World Cultures Comparison Project/Paper/Cut


Jump to: navigation, search

World Cultures World Cultures Comparison Project Paper Cut sections

These are sections of the paper which were removed because they didn't fit, weren't appropriate, didn't fit, or weren't true.



Thus, the amount of tariffs, and other trade barriers, both internationally and in the United States has gone down in the last 100 years (McConnel and Brue 115). In fact, many economists consider the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 to be a major cause of the Great Depression (McConnel and Brue 114). The Smoot-Hawley act attempted to choke off import to help domestic producers. Instead, it raised prices for goods, leading to the recession. Thus artificial or protectionist trade barriers are harmful to a nation's aggregate economy, as well as the global climate.

(more Jeff's section)


(?cut) Growth is the means which reduces the burden of scarcity (McConnel and Brue 369). "An economy experiencing growth is better able to meet people's wants and resolve socioeconomic problems" (McConnel and Brue 369). Growth allows more finished goods to be produced either by increasing imports or making production more efficient (McConnel and Brue 369). This means we are able to do more with less or the same amount of resources.

Looking back a hundred years, standards of living were much lower (cite). There were no airplanes, requiring long voyages on ships or trains to reach destinations. In fact, the US was even more polluted (CITE!!!) than it is today. Life expectancy and life quality have both risen. Technological advancement has been the largest source of growth in the United States making up 28% of the increase in productivity according to Edward Denison and projected to 1998 by McConnell and Brue (374). New farming techniques have risen farm output (give ###!!!). Less farmland, and less farmers support more people. Computers take the pain out of rewriting essays.

Growth is keystone of improvement in our lives, and technological advancements are what power it.

In the United States increases in the amount of people willing to work has amounted to a third of our growth (McConnel and Brue 374). This has been in part because of our open arms towards immigrants. In the 50s, 60s, and 70s, growth was largely due to women joining the regular workforce (McConnel and Brue 374). Prior to this, discrimination and domestic duties kept women in the house. New technologies permitted millions of women to spend less time cooking and more time producing goods and services. This goes to show what happens when discrimination gets removed.

Discrimination, whether against women, foreigners, or people of color hurts the economy by reducing the amount of labor available (McConnel and Brue 749). This increases the cost of labor while decreasing productions; both propel the economy backwards. Ending or reducing global trade will only have the same effect.


?cut in paper?

Rebuttal to cultural revolution by plaz

(oh i see, i was thinking about the pro view, but I too thought forced change was bad) Forcing culture to be protected might incite another backlash similar to the Cultural Revolution. The Cultural Revolution showed what can happen when rapid cultural change gets attempted. Culture seems to change at its own pace, the pace accepted by the people in China. Attempting to artificially alter that change only seems to incite corruption, and greed.


The Earth has suffered plenty from the industrialization of the world. A breaking ozone layer, a lack of clean air and water, contaminated food and rain just names a few. Modernized countries like the United States and Britain, along with oncoming China, cause the planet to evolve into stages of decay and filth. Globalization can bring this issue to every country in the world. The ideal solution provides equal countries but how could America, Britain, and other advance countries ever accept lower standards of living for the environment or for other countries globally? Brining economies to the global scale means increasing the power of the lower countries to have the ability to do so and compete properly. Though specialization gives poorer economies an advantage, it fails to mention the amount of consumption they gain from it. Limited resources can not provide the great life for all countries. Increased globalization means countries of the world consume more. No human can reject a greater abundance of goods and will thus consume as much as possible. If every country consumes as much as the highest classes of the world, the world will undoubtedly exist to see the next Y2K. For China alone, experts predict that in order to fulfill the demand for goods by the Chinese and at its current growth, they require a whole new Earth by 2035 (Discovery Atlas). That sort of availability does not exist. The world may pull off one or two of that consumption but never the entirety. Globalization brings economies to a level of consumption unacceptable to society's resources. Intervention must occur.

In addition, in developing nations laws regarding the environment do not exist at the same level as in developed nations.

David, what you have here is not really what I was thinking of. Sure increased consumption is bad, but that is more subjective (is materialism bad?) I think it would be stronger if you focused on the difference between environmental laws and practices in developed and developing nations. (this should help:

In addition, the outsourcing of trash is what many consider unfair. Here are two articles to help:,12188,1308278,00.html Lastly, please cite your sources in your section like Gerg and I ahve done. Make sure to add the mla at the bottom. Thank you for your contribution--Plaz 16:39, 8 January 2007 (EST)

Plaz's Old Opening

Globalization, a massive force which currently affects the world today, and has affected thousands of years of history, remains a controversial force. Globalization, wither good or bad, has and continues to change the rules of the world we live in. Increasing connections, spreading culture, and increasing international trade represent only some of what globalization has accomplished. However, from job loss to pollution, to cracking culture, globalization does not affect us positively. From the thousands of protesters at the WTO the to the leagues of economists rallying the president, globalization and free trade represent to some a promise of growth and a better life, but to others, it represents a harsher, poorer life. From the lobby organizations of some of the biggest unions to simple farmlands in the world's poorest countries, globalization touches us all. But does it help us or hurt us? It definitely does both. But which effect eclipses the other and comes out stronger? In the long run, which is better, a global world, or one closed off from changing forces. That remains a hotly contested question.

Below lie some viewpoints and arguments complied by members of our group. Plaz argues for globalization due to its positive economic outcomes for both developed and developing nations. David rebuts him with arguments of increased pollution, and domestic job loss. Following, Greg leads us in two case studies, one of McDonald's in Hong Kong, and the other of Latin American corruption. Plaz returns to talk about the positive cultural and social affects of globalization. Finally, Jeff offers his viewpoint on globalization and the increase in worldwide peace and prosperity.


When I edit this to compile this into the paper, I'm going to tend to make most of the corrections in structural changes including MLA and such. I talked to Plaz about condensing and I saw the note on the original comparisons project page but wasn't sure whether or not you wanted me to condense items or edit them for content. I know I can (and will) edit my sections for content but let me know and preferably before you go to bed tonight. The other thing is how should I structure the paragraphs. Plaz and Greg split up their sections into multiple paragraphs but Jeff and I kept it in one. Do you want me to keep the paragraphs you guys made with all its content in that order, or do you want me to condense, use your research and writing to form the essay, and edit for content? -Groff P.S. You can email me at or write to this page, I will check it before I go to bed. If nothing is written I will do the latter because it makes more sense. -Groff

David, are you getting rid of the pollution section? I liked what you had, keep it and expand. As I wrote on the main project page, Cobb doesn't care how long it is. I would feel better if you addressed most of the points. I would also separate them into sub-headings. That makes it easier to orginize. (I should ask him if we should keep it in this format, or turn it into MLA-styled). Also, I think we should leave the paper as separate sections. He didn't say anything about that, so I don't think we need "glue" text between sections. Just keep the headings. I like your opening, so I am removing mine and inserting yours. For the conclusion, I go as far as to say that it's a balance. We need to sum up globalization more, rather then restate points. Thanks. We're almost done the paper!!!! I say don't do anything tonight. Goodnight!--Plaz 21:59, 9 January 2007 (EST)

Okay, I won't do anything tonight but I though it had to be in MLA. If not then totally rockin'! I put my pollution in the cut section cause I thought it strayed from the topic at hand or the desired topic. I won't do anything tonight for this. See ya. -Groff

Comments: Editing

This paper is taking longer to edit than I thought. For one, I didn't expect Plaz to put every sentence in first person and Jeff to use all the "to be" verbs he could possibly think up. I'll have it ready by about 7:30 Wednesday night because I don't get home until five tomorrow and this thing is taking forever to edit. I didn't even mention the fact that the grammar is atrocious. Just check this page again at 7:30 tomorrow but for right now, who know? - David

Changes David made:

--Plaz 12:34, 21 January 2007 (EST)