How has the global financial crisis affected the international economy Coursework

How has the global financial crisis affected the international economy - Coursework Example The main cause of this subprime crisis was the securitization in which the banks converted their loans into sellable assets with the intention of putting risky loans on others’ shoulders. For this, banks started borrowing more money to be given out as loans in the form of securities, which meant more securitization. Lehman Brothers, which collapsed on September 2008, is an example of such investment banks which got into mortgages by buying those securities and selling them on. When there was no one left to be given out loan to, banks decided to loan to the poor which was the riskier business. But they thought it was not that risky as bad loans would lead to the possession oh high priced property owned by the people. Thus, without proper management, bank got involved into a risky trading business of buying and selling loans. So when they wanted their money back, the riskier loans made them collapse. The banks asked the government for compensation which gave them new capital, bu t the confidence was lost (Shiller 2008). According to Professor Joseph Stiglitz (2010), the economist and the Nobel Prize Winner in economics, the US financial market was in a weak economic bubble before the crisis occurred. Most of the financial growth depended on the real estate. Housing was becoming expensive but the income was decreasing, which led to the fact that most of the growth was sustained by a few top people which meant that â€Å"we were consuming beyond our means†, states Stiglitz. He points out an important issue that when the governments put in more liquidity in the markets and banks to save them, the latter started thinking that they were saving themselves. As mentioned above, when the banks started running out due to bad loans, governments bailed them out using complex financial derivatives, like Credit Default Swaps (CDS) and Collateral Debt Obligations (CDO), which strengthened their habit of bad

Marital Paradigm Essay Example for Free

Marital Paradigm Essay I grew up in a joint family in India, which had 3 married couple and their kids. Marital relationships that I saw in my family were not great but not bad either. All the men used to work in the family business and the women used to take care of the children and the house. Many times my parents used to fight and my dad used to scream at my mom, but my mom never had the guts to say anything to him. I always saw that my mom was scared of him and I used to question myself why doesn’t she reply back. And being a girl myself I used to think that probably girls cant say anything when theirs husband are screaming at them. I used to talk to my mom and tell her why cant she reply back, but I never really got an answer. I always saw my mom as the weaker one in the relationship. On the other hand we had a family friend and both husband wife used to work as college professors. In their house the husband never screamed at the wife, I am sure they had conflicts but you could totally see the respect that he gave to his wife. When I grew a little bit older my mom started telling me how she felt. That was when she told me that she was a housewife and my dad was the one who earned in the family and thus he could talk like that to my mom. My dad always dominated her as he is the man of the family and is the one responsible for all the decisions of the family. And this was not only my parents I 4saw this trend throughout my family with the other two couples as well. Certain assumptions that I saw in the relationships were that even if it was my dad’s fault, my mom always had to be the first one to apologize. Also since my mom is eight years younger than my dad I saw that my dad didn’t really understand her and took her for granted at times. Bring the older one he tried to impose certain things on her. I also saw that if I tried to calm down my dad he didn’t like it as I was a child and I should not be involved in their matters. This training has had a lot of impact on my relationships. As I always saw my mom being dominated by my dad, I didn’t want that to happen with me. When I grew up I had certain things very clear in my mind. I wanted to be educated enough so that I can earn myself and have a good job, so I never dependent on my husband for anything. For that reason I came to USA and decided to study here. In my past relationships, I made it very clear to my artners that my career is more important than anything in my life and I wouldn’t leave it for anyone. I was also very clear about anyone screaming at me. Since I saw my mom always being screamed at and I always hated it. Also I have certain things straight for my future. I want my husband to understand that I will not stop working and be a housewife, so that later I have to dependent on him. I want him to respect my decisions and me. Many times I have seen that the women of the house are not asked to contribute in family matters, and I think that is not right at all. So I want to have a relationship where we both contribute in the family matters and come to a conclusion together. I am not yet married but I think the things I have in mind for my marital relationship are very clear. According to the book women still do two-third of the household work. I think if women can earn like men do, then men should work the same like women. I think my idea of marriage is based on a simple rule, which is to give the amount of resect you get. And I think it is pretty healthy because if two people cannot respect each other for what they are then they cannot be together for long. Moreover I have been taught marriage is not only about two people, but it is about two families that get together. And I expect my husband to respect and get along with my family as being the only child I think my parents are my responsibility and will always be. Thus whoever marries me has to understand the importance of my parents in my life, and on the other hand I want to be comfortable with his family too. I also feel that at times girls tend to be too clingy with their partners, and I think that is one reason why guys get irritated. Therefore I would like to give space to my husband when he needs and expect the same from him. Some people might think that this is being stupid but I know I wouldn’t like if my husband gets over protective about me, and the same way I don’t want to be over protective about him. I know it’s not easy to be with a person like me who is over ambitious. And at times it can be a problem for guys to see the girl so much into her work, and for me my career has always been more important than anything. I think this can be a problem when I get married, because at times it has been a problem for my boyfriends to understand my passion about my work. This is something I want to work on as most of the times guys don’t understand this. Also I like the idea of peer marriage as in a marriage where both people respect each other equally and understand each other’s likes and dislikes it becomes easier to be together. According to the book faithfulness is the number one reason for marital success. And I totally agree with this, even if the physical relationship between two people is not that good, if they both are faithful to each other nothing can separate them. My parents have not only taught me to be faithful but I also have seen this in their relationship. Even though my father was dominating my mother, they are still together. This is because no one of them was unfaithful to the other. Also I think from a few years the fights between my parents reduced I think this happened because they saw that I am a grown up now and all this might affect my thoughts about marriage. Children are a big reason why two people stay together even if they don’t want to. But I think that’s not right. I don’t want my husband to be with me just because of our children, because that’s doing a favor to our relationship. I would like us to be together because we make each other happy not because of a third reason. I am brought up in a culture where non-marital sex is not accepted. And these values are embedded inside me. I know now a days girls have sex when they are 14 years of age, but I am 21 years old and I am still a virgin. Being in USA and telling your boyfriend that you wont have sex with him because of your culture is not easy. Many times people judge my beliefs but that has not affected me at all. I want my husband to respect my beliefs and understand where I am coming from. Because for me a relationship is not only about getting physical, there is a lot more to it, and what I have heard and seen around me is that guys only want to get physical. I know according to the book sex is the second reason why marriages work. But for me it is not. I am not against sex at all, but I don’t want my marriage to be dependent on it. Book talks about homogamous marriage, which is a type of marriage in which spouses share their race, ethnicity, age, or social class. Basically a marriage where the two people have something in common. Obviously my parents want me to get married to a guy from the same caste and I agree with them. Because I think if the guy is familiar with my religion, my caste, and my society there is better change of understanding between both of us. In a nutshell I want a marriage where we both can share our happiness, and problems with each other without any problem. A relationship where I get the same respect that I give to the other person.

English legal system †statutory interpretation

English legal system – statutory interpretation Task 1: It can be argued that the role of statutory interpretation is to ensure that judges uphold the intention of Parliament. With reference to the approaches used by judges, critically assess whether the rules of statutory interpretation fulfil this argument. While Parliament decides what the law is it is ultimately down to judges to give effect to it in its application in realistic situations. Words in statutes may be designed to cover all possible contingencies in which case the meaning becomes extremely broad as in Brock v DPP [1993], the phrase: any dog of the type known as the pit bull terrier in the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 was disputed over. Other situations are where a particular word causes ambiguity and its not clear which meaning should be used. There could have been drafting errors and new developments over time make Acts incapable of covering new scenarios or technologies. For their aid the Interpretation Act 1978 states that: unless the contrary appears, he includes she, and singular includes plural (Martin: 2007: 86). Three non-obligatory so-called rules (methods) have been developed by judges. Under the literal rule words are given their exact and pure dictionary meaning but it is severely criticized for resulting in injustices and absurdity. In the case of London North Eastern Railway v Berriman [1946] a claim failed on the grounds that the deceased died while oiling points along the railway line and not while relaying or repairing it. Tindal CJ in the Sussex Peerage Case (1844) stated: †¦the only rule for the construction of Acts of Parliament is that they should be construed according to the intent of the Parliament which passed the Act. If the words of the statute are in themselves precise and unambiguous, then no more can be necessary than to expound those words in their natural and ordinary sense. The golden rule is an alternative, active process where words can be modified only to avoid an absurd or repugnant situation. Applying the narrow version in R v Allen [1872], the court held that the word marry not only covers legal marriage but extends to going through a ceremony of marriage to avoid the absurd situation of the accused circumventing the wishes of the legislature by advancing the literal definition that a second marriage cannot be legal as the first marriage will invalidate it. In its wider application the court in Re Sigsworth [1935] prevented a murderer son benefitting from the proceeds of his crime even though the word could result in one possible outcome and shows that the literal rule, if applied, would have caused public outrage and indecency. The mischief rule derives from Heydonss Case (1584) with the aim of finding out what the law was before the passing of an Act and seeks to eliminate the mischief by advancing the remedy (Martin: 2007) and was applied in Royal College of Nursing v DHSS [1981], where the Abortion Act 1967 makes in lawful for a pregnancy to be terminated by a registered medical practitioner (Martin: 2007: 91). The court held that it is legitimate for nurses to carry out the second stage of the procedure because the mischief Parliament sought to suppress were dangerous backstreet abortions in unhygienic conditions (Ingman: 2008) The literal approach is being abandoned in favour of the more modern purposive approach. Since Britain has become a member of the EU judges are becoming accustomed to its methodology, finding themselves obliged to interpret legislation in conformity with Section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998. While the mischief rule considers contemporary issues the purposive approach goes further in giving effect to the purpose of the Act prospectively. Such a case is R (Quintavalle) v Secretary of State for Health [2003], where CNR could not have been envisaged by Parliament at the time the Act was enacted as it did not exist at the time. Minor rules of language such as the ejusdem generis maxim means general words which follow specific ones are taken to include things of the same kind (Elliott: 2009: 61). This technique was employed in Powell v Kempton Park [1899] where an outdoor place known as Tattersalls Ring was excluded from the words house, office and room as they were all indoor places. The expressio unius alterius method means the mention of one thing excludes others and can be seen applied in Tempest v Kilner [1846]. The final rule is noscitur a sociiis meaning that a word is known by the company it keeps. In IRC v Frere [1965] it was held that because other annual interest was mentioned, interest could only apply annually. Intrinsic aids suggestive of Parliaments intentions are the preamble stating why the Act is being enforced but equally useful are extrinsic sources: previous Acts on the same subject; historical setting, earlier case law and dictionaries of the time. Pepper v Hart [1993] was a landmark case enabling judges to consult the debates that took place in Parliament prior to the Act being implemented. Lord Browne-Wilkinson: the purposive approach to construction now adopted by the courts in order to give effect to the true intentions of the legislature. Task 2: In the following situations, use your knowledge of statutory interpretation to explain whether or not the following defendants would be guilty of an offence under section 1 of the Street Offences Act 1959 where: it shall be an offence for a common prostitute to loiter or solicit in a public street or public place for the purposes of prostitution. (a) Fiona was waving and banging on the window of her flat to attract the attention of a friend walking by on the street below. As she live above a busy street, her action caught the attention of people including a police officer called out to investigate complaints under s 1 of the Street Offences Act Certain presumptions available to judges can be instrumental in deciding cases. These are: a presumption against the change in common law; that the Crown is not bound by any statute unless the statute expressly says so; that legislation does not apply retrospectively and in this case there is a presumption that mens rea is required to convict in criminal cases and when judges construct the intention of legislation they will consider this along with the actus reus. In B (a minor) v DPP [2000], Lord Nicholls emphasised: the common law presumes that, unless Parliament indicated otherwise, the appropriate mental element is an unexpressed ingredient of every statutory offence. Fionas actions might be misconstrued by the public and the officer as that for the purposes of prostitution given the context and public awareness of prostitutes manner in gaining attention. It appears this is the case here. At trial the true relationship between Fiona and her friend can be established. If the literal rule is applied and the imperativeness of mens rea is discarded then there is the possibility of her being convicted unjustly. However, in Sweet v Parsley [1970], although the defendant was the proprietor of a house where cannabis was being smoked by the renters, the House of Lords decided the defendant was not guilty since she had no knowledge of the inhabitants activities so she lacked mens rea and, therefore, could not be convicted (Martin: 2008). With a purposive approach and reference to the Sweet case the court is bound to acquit her as Fionas actions were not for the purposes of prostitution and Parliament will not have intended for the innocent to be punished. L ord Denning advocated this method strenuously, saying: we sit here to find the intention of Parliament and we do this better by filling in the gaps than opening up enactment to destructive analysis. (b) Moji is charged with soliciting from the balcony of her flat Moji is trying to elude the Street Offences Act by not being in the street when soliciting for clients. Applying the literal rule Moji will be acquitted and It is obvious parliament could not have intended for their enactments to cause such ineffective results. However, Lord Esher argues: the court has nothing to do with the question whether the legislature has committed an absurdity but it is plainly obvious that such an approach is mechanical and divorced from the realities of the use of language (Martin: 2007: 88) and negates the true spirit of the law. In Smith v Hughes [1960] six women were convicted under this Act for soliciting from their flats, windows and balconies and argued their convictions were wrong because, although they accepted they were engaged in prostitution, they did not contravene the legislations wording which states in a street or public place for the purposes of prostitution (www.opsi.gov.uk on 21/12/09). However, their convictions were upheld, Lord Parker giving judgement: Everybody knows this was an Act to clean up the streets. viewed in this way it can matter little whether the prostitute is standing in the street or in the doorway or on the balcony, or at a window, or whether the window is shut or open or half open. In Eastbourne Borough Council v Stirling [Times, 16th November 2000] a taxi driver was convicted because, although he was on private land, he targeted for hire people on the street. Bound by these judgements Moji will be convicted as the mischief the Act sought to eliminate was prostitution targeted on streets. This effectively re-writes law and criticism follows that it is an encroachment on the sovereignty of parliament; undermines the separation of powers and allows judges to arbitrarily decide cases. However, under the doctrine of judicial precedence this can be restricted (Slapper and Kelly: 2009). (c) Rosalyn is charged with soliciting from the high street In some cases application of the literal rule leads to an absurdity such as Whiteley v Chappell [1868] where the defendant was charged in accordance with the words to impersonate any person entitled to vote. He was acquitted because a dead person is not literally entitled to vote. Another case illustrating the problem with the literal rule is Cheeseman v DPP [Times, 2nd November 1990] where a defendant was acquitted because police officers were not passengers. Had the mischief rule been used it wouldve produced correct verdicts according to common sense and the intentions of Parliament as the Acts aimed to bring to justice those committing fraud and indecency. In some situations though, the literal rule suffices to deliver the intentions of a statute. The Street Offences Act 1959 section 1(4) defines street, amongst other definitions, as for the time being open to the public shall be treated as forming part of the street. A high street is, according to the Oxford English Dictionary 2005, catering to the needs of the ordinary public. With such an interpretation Rosalyn will be convicted.

The Battle of Vicksburg :: American America History

The Battle of Vicksburg The Civil War split our nation, Americans fighting Americans, brother against brother. The war lasted four long years, a key battle fought westward was the turning point in the war: the Battle of Vicksburg. Between Cairo, Illinois, and the Gulf of Mexico, the Mississippi River twists and winds for nearly 1,000 miles. Commonly referred to as 'the trunk of the American tree'. The river was vital to both the American Government and to the Confederate forces in the west. The city of Vicksburg, Mississippi, 250 feet high, overlooks the Mississippi River on the Louisiana-Mississippi state border. Confederate forces mounted artillery batteries ready to challenge the passage of Union ships. Receiving control of Vicksburg and the Mississippi River was a huge benefit in the war. Due to the Geographic location made it ideal for defense. Before the outbreak of the Civil War, Vicksburg, Mississippi had become one of the most prosperous and sophisticated towns on the old southern frontier. The city was a booming center of trade, its wharves crowded with boats carrying all manner of goods and commodities. It boasted a municipal orchestra, a Shakespeare repertory company, and an imposing courthouse in the Greek revival style. To its proud citizens, Vicksburg was the "Queen City of the Bluff" and a center, as one of them wrote, of "culture, education and luxury." All this was to change with coming of the war. By early 1862 the peaceful town had become one of the most strategically important spots in the entire Confederacy- and would soon be one of the most bitterly fought over. From the beginning of the war in 1861, to protect their most prized possession, the Confederacy put up fortifications at strategic points along the river. Federal forces eventually captured post after post. After fighting their way southward from Illinois and northward from the Gulf of Mexico. Until by late summer of 1862, only Vicksburg and Port Hudson appeared to be major constraints to the Union. Of the two posts, Vicksburg was by far the strongest and most important. Setting high over looking a bend in the river, protected by artillery and dangerous swamps. So far the city had defied Union efforts to force it into submission. In order to protect the Mississippi Valley, Confederates established a line of defense, which ran from Columbus, Kentucky, overlooking the Mississippi River trough Bowling Green to Cumberland Gap where the bright flank was secure on the mountains.

Henry James’s The Turn of the Screw and William Golding’s Lord of the Flies Essay

Compare the ways in which children are portrayed in Henry James’s The Turn of the Screw and William Golding’s Lord of the Flies. How convincing do you find each author’s treatment of evil in relation to his characters? Everyone likes to think of childhood as a symbol of a time of innocence. People tend to look back on their childhood nostalgically, they remember it as carefree and often use the term ‘youth is wasted on the young’ these feelings have stayed with us for centuries and are incredibly deep rooted. These feelings therefore, create widespread outrage when evil becomes apparent in children or is inflicted upon them, For example the murder of James Bulger by ten year olds and also abuse and corruption of children. Children are thought of as vulnerable, when there vulnerability is taken advantage of, especially by another child a question is asked, is childhood innocence a myth? The Victorians were aware of the religious doctrine of original sin, yet they were shocked that there was the suggestion that the two young children in Henry James’s The Turn of the Screw could be evil. Golding presents children with a strong propensity to evil and disorder. Golding’s children are a mixture, from saintly Simon to barbaric Jack. The fact that the two writers have different aims to come of their stories should be taken into consideration. Golding has written a fable, whilst his characters are all boys, and are recognisably boys; they all possess different characters that are intended to represent humanity. They are all individuals, Ralph, Piggy, Simon and Jack but each one can be categorised. On the other hand James has written a ghost story, albeit of an unconventional kind. Also, the two children in The Turn of the Screw are never actually shown from a different point of view from that of the governess, we never see Miles and Flora as wholly rounded individuals we don’t gain access into their thoughts and feelings and therefore could interpret them wrongly. They could be the corrupted accomplices of Peter Quint and Miss Jessel, as the governess believes, or they could be the sexually obsessed fantasies in her head. In Golding’s novel there is not a definite narrator. Golding allows us to know what the boys are thinking and feeling; this is particularly true of Ralph and Simon. When Miles and Flora are first introduced into the novel they are seen through the romantic and idealising vision of the governess and therefore are portrayed to us as ‘innocent and beautiful; they have charm and perfect manners’ Yes, this is because the governess has a romantic imagination and is overwhelmed by her new responsibilities but it also could be because the children’s innocence portrayed in the first chapters of the novel makes their depravity later on seem all the more shocking to the reader as a contrast. When we first meet Golding’s boys however they are portrayed to us far more realistically, Piggy is an excellent example of this as he is the first most down to earth character we meet, you immediately get an image of piggy and the things he says are never questioned in the readers head to be unrealistic or fake about him. This is because his speech and manners aren’t perfect, which is what you would expect in a child. For me both authors treatment of evil in relation to his characters are convincing. James approaches the question of evil by being deliberately inexplicit. We are never actually informed as to what offence Miles was expelled from school ‘I said things’- Miles. Also, in chapter six the governess feels a ‘sudden sickness of disgust’ when she learns from Mrs. Grose that Quint was ‘too free’ with Miles. Again we don’t learn exactly what this means; it could refer to some sort of sexual abuse. I think this is a convincing and effective way of putting across the evil in the book because the novel seems to gain in power precisely because James refuses to spell things out for the reader. The ghostly apparitions are given a genuinely chilly impact ‘he slowly changed his place, looking at me hard all the while, to the opposite corner of the platform’ through the governess’s reaction the reader is made vividly aware of an atmosphere of evil. For Golding evil is first manifest in the gradual breakdown of order amongst the boys: they neglect things they agreed to do together, such as building shelters; they pick on or shun those who are different, notably piggy and Simon. Roger begins to discover that he enjoys wielding power over others and even inflicting pain; the lure of hunting turns into blood lust; the boys succumb to the fear of the ‘Beast’ and superstition. Simon the visionary is the only boy with the insight to see that evil is a part of Melanie Parkes human nature. The Beast is not an external creature to be feared, but it is inside each one of them. This evil is an enemy of reason and order and wishes to extinguish them. It results in murder, first of Simon, then of Piggy, and finally the boys intend to hunt and kill Ralph. I also find the evil in children implication convincing in Goldings writing as it implies that evil comes from within and is present in everyone, even children. The build up to children murdering each other in this story is convincing and therefore the evil in them is convincing as nothing on the island apart from a dead corpse was there to trigger the evil that came from only them. Overall the two writers manage to deal with ‘evil’ in different but effectively, whilst both stories are of a different genre they both deal with the fact that evil may well be present in children. The children are portrayed differently because evil because apparent them in different ways, in James’s novel through the ghosts and in Golding’s novel through ‘The Beast’ however in both books evil is seen as a force, which consumes and destroys. Miles is destroyed at the end of James’s novel though in ambiguous circumstances. In Golding’s novel, the entire island is turned from a paradise into a raging inferno.

Globalization in the Modern World

Globalization in the Modern World If you look at the tag on your shirt, chances are you would see that it was made in a country other than the one in which you sit right now. Whats more, before it reached your wardrobe, this shirt could have very well been made with Chinese cotton sewed by Thai hands, shipped across the Pacific on a French freighter crewed by Spaniards to a Los Angeles harbor. This international exchange is just one example of globalization, a process that has everything to do with geography. Definition and Examples of Globalization Globalization is the process of increased interconnectedness among countries most notably in the areas of economics, politics, and culture. McDonalds in Japan, French films being played in Minneapolis, and the United Nations  are all representations of globalization. Improved Technology in Transportation and Telecommunications What makes globalization possible is the ever-increasing capacity for and efficiency of how people and things move and communicate. In years past, people across the globe did not have the ability to communicate and could not interact without difficulty. Nowadays, a phone, instant message, fax, or video conference call can easily be used to connect people throughout the world. Additionally, anyone with the funds can book a plane flight and show up halfway across the world in a matter of hours. In short, the friction of distance is lessened, and the world begins to metaphorically shrink. Movement of People and Capital A general increase in awareness, opportunity, and transportation technology has allowed people to move about the world in search of a new home, a new job, or to flee a place of danger. Most migration takes place within or between developing countries, possibly because of lower standards of living and lower wages push individuals to places with a greater chance for economic success. Additionally, capital (money) is being moved globally with the ease of electronic transference and a rise in perceived investment opportunities. Developing countries are a popular place for investors to place their capital because of the enormous room for growth. Diffusion of Knowledge The word diffusion simply means to spread out, and that is exactly what any new found knowledge does. When a new invention or way of doing something pops up, it does not stay secret for long. A good example of this is the appearance of automotive farming machines in Southeast Asia, an area long home to manual agricultural labor. Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) and Multinational Corporations As global awareness of certain issues has risen, so too has the number of organizations that aim to deal with them. Sos of NGOs include Amnesty International or Doctors Without Borders. As countries are connected to the rest of the world (through increased communication and transportation) they immediately form what a business would call a market. What this means is that a particular population represents more people to buy a particular product or service. As more and more markets are opening up, business people from around the globe are coming together to form multinational corporations in order to access these new markets. Another reason that businesses are going global is that some jobs can be done by foreign workers at a much cheaper cost than domestic workers. This is referred to as outsourcing. At its core globalization is an easing of borders, making them less important as countries become dependent on each other to thrive. Some scholars claim that governments are becoming less influential in the face of an increasingly economic world. Others contest this, insisting that governments are becoming more important because of the need for regulation and order in such a complex world system. Is Globalization a Good Thing? There is a heated debate about the true effects of globalization and if it really is such a good thing. Good or bad, though, there isnt much argument as to whether or not it is happening. Lets look at the positives and negatives of globalization, and you can decide for yourself whether or not it is the best thing for our world. Positive Aspects of Globalization As more money is poured into developing countries, there is a greater chance for the people in those countries to economically succeed and increase their standard of living.Global competition encourages creativity and innovation and keeps prices for commodities/services in check.Developing countries are able to reap the benefits of current technology without undergoing many of the growing pains associated with the development of these technologies.Governments are able to better work together towards common goals now that there is an advantage in cooperation, an improved ability to interact and coordinate, and a global awareness of issues.There is greater access to foreign culture in the form of movies, music, food, clothing, and more. In short, the world has more choices. Negative Aspects of Globalization Outsourcing, while it provides jobs to a population in one country, takes away those jobs from another country, leaving many without opportunities.Although different cultures from around the world are able to interact, they begin to meld, and the contours and individuality of each begin to fade.There may be a greater chance of disease spreading worldwide, as well as invasive species that could prove devastating in non-native ecosystems.There is little international regulation, an unfortunate fact that could have dire consequences for the safety of people and the environment.Large Western-driven organizations such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank make it easy for a developing country to obtain a loan. However, a Western focus is often applied to a non-Western situation, resulting in failed progress.