The Globalization Paradox

Discussions will center on this ongoing global debate. It is undoubtedly the trend of capitalism in today's world. However, there is a discussion on how globalization will continue to be discussed violently. This is a contest between free trade and fair trade. Free trade and fair trade was a tug of war between economists and politicians. Both use ideological approaches to deal with global business activities. But it is also influenced by nationalism and politics. Whether it is a developed country or a third country, this problem directly stimulates participant's potential economic power.

In his book "Global Paradox" published in 1995, the author John Naisbitt is known for his New York best-selling Megatrends. The concept is a world of characteristics that accepts globalization and pay more attention to the reality of the region. He is highly regarded for promoting "global thinking, localization behavior". It is easy to think of social media as part of running Nasbit's forecast. Online websites such as Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, etc have created ourselves and others as global citizens. And thanks to these platforms, people on the street can connect anywhere in the world in a very intimate way.

Social paradox is a meta (modern) problem that requires a meta solution. The emergence of awareness of social contradiction in the refinement of world problems by the Roman club of the 1970s was consistent with the literary transformationism developed by Zavarzadee in 1975. This article outlines the concept of "social paradox". Then, based on the declaration and plan of the Roma Club, review the framework of the resolution called "Regulatory Progressiveism", then I will express more opinions and seek new agreement on collective action.

We must admit that everyone is involved in public opinion. Geopolitical reality is multifaceted, and we are all bound by public opinion, so all aspects are wrong. We have made "fragmentary progress" around the world, but we have not kept pace with the club's original objective of technology (or educational development and social theory). Due to the lack of space, I am going to list some honorable recommendations that I did not mention: civil society's paradox, Alexander (1997), globalization paradox, Milliot and Tournois (2010), and modernization paradox Unexpected reform of results, Margetts and Hood (2010). In the latter review, Colin Knox repeatedly described and requested their research questions.