Changes

Globalism also involves the theory of a "global economy" in which the economic achievements of most if not all nations are interdependent with those of other nations around the world because of international trade. This is possible because of recent technological inventions such as the internet. For example, a farmer in [[Ghana]] can now be insured that he is paid the standard market price for a particular crop because of the standards set in Chicago which he can check with a telephone or internet connection.

Globalism also involves the theory of a "global economy" in which the economic achievements of most if not all nations are interdependent with those of other nations around the world because of international trade. This is possible because of recent technological inventions such as the internet. For example, a farmer in [[Ghana]] can now be insured that he is paid the standard market price for a particular crop because of the standards set in Chicago which he can check with a telephone or internet connection.

Bhagwati (2004) explains how globalization has delivered a better standard of living in less developed countries, and how experiments with protectionist "import substitution" policies have systematically failed.  he demonstrates that anti-globalism comprises a discontented brew of anti-capitalism, anti-corporatism, and anti-Americanism. His case that globalization has benefited the poor uses a two-step argument: trade enhances economic growth, and growth reduces poverty. He contrasts the failure of protectionism to deliver prosperity in post-colonial India and other countries with the progress and development in East Asia and other more outward-oriented countries. The growth spurred by globalization has not only expanded the pie but has done so in a way that is "socially benign" and possesses "a human face," says Bhagwati.  Bhagwati refutes the liberal argument — heard frequently in the Democrat primary debates — that the U.S. must impose labor and environmental standards on poor countries in any future trade agreements.  On the contrary, he shows that U.S. multinationals do not seek out less developed countries with low standards; instead they locate most of their affiliates in other high-wage, high-standard countries, and when they do invest in poor countries, they invariably pay wages and maintain standards far above those prevailing in the local economy. The result is not a "race to the bottom," but a race to the top. An inescapable implication is that if the Democrats succeed in withholding U.S. trade and investment from poor countries because they are poor, it will mean slower growth in those countries: fewer girls studying in school, and more working in farms, factories, and brothels.<ref>See the [http://www.nationalreview.com/books/griswold200406010921.asp review by Daniel T. Griswold, "The Road to Wealth," ''National Review'' April 19, 2004]</ref>

Bhagwati (2004) explains how globalization has delivered a better standard of living in less developed countries, and how experiments with protectionist "import substitution" policies have systematically failed.  he demonstrates that anti-globalism comprises a discontented brew of anti-capitalism, anti-corporatism, and anti-Americanism. His case that globalization has benefited the poor uses a two-step argument: trade enhances economic growth, and growth reduces poverty. He contrasts the failure of protectionism to deliver prosperity in post-colonial India and other countries with the progress and development in East Asia and other more outward-oriented countries. The growth spurred by globalization has not only expanded the pie but has done so in a way that is "socially benign" and possesses "a human face," says Bhagwati.  Bhagwati refutes the liberal argument — heard frequently in the Democrat primary debates — that the U.S. must impose labor and environmental standards on poor countries in any future trade agreements.  On the contrary, he shows that U.S. multinationals do not seek out less developed countries with low standards; instead they locate most of their affiliates in other high-wage, high-standard countries, and when they do invest in poor countries, they invariably pay wages and maintain standards far above those prevailing in the local economy. The result is not a "race to the bottom," but a race to the top. An inescapable implication is that if the Democrats succeed in withholding U.S. trade and investment from poor countries because they are poor, it will mean slower growth in those countries: fewer girls studying in school, and more working in farms, factories, and brothels.<ref>See the [https://www.nationalreview.com/books/griswold200406010921.asp review by Daniel T. Griswold, "The Road to Wealth," ''National Review'' April 19, 2004]</ref>

==Developments towards a one world government==

==Developments towards a one world government==