It is often argued that with the prevalence of multinational firms and abundance of globalization benefit every individuals. Despite some merits, I disagree with this idea for several reasons.
One compelling advantage of this phenomenon is extended accessibility to diverse goods and services. In other words, consumers have a wide range of choices, offered by numerous international companies. As they compete with each other, they are more likely to provide competitive prices as well as a variety of options, enabling them to make more prudent and effective consumptions.
One primary reason this trend, on the other hand, is detrimental is the loss of cultural identity. Globalization may lead to homogenization of cultures, potentially posing a risk of eliminating the cultural uniqueness each country has. International companies also promote western consumer habits and values, undermining indigenous cultures.
Furthermore, it may foster inequality in countries. It is plausible that some nations would take advantages by exploiting cheap labor and evading taxes, while others suffer from marginalization. Those countries that are excluded from this benefits may experience severe underdevelopment, leading to unfair opportunities between nations. Dominant global manufacturers, for example, are notorious for using inexpensive labor in developing countries and hindering their economic growth.
In conclusion, while cross-borders firms and globalization could encourage consumers to choose a better option, it would destroy the diversity of cultures worldwide and equal chances to all nations. As a result, it is imperative to address this issue and encourage a more balanced approach to minimize its associated shortcomings.