While proponents of this global economic model argue that this is the best possible system, there are also those who strongly oppose various aspects of this system. Taking a historical perspective, we see that the events of the two centuries are shaped and defined by the practice of capitalism. In a way, the peaking of European colonialism coincided with the consolidation of capitalist economic theory, which ultimately replaced it. In other words, the power and influence wielded by large multinational corporations today (which are the façade of global capitalism) is nothing short of a variant of imperialism. While conceding that concentrations of power and finance in and of themselves do not lead to oppression and injustice, empirical evidence of the workings of the capitalist model suggests such an outcome. Similarly, while neo-liberal economic paradigm might have improved the Gross National Products of individual nations and improved the general standards of living, there are other aspects to human wellbeing that is not easily measured and fulfilled (Dixon, 1998, p.125).
For instance, when assessing economic systems, it is only logical to consider the consequences to the environment alongside measures of human standard of living. There is an emerging consensus among intellectuals and research scholars that there is indeed a strong correlation between the two concepts. In other words, it is rarely a coincidence that poverty thrives in hostile geographies and that affluence is usually seen in ambient landscapes. Apart from the literal sense of the word, ‘environment’ could also be taken to mean the political and socio-cultural context of a particular geographic space. Further, global capitalism has led to the practice of exploitation of cheap labor offered by Third World nations. So, while global capitalism is further developing the length and breadth of its reach, it benefits certain