Jump to: navigation, search


2 bytes added, 04:33, 2 December 2019
Globalists oppose [[nationalism]], [[national sovereignty]], and [[self-governance]]. Instead, they favor [[open borders]], [[free trade]],<ref>Scaliger, Charles (August 20, 2018). [ “Free Trade” Isn’t Really About Trade]. ''The New American''. Retrieved August 20, 2018.</ref><ref>Gomez, Christian (September 13, 2019). [ Bilateral Betrayal: The Free Trade Route to Globalism]. ''The New American''. Retrieved September 13, 2019.</ref> [[H-1B visas]], interventionism, foreign aid, and changing the [[U.S. Constitution]]. They oppose strong border security and the building of [[border wall]]s. Globalists virulently opposed [[Donald Trump]] in 2016. Instead, globalists preferred [[Jeb Bush]], [[John Kasich]], [[Marco Rubio]] and [[Ted Cruz]] for the nomination, the latter of which have voted in favor of the globalist agenda as senators. Globalists can come from several political leanings, from the [[far-left]] to those considered on the right-of-center.<ref>Leahy, Michael Patrick (October 31, 2017). [ Paul Singer and George Soros: Billionaire Bookends of Globalist Opposition to Trump Agenda]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved November 1, 2017.</ref> [[George Soros]] and the [[Koch brothers]] are globalists. Globalists falsely claim that mass migration is necessary for economic growth.<ref>Binder, John (July 27, 2018). [ Fail: 9 Times Globalists Claimed Mass Immigration Is Necessary to Increase GDP]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved July 28, 2018.</ref> While they often claim to support "liberal democracy," they usually align themselves with authoritarian communist regimes like China.<ref>Jasper, William F. (November 16, 2019). [ The Pigmen of the Deep State]. ''The New American''. Retrieved November 16, 2019.</ref>
Liberals support globalism because it leads to centralized power, thereby providing liberals with an easier way to gain control. Liberals can more easily persuade a handful of people in a centralized government to rule in their favor than convince everyone of their agenda in a decentralized form of government. Goals of [[America]]n globalists include:
*"harmonizing" our laws with foreign ones, rather than vice-versa
*[[amnesty]] for [[illegal alien]]s, [[open borders]], no [[border wall]]
The term "global" looks at the world as a single cohesive unit while the term "international" better recognizes the world's different countries, different cultures, different languages, different ethnicities, and national borders. Thus the two terms are not the same thing and using them interchangeably is often incorrect; however, it should be noted that the two are not mutually exclusive. While globalists tend to see themselves as "open" and "progressive", while their opponents want a "closed" society, ''The Economist'', a globalist publication, has admitted this is not the case.<ref>Munro, Neil (March 20, 2018). [ The Economist: ‘Open Society’ Advocates Are ‘Narcissistic Cosmopolitans’]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved March 20, 2018.</ref>
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 ensured 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 [ review by Daniel T. Griswold, "The Road to Wealth," ''National Review'' April 19, 2004]</ref>
Block, Siteadmin, SkipCaptcha, Upload, check user, delete, edit, move, oversight, protect, rollback, Administrator