In my classes, I was exposed to two very different types of reasoning: in my psychology and sustainability classes, I heard reasoning focused on people, the environment, and idea of ​​being a global citizen. In my economics classes, for the international economics course, we talked about people as units of work, about environmental restrictions on pollution as unnecessary barriers, and we looked at things in terms of profits and losses. While my instincts initially aligned with the idealistic worldviews presented in the field of sustainability, I have learned to see the meaning and greater good behind some of the more entrepreneurial ways. While it is difficult to dispel initial reservations about doing things that may seem unjust, I can see that, as Machiavelli said, “the ends can justify the means” and, sometimes, what may seem cruel and unjust might still be overall good in the long term. Multinationals, while exploiting cheap labor, also create jobs and opportunities where there were none. While they fall short of U.S. health and safety standards, they may be better than other jobs available to people. Cheap labor keeps prices low for home-country buyers, makes products available around the world, and can give them access to technology they otherwise wouldn't have. I'm still not sure where I stand, as I'm appalled by the working conditions and wish there was a better way, but I also see the benefits of multinationals in the third world. Forgive me, classmates, who seem to be overwhelmingly in favor of meeting the same standards, but I think there is definitely an argument for the other side as well. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay However, there are still arguments in favor of increasing the current health and safety standards which lie in the fact that recipients from the home country sometimes suffer from poor health conditions and safety standards in the host country's facilities . In the Ted Talk, he talks about an example of how poor regulation in the healthcare industry led to “a scandal that killed around 80 people worldwide, due to contaminants that found their way into the heparin supply chain” ( Heerden). This is because “the Chinese define these plants as chemical plants, not as pharmaceutical plants, so they do not control them” (Heerden). I am not suggesting that reform is not necessary at all, but I think we should focus on the positive aspects and help find the best solutions that benefit the multinationals' host countries, the citizens of the countries of origin and the environment itself. As classmates pointed out, multinational corporations violate many standards found in the United States and other first-world countries regarding worker conditions, wages, and factory safety standards. This may be true, but usually their wages and working conditions are better than other options (Pettinger). They can also provide capital to the city, create a stronger and more skilled workforce, and improve the economy's infrastructure (Pettinger). Standards written and applied to first world countries may not always be able to be implemented in all countries. . For example, some locations don't necessarily have running water, but standards for drinking fountains and the number of bathrooms may not apply. Standards that are not easy to achieve could prevent countries from investing in.