There is a debate on whether multinational companies have a lot of advantages or not. The reading I read provides three evidences which explain multinational companies' benefit. However, the lecturer claims that the writer's statements are unreasonable.
To begin with, the lecturer insists that the most of multinational companies cannot be fall down the product price though the product cost decrease. Furthermore, multinational companies are likely to have monopoly. As a result on, the price can be raised and the quality are easily low. Ths conflicts the writer's argument that multinational companies lead to go down the product price and to improve the product quality because of global competition.
On top of that, the lecturer argues that it is possible to loss unique local culture. Customers easily only choose the multinational company brand and the loacl product which reflect the local culture will be disappeared due to famous international brand's product. This counters the writer's argument that consumers can be easily approached world-wide products without location.
Finally but not least, the lecturer asserts that multinational companies can demolish the local economy. Many local companies can be difficult to keep their business because of the competition against multinational companies. As a result, people can only work in multinational companies and it is possible that these companies deal with their workers illegally. This casts doubt on the writer's point that these companies help to flourish local economy.
이번꺼 쓰면서도 참 논리가 딱 안떨어진다는생각을 했습니다.
아무래도 듣기 부분이 부족해서 그런것 같네요 특히 두번째 ~~
첨삭 감사드립니다.
|