globalization, sí; globalism, no vs... · globalization, sí; globalism, no . the word...

Globalization, Sí; Globalism, No The word “globalization” has become one of the leading buzzwords of the 21st century. It stirs strong feelings, both pro and con. A lot of the controversy about globalization results from lack of a universally accepted definition of the word. “Globalization” means different things to different people, rendering communication and dialog difficult. One thing is clear, though: Globalization, whatever exactly it is, is a major phenomenon and is here to stay, and it is imperative that people of good will discuss its various aspects and implications for the purpose of working out compromises and agreements. To do that, we must clear up the confusion about what the term means. This article attempts to do that. According to an online history of the word,1 the Oxford English Dictionary defines “globalization” as “pertaining to or involving the whole world,” or more simply, “worldwide.” In the context of international trade and commerce, which is the focus of this article, the Oxford Dictionary of Economics defines “globalization” as “the process by which the whole world becomes a single market. This means that goods and services, capital, and labour are traded on a worldwide basis.” This definition hits the bull’s-eye, although, semantically speaking, the phrase “single market” is problematical. Every town, city, or region has a multiplicity of markets—labor, capital, goods, services, etc. A more accurate wording would have described the world as a “global marketplace” in which humans have access to all economic markets—i.e., those for goods, services, and the various factors of production—anywhere in the world. The International Forum on Globalization (IFG) supplies a markedly different definition of “globalization”: “…the present worldwide drive toward a globalized economic system dominated by supranational corporate trade and banking institutions that are not accountable to democratic processes or national governments.” This definition sounds much more ominous and threatening than the Oxford Dictionary’s. Instead of suggesting expanded

1 http://mrglobalization.com/globalisation/252-globalization-origin-of-the-word Our Mission:

To work toward a truly free market economic system, to reduce big government, and to grow American business and manufacturing through Issue Advocacy, Educating the Public, and Mobilizing Voters.

http://mrglobalization.com/globalisation/252-globalization--origin-of-the-word

freedom for individuals, the IFG version raises the specter of decreased freedom in a world conhttp://mrglobalization.com/globalization/252-trolled by a rich and powerful elite. People on the political left tend to be more concerned about corporations having too much power, and people on the right tend to be more concerned about political leaders, government-created bureaucracies, tribunals, and multilateral institutions having too much power. However, the left and right both are deeply concerned about some of the political developments being done in the name of “free trade” or “fair trade” as international commerce increases. These two very different definitions of globalization represent two fundamentally different concepts of what globalization is. The first definition is based in the realm of economics; the second shifts to the realm of politics. The first focuses on trade and commerce—on people freely buying and selling in markets around the world. The second injects the element of increased political power over people. The best way to distinguish between these two separate-but-related phenomena is to label them with names that distinguish them from each other. I propose we keep the Oxford definition of globalization to describe the economic phenomenon of worldwide commerce while assigning the term “globalism” to denote various plans, efforts, and official policies that create new global political power structures and establish new international rules. Let’s examine these two terms—“globalization” and “globalism”—in more detail. Globalization Multiple technological developments and improvements in the areas of transportation and communication have made the world a much smaller place in terms of human interaction. In the realm of transportation, it takes less time today for people or products to move from Pittsburgh to Australia than it took to go from Pittsburgh to Dallas a century ago. In the realm of communication, satellites and the Internet have brought instant connectivity to billions of people.

Our Mission: To work toward a truly free market economic system, to reduce big government, and to grow American

business and manufacturing through Issue Advocacy, Educating the Public, and Mobilizing Voters.

These marvelous improvements have exponentially increased the economic options and opportunities available to people. In recent decades, the division of labor has rapidly developed across national borders, expanding to include several billion people from around the globe. The potential for further increases in the division of labor is immense. Expansions of the division of labor are crucial to raising standards of living for both individuals and society. The more elaborate the social division of labor—that is, the more human beings who engage in commerce with each other—the larger the pool of skills and talents from which to draw. The more people, talent and skills incorporated into the social division of labor, the greater the degree of specialization, thereby increasing the productivity of labor and overall wealth creation. The happy result: higher standards of living. The expanded division of labor also leads to more competition, which in turn leads to improvements in quality and lower prices, further enhancing standards of living. As the television commercials state, “But wait, there’s more!” Another economic benefit from an expanded division of labor is greater utilization of absolute and comparative advantages. Consumers in a globalized economy benefit from having access to goods and services that are best in the world, not just best in a certain state or country. Producers in a globalized economy have the potential to serve a greater number of consumers, often leading to improved economies of scale that lead to lower consumer prices while still enabling the producers to operate profitably. Perhaps the greatest potential benefit of globalization is for war to diminish as peaceful economic cooperation expands. Most of human history was darkened by a grim zero-sum view of the world2—the belief that the gain of one came at the expense of another. This led to pillage, plunder, and armed aggression. In our more enlightened democratic era, more and more

2 www.forbes.com/sites/markhendrickson/2015/09/04/the-pernicious-16th-century-fallacy-that-suffuses-contemporary-progressivism/



http://www.forbes.com/sites/markhendrickson/2015/09/04/the-pernicious-16th-century-fallacy-that-suffuses-contemporary-progressivism/

people have come to see the world as a positive-sum place—that in voluntary trade and peaceful commerce, both sides benefit. It makes more sense, both for human health and wealth, for the various peoples of the world to trade goods and services rather than bullets and bombs. Clearly, peaceful commerce and voluntary trade between people from different countries is a far safer and more effective way to raise standards of living than conflict and aggression. As the world becomes more interrelated through trade and commerce that produce reciprocal prosperity—that is, as globalization proceeds—we may dare to hope that the plague of war will recede and perhaps some day become no more than a nightmarish and increasingly dim memory. Looking ahead, a greater degree of globalization seems inevitable. Globalization is one of the dominant megatrends of human history. Indeed, the trend toward globalization is as old as mankind itself, for humankind’s innate, never-ending desire for a fuller, richer life impels us toward greater social cooperation. Think how poor we would be today if all of us had to build our own homes, make our own clothes, grow our own food, and find fuel sources for cooking and heating. Desiring greater material abundance, humans learned that they could improve their lives by living in larger groups with an ever-expanding social division of labor. Over the immense span of history, rational human beings gradually learned that it is more valuable (more advantageous both economically and for one’s health) to exchange goods peacefully in ever-larger social groupings. Thus, families coalesced into clans, clans banded together into tribes, tribes merged into villages, and villages grew into towns and cities. While war and aggression often determined the state and/or national boundaries in which cities lay, and government aggression often impeded economic progress, on an economic level, an increasing number of people pursued and advanced their economic wellbeing by engaging in commerce over ever-wider geographic ranges—across county lines, state boundaries, and national borders. Because human beings always desire more, they will desire the freedom to trade with anyone anywhere who offers them what they are looking for. This ineradicable desire will outlast any resistance of special interests to restrict this freedom.



OK, time for a reality check: The foregoing rosy picture of globalization is a depiction of an ideal. Admittedly, it is far from our present reality. Nonetheless, what has been described is the potential that globalization offers for the improvement of human lives. Higher standards of living and increased peace comprise a worthy ideal for humankind to cherish and strive for. Who wouldn’t want a world in which every human being on earth has climbed out of poverty and the peoples of the world have forged such strong ties of peaceful economic cooperation that they have forsaken war? So, how do we get from here to there, to that better world? What can we do to promote and facilitate global commerce? The essential requirement, the means to the worthy ends we have outlined, is for people to be free to trade peacefully with whomever they wish and to be protected from any person or group of persons who would infringe on that freedom. This brings us to the realm of government. Governments must protect and nurture globalization in two ways, one active and one passive. Governments must act to restrain crimes against all people and property so that commerce may proceed unimpeded. It is equally necessary that governments refrain from intervening to tilt the table and pick economic winners and losers in competitive world markets. Obviously, this is much easier said than done, but it is absolutely indispensable if the immense potential of globalization is to be realized. Governments versus globalization At present, progress toward globalization is being held back by national governments. Governments retard and undermine free international commerce in two main ways: by erecting various types of trade barriers that protect domestic businesses against foreign competition, and by subsidizing favored businesses to the detriment of unsubsidized competitors. The international competition of globalization will, in the absence of government intervention, have the same economic consequences as



domestic competition: consumers will benefit, the producers who win the competitive battles will profit, and the producers that get beat in economic competition will sustain losses. However, the politics of international competition features an important difference from domestic competition: Since Americans can vote in American elections and foreigners can’t, American producers seize this advantage and lobby Washington for protectionist measures. Indeed, one of the reasons it has been so difficult for the U.S. to successfully negotiate trade agreements in recent years is that certain key domestic constituencies have sufficient political clout to persuade Washington to protect them from foreign competition.3 Such intervention by the government manifests a glaring inconsistency: It is against the law for private businesses to adopt strategies “in restraint of trade,” yet government trade barriers do exactly that—they restrain trade by pricing imports out of the domestic market or by limiting the amount of imports through quotas. The firms receiving trade protection generally seek to justify it on the basis of “fairness.”4 They say that the only reason they seek protection is because of unfair actions taken by their offshore competitors. Sometimes these complaints have merit, sometimes they don’t. Perhaps the most common charge is that foreigners have engaged in “dumping”5—i.e., selling

3 For example, in a recent, typical year (2011) Congress bestowed $10.4 billion in direct government payments upon US farmers. See U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, “Direct government payments, 2009-2013F,” http://web.archive.org/web-20130426171602/ http://www.ers.usda/gov/data-products/farm-income-and-wealth-statistics.aspx 4 See, for example, John W. Miller and Lisa Beilfuss, “U.S. Steelmakers Seek Antidumping Action Against China, Four Others,” The Wall Street Journal, 3 June 2015, www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-steelmakers-seek-antidumping-action-against-china-other-countries-1433353218 5 Bryan Riley, “U.S. Trade Policy Gouges American Sugar Consumers,” Backgrounder #2914, The Heritage Foundation, Jun 5, 2014, www.heritage.org.research/reports/2014/06/u-s-trade-policy-gouges-american-sugar-consumers



http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-steelmakers-seek-antidumping-action-against-china-other-countries-1433353218

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/06/us-trade-policy-gouges-american-sugar-consumers

http://web.archive.org/web-20130426171602/http:/www.ers.usda/gov/data-products/farm-income-and-wealth-statistics.aspx

http://web.archive.org/web-20130426171602/http:/www.ers.usda/gov/data-products/farm-income-and-wealth-statistics.aspx



http://www.heritage.org.researchreports/2014/06/u-s-trade-policy-gouges-american-sugar-consumers

http://www.heritage.org.researchreports/2014/06/u-s-trade-policy-gouges-american-sugar-consumers

for prices lower than the cost of production. The fact is that both domestic and foreign firms often sell goods below cost. Such practices as loss-leaders, temporary price wars to increase market share, and cutting one’s losses by slashing prices on unsold inventory are a daily part of the rough and tumble of competitive commerce, whether domestic or international. Selling below cost is virtually impossible for private firms to continue indefinitely. If it happens continually, it is generally due to the other form of harmful government intervention in trade, namely, government subsidies. The natural tendency of unrestricted, unsubsidized competition is to drive prices lower, whereas government subsidies and quotas push prices higher than they otherwise would be. Indeed, government subsidies to private businesses are arguably the single greatest impediment to the consummation of trade agreements. US trade negotiators can hardly mount a credible case for a free trade agreement, nor can they, with a straight face, criticize foreign governments for subsidizing certain industries, when Uncle Sam in unwilling to abandon that very same practice. What we’re up against here is the ubiquitous cronyism that pervades democratic governments at home and abroad. Many Americans, whether on the political right, left, or center, are fed up with the collusion by which political and business elites benefit themselves at the expense of John Q. Public, but it appears that many of them don’t realize that promoting globalization by liberating trade from political interferences with trade would be one of the most effective ways of defeating cronyism. Globalism Since government policies are the major obstacles to the development of globalization, scaling back and eliminating harmful governmental policies is essential if globalization is to proceed. Theoretically, the US government could facilitate fuller American participation in globalization by unilaterally reducing domestic trade



barriers, abolishing domestic subsidies, and opening American markets to any foreign vendor that meets the following conditions: it doesn’t receive government subsidies, hasn’t violated American property rights, and its products comply with the same American consumer protection laws with which American businesses must comply. Practically speaking, despite the fact that overall American prosperity would rise through increased trade and the concomitant expansion of the division of labor, greater access to international markets, unilateral action toward globalization by Uncle Sam would be extremely difficult politically, because Congress and the president at present seem incapable of breaking free from the special interests. Instead, in the curious politics of international trade, our government officials will only let the American economy obtain the benefits of increased international commerce if foreign governments will allow their own citizens to receive those benefits, too; in other words, neither side will reduce trade barriers or cut subsidies unless the other side does. Thus, for better or worse, progress toward globalization is, at present, dependent on international political agreements. Thus, globalization is being hijacked by globalism, to the detriment of people around the world. There are widespread, legitimate concerns that international trade agreements will, in fact, turn out to be for the worse, with negatives outweighing positives and costs exceeding benefits. Let’s review the IFG’s definition of globalization: a “drive toward a globalized economic system dominated by supranational corporate trade and banking institutions that are not accountable to democratic processes or national governments.” The IFG definition does not explicitly identify those “supranational…[un]accountable…[un]democratic” institutions. To some, this wording may suggest that megabanks and gigantic multinational corporations will enjoy privileged status, living above the law and enjoying the spoils of rigged global markets. That would be abhorrent, but just to be clear, businesses could not gain such power and control by themselves, but only if governments conferred various privileges and powers upon them. Whatever their exact form and character, the institutions that the IFG



warns about, and of which we need to beware, will be the product of political processes—that is, of globalism, not of greater international commerce (i.e., globalization). We face the very real possibility that the so-called “free trade” agreements being negotiated now not only won’t establish free trade, but instead will keep trade from becoming freer by codifying and perpetuating the cozy government-business relationships that we commonly know as “cronyism.” Currently, whether it is China with its state-owned enterprises, or the US and Europe with their cronies in nominally private businesses, the major players in international trade negotiations appear unready to cut the cords that bind business and government. What a sad irony for the people of the world it will be if the obnoxious, rampant cronyism that needs to be weeded out of our domestic politics instead becomes the standard modus operandi of international policy as enshrined in trade agreements. Cronyism appears to be alive and well in the provisions of TPP that were unveiled this week (October 5, 2015). One example: In exchange for allowing foreign dairy producers to supply a modest 3.25% of Canada’s domestic market for dairy products, Canada’s farmers will have access to a “fair compensation package” that will funnel approximately $4.3 billion to them over the next 15 years.6 We can only hope that some of the people on the left, who oppose both freer trade and cronyism, eventually will realize that the economic system known as the free market is the best defense people have against cronyism and domination by corporations. The most effective way to keep businesses in line and on their best behavior toward consumers is to make sure that those businesses are always subject to the rigorous competition of free markets. The belief that the people are helpless before the power of giant corporations is erroneous. Whatever became of Montgomery Ward, A&P grocery stores, Howard Johnson restaurants, or, for that matter, most of the corporations whose stocks used to be included in the Dow-Jones

6 Terry Milewski, “TPP: The disaster that didn’t happen for dairy and auto sectors, CBC News, 6 October 2015; www.cbc.ca/news/canada-election-2015-tpp-trans-pacific-partnership-auto-dairy-fears-milewski-1.3258048



http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada-election-2015-tpp-trans-pacific-partnership-auto-dairy-fears-milewski-1.3258048



Industrial Average? The competition of free markets, in which businesses only succeed by best serving the economic wants of consumers, banished those former high-and-mighty corporations to oblivion. Unfortunately, there are more potential dangers posed by the trade agreements currently being negotiated than just the establishment of a new international order based on business-government cronyism. Virtually everyone knowledgeable about trade knows about the significant gains to our standard of living that have resulted from reductions of trade barriers in recent decades. The Obama White House issued a report last May that stated, “Compared to a world with no trade, median-income consumers gain an estimated 29 percent of their purchasing power from trade.”7 Further reductions should bring comparable benefits, but the question has become: At what price? For example, would it be worth it to us to obtain lower foreign tariffs in exchange for giving permission to foreign producers to export into the US goods that do no comply with our consumer safety laws? This is one of the controversial points about the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). Proponents of trade, such as the libertarian Cato Institute, insist that TPP wouldn’t trump domestic laws.8 Yet, International Business Times reported in 2013 that TPP would empower companies to file lawsuits in international tribunals by which they could receive compensation for losses they would suffer as a result of having products that don’t comply with the domestic laws of the country into which they wanted to sell goods—a charge confirmed by The New York Times earlier this year. The Times wrote, “Under the accord…companies and investors would be empowered to challenge regulations, rules, government actions and court rulings—federal, sate or local—before tribunals organized under the World Bank or the United Nations.”9 We need more trade, but not at the

7 “The Economic Benefits of U.S. Trade,” The White House, May 2015; www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/cea_trade_report_final_non_embargoed_v2.pdf 8 Scott Lincicome, “Top Nine Myths About Trade Promotion Authority And The Trans-Pacific Partnership,” Cato at Liberty, 9 June 2015. 9 www.ibtimes.com/despite-leak-tpp-text-obama-officials-say-trade-deal-will-not-let-companies-overturn-1860570



http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/cea_trade_report_final_non_embargoed_v2.pdf

http://www.ibtimes.com/despite-leak-tpp-text-obama-officials-say-trade-deal-will-not-let-companies-overturn-1860570


http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/cea_trade_report_final_non_embargoes_v2.pdf

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/cea_trade_report_final_non_embargoes_v2.pdf



expense of undermining our national sovereignty and our laws. For international tribunals or organizations to have the power to overrule the laws duly passed by our elected representatives is (besides the economic impact of unfairly tilting the playing field against domestic businesses) a direct assault against our constitutional government. Another aspect of trade agreements that gives pause even to those of us who favor more trade is when the agreement fails to uphold our property rights. The primary responsibility that the government of a constitutional republic has to its people is to protect their fundamental rights, to keep them safe in their persons and properties. As we push for more trade—for more positive-sum transactions in which both sides benefit by reciprocally benefiting each other—we must guard against the destructive zero-sum practice of theft. Our entire way of life is based on property rights. If foreigners commit aggression against our way of life by stealing intellectual property from American businesses, there need to be provisions and mechanisms for the offender to make restitution to its victims. It is a pointless mockery to execute an agreement for mutual benefit with a trade partner who is simultaneously stealing from us. The good news about the proposed TPP is that China is not party to it. According to a recent report, the FBI has documented “a 53 percent increase in the theft of American trade secrets” at a cost of “hundreds of billions of dollars in the past year….95 percent of those cases involved individuals associated with the Chinese government.”10 TPP, if passed, will provide a useful test. In Chapter 18 of its 30 chapters, TPP addresses the issue of intellectual property. If TPP passes, let us hope that those provisions prove to be effective. Since the nations that have signed on to TPP are not known to be flagrant violators of property rights, TPP probably will not subject American businesses to major risks, but if there are violations, we will soon learn if the protections of IP have teeth.

10 Chet Neagle, China Is Stealing American Property,” The Daily Caller, 24September 2015; www.dailycaller.com/2015/09/24/china-is-stealing-american-property/



http://www.dailycaller.com/2015/09/24/china-is-stealing-american-property/

http://www.dailycaller.com/2015/09/24/china-is-stealing-american-property/

There are several other major problems with TPP [if not with the other one—please ask Charlie]. One is the provision in TPP that, once adopted, it will be considered a “living document.” Acting on information supplied by Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) through Investors Business Daily, I have already written about this issue.11 This provision bestows discretionary powers to the American president and foreign heads of state to modify the terms of the agreement on an ongoing basis. This, of course, vitiates Congress’ constitutional prerogative to “regulate Commerce with foreign Nations” (Art. 1, Sect. 8, para. 3). Once Congress adopts TPP, it essentially forfeits control over trade to the executive branch. For Congress to abdicate its constitutional responsibilities and grant carte blanche powers to the president subverts the constitutional order and does violence to the principles of republican government. Another problem with TPP is the secrecy that surrounds it. Our constitution guarantees us a republican form of government, which means that government should serve the people, rather than people serving the government. It is inconsistent with republican, democratic, representative government that the laws that govern us be concocted behind closed doors and then foisted upon us as a fait accompli. As it currently stands, we are dependent on groups such as WikiLeaks to provide us with what we hope are accurate excerpts of the TPP agreement. Another problem with TPP is the inclusion of chapters about international labor (chapter 19) and environmental (chapter 20) standards. The obvious point here is to ask the question: What are international labor and environmental agreements doing in a trade agreement? A trade agreement is one thing, but labor laws and environmental regulations are separate issues that should not be sneaked into law on the coattails of agreements ostensibly designed to increase trade. The standard explanation for the inclusion of these two chapters is that it is the only way to persuade the

11 Mark Hendrickson, TPP: A Threat To The Rule Of Law?, Forbes.com, 15 May 2015; www.forbes.com/sites/markhendrickson/2015/05/15/tpp-a-threat-to-the-rule-of-law/



http://www.forbes.com/sites/markhendrickson/2015/05/15/tpp-a-threat-to-the-rule-of-law/

political left to agree to a reduction of trade barriers. (As it stands, many on the left still oppose TPP in spite of these concessions to them.) The actual effect of chapters stipulating costly labor and environmental standards is that poorer countries simply cannot afford them at this stage of their economic development. Less developed economies like Vietnam’s are caught in a bind: If they raise their labor costs to comply with TPP, they are likely to lose business to countries outside of TPP that have lower labor costs, and if they don’t comply with TPP’s labor standards, then the US and other developed countries can block imports from Vietnam to protect higher-cost domestic enterprises. As for stricter environmental standards, while we all yearn for a cleaner environment, as our own history demonstrates, allocating sufficient resources for environmental remediation and protection only becomes possible—that is, affordable—when a country achieves a high level of economic development. Demanding a country adopt expensive environmental measures before it has the economic wherewithal to do so is to put the cart before the horse and impose an unfair, unduly harsh burden upon that country. Once again, special interests in the wealthier countries could exploit this provision of TPP to obtain non-tariff protections against imports from less developed economies—either via immediate suspension of such imports or delaying such imports by tying them up in legal wrangling and disputes. The bottom line on the labor and environmental chapters of TPP is that they may be devices for restricting rather than liberating and expanding trade, making TPP in part an anti-trade agreement. Perhaps the most potential for future mischief resulting from TPP is posed by the strengthening of existing multilateral institutions (e.g., the WTO) and the creation of new ones. Thus, in the name of globalization, governments are erecting new political power structures. This is globalism. Americans need to be diligent that we not adopt agreements that expand the power of the ultimate globalists—the unelected, therefore undemocratic, unaccountable officials who populate various supranational multilateral agencies against which the IFG warned us. These days, our



constitutional order already is at risk on the domestic front where unelected executive branch bureaucrats, and not our elected representatives in Congress, promulgate more than 90% of the rules we live by and we have no way to remove oppressive bureaucrats from their posts. The bureaucrats who populate multilateral agencies are even less accountable, for no single government can remove them from their positions. Globalists and the multilateral institutions in which they operate pose serious threats to both individual rights and national sovereignty. Consider such organizations as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank, United Nations (UN), Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), European Central Bank (ECB) and Federal Reserve (the Fed), and the World Trade Organization (WTO). All of them wield considerable power over people in spite of never having been elected by the people over whom they wield power. Take, for example, the IMF, which dispenses billions of dollars of money taken from global taxpayers every year. The IMF has a horrible track record of inflicting pain on countries unlucky enough to have borrowed from it. Today, its central role in the brazen takeover of the Greek government by non-Greeks (i.e., by globalists) should give us all pause. Another gaggle of globalists inhabits the OECD. Although that organization has published excellent work showing the economic destructiveness of business taxes, it is currently using taxpayer dollars to conspire and collude with national governments in making life more difficult for taxpayers—specifically, by coordinating an international campaign to persuade national governments not to reduce business taxes as a means of increasing national economic competitiveness, even if the high-business-tax country’s taxpayers desperately need additional employment opportunities. How ironic—the increased trade that characterizes globalization leads to more vigorous competition and consequently to stronger economic growth, yet the OECD lobbies against countries availing themselves of the considerable benefits of competition for themselves.



The UN has long sought to impose some sort of global tax. This past summer, the UN proposed an international tax to raise $400 billion for its top down economic planning.12 Various intellectuals support this initiative. The French economist Thomas Piketty, whose book Capitalism in the Twenty-First Century became a bestseller, endorsed by progressives around the world, advocates multilateral coordination between governments as a prelude to a globalist system of wealth transfers. (At the end of September, the UN presented “a new fifteen-year plan entitled “Transforming Our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development,” Goal #10 of which is to “Reduce inequality within and among countries.”)13 The Obama Administration shares this vision and at present is energetically extracting cooperation between financial institutions in various countries and U.S. Treasury officials with its vigorous enforcement of the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) that Obama gladly signed into law in 2010. The UN also wants to build up its military capabilities—a step that some say will eventually lead to establishment of a unitary global government. Once again, the Obama Administration supports beefing up the UN, having requested for fiscal year 2015 a 33 percent increase in the United States’ annual UN contribution and a 43 percent increase in the US contribution to the UN’s military arm.14 The ideal of world government has enthralled idealists, dreamers, and ambitious politicians for a long time. They often assert that if there is a single worldwide government, there won’t be any wars. This may be technically true, depending on how one defines “war,” but we should remember that the Soviet Union consisted of 15 republics that were brought under one government. While there weren’t “wars” in the

12 “UN calls for international tax to raise $400 billion to finance development needs,” UN, 5 July 2015; www.un.org/development/desa/en/news/policy/wess2012.html 13 Tom DeWeese, “A New Agenda 21 Threatens Our Way of Life,” American Policy Center, 14 September 2015; www.americanpolicy.org/2015/09/14/its-1992-all-over-again/ 14 Alex Newman,” Obama Budget Supersizes U.S. Funding for UN, Global Military,” The New American, 4 April, 2014; www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/foreign-policy/item/17990-obama-budget-supersizes-u-s-funding-for-un-global-military



http://www.un.org/development/desa/en/news/policy/wess2012.html

http://www.americanpolicy.org/2015/09/14/its-1992-all-over-again/

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/foreign-policy/item/17990-obama-budget-supersizes-u-s-funding-for-un-global-military

http://www.un.org/development/desa/en/news/policy/wess2012.html





conventional sense (at least, after the Soviet military crushed organized armed resistance in the civil wars of the 1920s and early ‘30s) the USSR nevertheless was a very violent place for its citizens. Just as competition between businesses puts the consumer in charge and induces businesses to treat customers better, so competition between governments can lead to better conditions for citizens by providing alternative domiciles for those dissatisfied with how their current government treats them. Political and governmental monopolies are even more destructive than business monopolies, and the peoples of the world will be much better off if we can steer clear from the establishment of a unitary global government. While all of these multilateral agencies cause alarm bells to go off, it is the WTO and potential additional multilateral trade tribunals that are of most immediate concern today—both to many who favor more international commerce and to many who want to curtail trade from their own parochial interests. If those multilateral bodies have the power to overrule our consumer protection laws today, what other laws might they trample tomorrow? How about immigration laws? While our country will benefit mightily from the importation of highly skilled and/or capital endowed immigrants as well as workers needed to fill job openings, most Americans would be uncomfortable with unelected multilateral bureaucrats commanding us to open our borders to all who want to come here in the name of some esoteric globalist agenda. Concluding remarks Increased trade will bring multiple economic benefits. If our trade agreements can succeed in reducing, if not eliminating government subsidies and special anti-competitive protections for special-interest cronies, that will give future prosperity a significant boost. The peoples of the world deserve to have governments that respect the right of people to engage in free economic choice, free trade, and free commerce. They need to relinquish their tired, old practices (whether called feudalism, mercantilism, socialism or any other system of government for



and by elites) of intervening to rig markets and choose economic winners and losers. The peoples of the world can have the benefits of increased trade without having to surrender national sovereignty. We the people need to guard diligently against the machinations of ambitious politicians and unelected, undemocratic elitists who wish to exploit peoples’ natural desire to trade as a means of hijacking trade negotiations to accumulate power for themselves. To maximize human economic progress and avail ourselves of the immense potential of globalization, we must ensure that no corporation, no government, and no multilateral organization can be permitted to manipulate the trade issue to undermine free choice and free markets. We must not be so eager to secure a trade agreement that we end up making a deal with the devil by which our country’s trade negotiators bargain away our rights and legal protections. Globalization could be one of the best things ever to happen to Americans. Globalism could be one of the worst. Let’s make sure we get this right.



globalization, sí; globalism, no vs... · globalization, sí; globalism, no . the word...

Documents