I'm a globalist. How about you?

undergroundrr

Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
3,334
I should be precise. I'm not a political globalist, but an economic globalist.

https://mises.org/blog/economic-globalization-not-political-globalization

Economic globalization is synonymous with the cross-border division of labor. Today, no country produces solely to satisfy its own needs, but instead also for producers and consumers in other countries. And each country makes what it knows best, relatively speaking.

Economic globalization, with free trade being a natural component, increases productivity. Without it, the poverty on this planet would not have been reduced to the extent it has been over the past decades.

From the very outset, political globalization has nothing to do with economic globalization. It aims to direct and determine all relations between people on the various continents by way of authoritarian rule. The decision about what is being produced and consumed as well as where and at what time isn't to be found by the free market, the division of labor and free trade, but instead by an ideological-political creative force.

The core argument of political globalization is that coping with ever more complex problems of this world — ranging from economic crises to the protection of the environment — requires a central decision-making process. The nation state — as a sovereign representative of people — has become obsolete and needs to be replaced by a globally active political power.

Of course, the thinking behind this opinion is purely socialist-collectivist.
 
It is the ability to freely exchange goods with all people from all over the world without any boundaries that puts the "free" in "free trade."
 
I know a LOT of business owners that would NOT be in business right now if it wasn't for inexpensive production in China, China, China, Chyyynnaa...
 

Nope.

A good definition:
The Globalists are a conglomerate of individuals, interest groups and large corporations who actively seek to eliminate all countries to create a global border-less society so that they can centralize, reduce and standardize all economies, production and the processing of natural resources so that they can directly control, manipulate and influence the decisions we make to ensure they maintain their power, control, wealth and historical influence.
 
Nope.

A good definition:

It seems to have been written a few years back by a guy named Andrew Puhanic with a very infrequent blog called the Globalist Report whose website isn't live anymore.

He wrote it to replace another definition he culled up - "the Globalist movement is an alliance based on self-interests of the private international financiers and the royal, dynastic and hereditary land owning families of Britain, Europe and America which over the years have intermarried to create a self regenerating power structure that through lies and deception seeks to control everything and everyone"

Both are probably true, but neither seem to be universally accepted.

In other words globalism is like pornography, you know it when you see it.

Webster's definition by the way seems to be "a national policy of treating the whole world as a proper sphere for political influence — compare imperialism, internationalism." By that definition, trump, McCain, Cheney, McMaster et al are political globalists.
 
I think what you're meaning to say here is that markets should be as open globally as possible, but governance should be the exact opposite - as local as possible.

(which, by the way, is just another way of saying that with an absence of control, freedom will reign.)
 
It seems to have been written a few years back by a guy named Andrew Puhanic with a very infrequent blog called the Globalist Report whose website isn't live anymore.

He wrote it to replace another definition he culled up - "the Globalist movement is an alliance based on self-interests of the private international financiers and the royal, dynastic and hereditary land owning families of Britain, Europe and America which over the years have intermarried to create a self regenerating power structure that through lies and deception seeks to control everything and everyone"

Both are probably true, but neither seem to be universally accepted.

In other words globalism is like pornography, you know it when you see it.

Webster's definition by the way seems to be "a national policy of treating the whole world as a proper sphere for political influence — compare imperialism, internationalism." By that definition, trump, McCain, Cheney, McMaster et al are political globalists.

McMaster is certainly not a globalists--thus, I wouldn't put Trump in that category as well.

Trump’s New National Security Advisor Warned Against “Military Industrial Complex”
http://livingresistance.com/2017/02...y-advisor-warned-military-industrial-complex/
 
You would rather not allow trade outside a local area?
Correct. I would rather buy anything I wanted within 10 miles at a local store, farmers market, or directly from the producer. Who wouldn't?

edit thought you asked if I'd rather not trade outside a local area.
 
I would rather buy anything I wanted within 10 miles at a local store, farmers market, or directly from the producer.

Right. Me too. I believe the choice and quality of local goods would go into hyper-drive if "anti-globalist" tariffs and subsidies were eliminated.
 
I think what you're meaning to say here is that markets should be as open globally as possible, but governance should be the exact opposite - as local as possible.

(which, by the way, is just another way of saying that with an absence of control, freedom will reign.)

100% agree.
 
McMaster is certainly not a globalists

He's an interventionist. In military terms, that's a globalist. From one side of his mouth he talks about St. Augustine, just war and empathy. From the other, he insists on invading where it's none of our business.

"What we must do is we must defeat these enemies, who are enemies of all civilized people, along with our partners and allies in the region, the people who are suffering the most, who are in these regions in Afghanistan and Iraq and so forth." - H.R. Pufnstuf McMaster
 
Free Trade under corporate rule is a neocon globalists wet dream...lol...I prefer to buy locally. I also avoid chain stores as much as possible. Money spent locally tends to circulate locally which improves the economy for everyone around us. If more people thought this way and actually did that, then chain monopolies who funnel mass amounts of money out of the region would be less of a problem and local mom and pops wouldn't be disappearing.

McMaster sure is a globalist. He also prefers ground troops and plans to increase our numbers significantly. He said that Iraq should have been handled like Korea...lol....which would have meant more men for AK fodder.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-as-trump-vows-to-rebuild-depleted-force.html

http://www.defenseone.com/politics/2017/02/how-mcmaster-could-change-way-us-goes-war/135571/
 
Back
Top