Can we blame globalization to the cause of global poverty?

Apologies in advance for the long answer, but your interesting question demands a thorough answer. Globalization is the cure, not cause, of global poverty. Global poverty has existed for all of human history; it is only in recent times that it has begun to alleviate. And this lessening has coincided with the rise of globalization. Consider that for most of history, most countries had a few rich people, few or no middle class, and vast swathes of poor. America, with its capitalist system and free trade, became the first country in history where the majority of people are middle class. As companies (not just US ones, but all over the world) branch out and set up factories & offices in other countries, they bring many jobs to areas where people are poor. Despite the stereotype of the sweatshop that pays workers pennies a day (with a few rare exceptions this is pretty much a myth), the jobs globalization brings to poor areas usually pay more, and sometimes craploads more, than anything the locals could do otherwise (assuming there are other local jobs to be had at all). Because of globalization, previously dirt-poor countries like India, China, and other parts of Asia, South America, and elsewhere now have burgeoning middle classes. And as the populace get richer in those countries, they start demanding previously unaffordable goods from the richer countries, thus increasing exports from the US and other developed countries. Globalization is a win-win scenario for everyone, no matter which side of the ocean you're on. The proof, as they say, is in the pudding. What about the anti-globalization voices? What would happen if we took anti-globalization to its logical conclusion? So, let's say that the US through dictatorial decree internalizes all its businesses--no US companies operating overseas, and no foreign companies operating in the US. Because we would have to now pay more for labor, the prices of many or most things would rise noticeably. As foreign demand for our products would also drop sharply, there would be fewer goods produced, which would mean fewer people employed making them, and since they cost more, even fewer people buying them. Because you'd be restricting your labor pool to just the US, you're also limiting the amount of talent you can find. This is one reason (in addition to our generally higher standard of living) that labor costs would be higher. Labor, like all other things, follows the rules of supply & demand. But let's go further. Let's do away with the commerce clause in the Constitution and say that all companies can only operate within their state. Now many companies would have a hard time finding the raw materials for the goods they produce, as well as the talent to run the business, and the customers to buy what they're selling. Fewer people employed, making fewer goods, which cost a lot more (if they can be made at all). Now imagine if all companies could only operate within the town or city where they are first located. The only food to be found in your grocery stores is that which is grown locally. For the midwest where I'm at, that would be corn, soybeans, milk, and a few other produce. Virtually no fruits. No foreign foods. Most businesses would simply not be able to operate, because they would not be able to find the human talent and material resources to operate, or the investors to start up in the first place. The economy would be reduced to an agrarian society with a few rare and expensive hand-crafted goods, pretty much just like in feudal times. So it should be obvious that the more you limit the scope of business and commerce, the worse things become for everyone. And just the same, the more that business and commerce are free to flourish the world over, the better off we all become. This is not ideology; these are basic, well-established economic facts. Globalization has done far more to alleviate poverty in the world than anything else.

Yes, because even though the superior countries are produces more materials and exporting it to various other countries for profit and to benefit their economy, some economically developing countries require reassurance and guidance on how to be economically empowered. The developing countries are therefore forgotten about while life goes on.

No, that's the easy easy to explain it. Mostly it can be explained by warring factions and over population in Africa and Asia. Moral concern? Depends on your morals., and theirs.

http://www.gotquestions.org/global-poverty-hunger.html

no...

Yes, because even though the superior countries are produces more materials and exporting it to various other countries for profit and to benefit their economy, some economically developing countries require reassurance and guidance on how to be economically empowered. The developing countries are therefore forgotten about while life goes on.

No, that's the easy easy to explain it. Mostly it can be explained by warring factions and over population in Africa and Asia. Moral concern? Depends on your morals., and theirs.

http://www.gotquestions.org/global-poverty-hunger.html

no...