.
In some respects globalization is merely a trendy word for an old process.
To some extent, globalization is not new. The world has always been in the process of market expansion. What is new is the term “globalization”, which became fashionable only recently.
Europeans saw economic unification as an antidote to deadly nationalism.
Europeans regarded economic unification as a way to prevent nationalism. They knew that what had caused two world wars could cause more if they could not curb this nationalism by turning Europe into a common market first and then organizing it into some kind of political union.
A decade later, even after Asia’s 1997—1998 financial crisis, private capital flows dwarf governmental flows.
Ten years later, even after Asia’s financial crisis of 1997—1998, private capital flows are still greater in number than governmental capital flows.
Behind the merger boom lies the growing corporate conviction that many markets have become truly global.
The reason for the merger boom is that more and more business people now believe that many markets have truly become global. They are no longer producing just for the people in their own country. They want to combine or merger with others to become multinational companies.
In Europe, the relentless pursuit of the “single market” is one indicator. This reflects a widespread recognition that European companies will be hard-pressed to compete in global markets if their operations are hamstrung by fragmented national markets.
In Europe, the persistent and unremitting effort to turn all countries on the continent into a single market shows that there is a general agreement that if the European market remains divided into many small parts behind national borders, their companies will not be able to compete in the international market.
Despite its financial crisis, rapid trade expansion and economic growth sharply cut the number of the desperately poor.
In spite of the financial crisis, rapid increase of trade and economic growth drastically reduced the number of the very poor people.
The global economy may be prone to harsher boom-bust cycles than national economies individually.
Once integrated with the world market, nations will naturally be more vulnerable to the fluctuations of the world economy. The capital flows in and out of a country, for example, can create a boom or bust very quickly and with much harsher effects.
The Asian financial crisis raised questions on both counts.
The Asian financial crisis brought these two questions to people’s attention: investment funds were not well used and trade flows became too lopsided.
The ensuing spending boom in turn aided Europe, Japan and the United States by increasing imports from them. Then the boom abruptly halted in mid-1997 when, it became apparent that as a result of “crony capitalism,” inept government investment policies and excess optimism, much of the investment had been wasted on unneeded factories, office buildings and apartments.
The spending boom occurring afterwards consequently helped Europe, Japan and the United States through increasing imports from these countries. Then the boom suddenly stopped in mid-1997. At that time, it became clear that because of the corruption in those countries where political and financial resources were in the hands of a few privileged people along with their dishonest friends, the foolish government policies and unreasonable optimism, much of the investment was wasted on unneeded factories and a real estate bubble.
The street protesters at the Seattle meeting of the WTO in early December may have lacked a common agenda or even a coherent case against trade. But they accurately reflected the anxiety and anger that globalization often inspires. So do European fears of genetically modified food or nationalistic opposition to cross-border mergers.
The street protesters at the Seattle meeting of the WTO in early December may have lacked a common goal or even a logical rationale against trade. But it’s safe to say that from them, we can recognize the worries and anger that often associated with globalization. European fears of genetically modified food or nationalistic opposition to cross-border mergers also show such worries and anger.
But this does not mean that a powerful popular backlash, with unpredictable consequences, is not possible.
But this does not mean that a powerful hostile reaction from ordinary people, which will have unpredictable consequences, is not possible.
Globalization’s promise may exceed its peril – but the peril is still real. Both await the new century. One of the great dramas will be to see which prevails.
Globalization may bring us more advantages than disadvantage – but the dangers are still there. But let’s wait and see how things will develop in the new century. One of the most interesting things will be to see which will be greater：the advantages or the disadvantages.
The recent takeover struggle between British and German wireless giants—Vodafone AirTouch PLC and Mannesmann AG—is exceptional only for its size and bitterness
The only difference between the recent takeover struggle between British and German radio giants and other cases is that this takeover is much bigger and a lot bitter.
It remains possible that abrupt surges of global capital, first moving into Asia and then out, would have caused, with some delay, a larger instability.
It is still possible that sudden increase or withdrawal of the global capital, first moving into Asia and then out of it, will have made Asia more unstable, with some delay.
