Lead-in
Listening Task
Globalization has become an unstoppable trend. It is changing the social and economic structures of the world. Is it good or bad to globalize? Let's hear the different voices on this vital issue of today.
Globalization is the latest proof of the virtues of free trade first advocated in 1817 by the British economist David Ricardo.
According to him, trade is always beneficial because it encourages nations to specialize in the products at which they are best and import those they are less good at. So if a developed country like the U.S. is much better at making computers than a developing country like China but only a little better at making sweat shirts, the U.S. should concentrate on making computers, and American colleges should source their logoed goods in Guangdong province.
Both the U.S. and China would benefit. However, Nobel Prize winner Paul Samuelson, a professor emeritus at M.I.T., argues that if the poor country suddenly learns how to make more efficiently the goods in which the rich country specializes — say, if China becomes brilliant at making computers — then the rich country will no longer benefit from free trade. In fact, wages in the rich country will fall.
Globalization's defenders reply by saying, Relax: it will never happen. First, it is unrealistic to assume that China or India will suddenly excel in high-end, high-technology innovation.
For the past few months, there have been reports of skilled-labor shortages in the most economically advanced areas of China. Second, free traders argue that even if China and India become advanced economies almost overnight, they will look just like Germany and Japan.
And nobody argues that trade between rich economies doesn't benefit everyone.
