\documentclass{article}

\title{Comment: Is Globalization a Marlboro Man?}
\author{Florian Zeitz}

\pdfinfo{
  /Author (Florian Zeitz)
  /Title (Is Globalization a Marlboro Man?)
  /Keywords (Globalization, Marlboro Man)
}
\usepackage{xmpincl}
\includexmp{CC_Namensnennung_2.0_Deutschland}

\begin{document}

\maketitle

Regarding the question whether globalization is a Marlboro Man one has to consider
positive and negative sides of the Marlboro Man and in which way these apply to globalisation.
To which answer this comparison leads may depend not only on hard facts, but on personal opinion about globalization,
therefore it won't be possible to answer this question reliably.

The interesting fact about the Marlboro Man is that you see him as a free, attractive, independent, strong man at first,
but if you look behind the facade and think about what he represents you notice the Marlboro Man is in fact dependent on his
cigarettes which will cause him to be anything, but strong and attractive in the long term.

Comparing this to Globalization you can see some parallels.
Just as the Marlboro Man Globalization represents freedom. Freedom to travel, freedom to call whoever you want wherever you want.
Globalization also seems to make countries more independent by trying to help poor countries to stand on there own feet.
And last but not least Globalization seems to make everybody stronger, because everyone is working together in governmental and non-governmental
organizations.

While this sounds good so far just as the Marlboro Man Globalization has another face. Due to the fact that transportation has
become this fast and you are free to go wherever you want in a reasonable time companies started producing where it is cheapest, which
is where people are poorest, thus widening the gap between rich and poor. Globalization also creates dependence of poor countries on rich ones, because
they can't exist any longer when the rich countries stop giving them money and food. As this is the only thing they ever seem to do
the poor countries stay dependent, as they won't produce their own food if they get it elsewhere.
The perceived strength that the bonding of nations seems to give is one thing that is real, but it is questionable whether this is good.
The strength and power is not given to any small citizen after all. Now huge organizations control the world, but even though they are huge
they are still relatively few people who control the whole world population.

Taking all this into account one might sure say Globalization is a Marlboro Man, but I beg to differ.
I personally think Globalization itself is not really the problem or a bad thing at all.
The problem lies in the way politicians, CEOs and other so called expert decide globalization should be done.
We should as mankind very well be able to live together on one earth, get along and enable everybody to live in decent conditions.
I just fear that as long as money makes the world go around and people in powerful
positions care more for their own wealth than the people they should represent this will never happen.
\end{document}
