There are many who seemingly do not grasp that if they want globalism and think it's a great thing they will have to live with it, warts and all. What warts?
If a product can be made cheaper overseas than in the US, so be it. But for some reason some of the same people who forward concepts of one world type thought, and included in that are globalism and transnationalism, then turn around and scream bloody murder that "jobs are leaving the US." No kidding!
If the average worker in Singapore earns $2.00 per hour for a light manufacturing job, then because American's earn far more per hour, that manufacturing job moves overseas. I don't like it anymore than the next guy, but I am a realist. I grasp that if one demands globalism and transnationalism, then they can't whine when the bad comes with the good - well, the can and do whine, but I have no sympathy for them - they got what they wanted.
Some forward we are to allow transnationalism to seep into our nation's sovereign law and politics, yet when jobs move overseas due to globalism these same people scream for protectionist policies. These are naive folks or folks playing a political game whereby they talk out of both sides of their mouth to please two separate masters at the same time.
If we are to be "one world" in any respect - law, economy, national sovereignty - then those forwarding it have no room to whine, but they will. It is politically expedient for them to do so. Ever notice how the ones who whine the loudest in FAVOR of transnationalism are the loudest AGAINST globalism.
So they argue for the interpretation of international law and international courts and world bodies out of one side of their mouth, then scream when jobs move overseas due to economics. Are they this ignorant? No, they are playing politics, pure and simple.
My favorite part of this discussion revolves around some of the globalism concepts forwarded by these big thinkers. Here's one for ya. The spice Turmeric is grown in India. Yet because American companies make money on the processing and selling of the spice worldwide, some radical globalism proponents argue since the spice is from India, India should get ALL the revenue. They argue Americans should only be buyers on the world market and not make any money on the natural resource from a foreign land.
Okay . . . Let's see . . . so if Americans should not make money on foreign products and natural resources, fine by me. But tit for tat friends, tit for tat.
The US developed atomic power, so all of it must return to America! We invented the airplane, so give 'em up folks.
What else has the US provided the world? Air conditioning? Pesticides? Medicines? Modern farming equipment? The list goes on. So if in fairness in the minds of radical globalism proponents we are not due any profit from foreign resources and labor, tit for tat folks! Anyone agree?
Now, of course my argument is a demonstration of just how ignorant the radical globalism crowd really is. The US, the evilest of all nations, must give up material interest and profit in any other nation's labor or resource, but the rest of the world must indeed have the resources, labor and invention of the US? BS friends.
Yes, we all know who these people are who forward this double-speak nonsense, now don't we? They say one thing to justify their vilification of our nation - that we must not make any profit on foreign resources and goods - and then the other side of their mouth opens and they forward that the US is STILL obligated to provide for the world, and that indeed world courts and international law should be the order of the day in the US! And to make it even worse, then these same people scream against jobs going overseas. What insanity. Pure political stupidity and insanity.
Just something to think about.
Published by Snidely Whiplash
Nuthin' of note. View profile
- US. Supreme Court, International Law, and Crimes Against HumanityFrancis A. Boyle is a leading American professor, practitioner and advocate of international law.
- How to Dress for a Manufacturing Job InterviewWe are told to dress our best for an interview. However, this may not be the best tactic when dressing for a manufacturing job interview.
Haiti's History: America's 1915 Invasion, Occupation of HaitiIn 1915, pressured by violent chaos and the flaunting of international law, President Wilson authorized an invasion of Haiti.- Neoliberal Globalization and International LawExamines Neoliberal history, ideology, and the effects economic policies in the West have on international law.
- GOP Poster Child for Teenage Pregnancy: Bristol Palin, Daughter of Sarah PalinTit for tat: 17-Year-Old Bristol Palin, daughter of VP nominee Sarah Palin, is 5 months pregnant.
- Is the U.S. Violating the Constitution and International Law to Halt Drug Trade?
- The United States of America Vs. 2009
- Some Individuals Have No Health Insurance by CHOICE!
- Globalization and Translation: A Tool for Extending the American Ideological Empire?
- Profitable Diversity
- Tit for Tat
- Why God Invented Tit for Tat: Lex Talionis in Genesis 4

6 Comments
Post a CommentAnd the US is the most unique nation on this rock. Why should we join the amalgam? Because everyone else does? If little Johnny jumps off the cliff, do you follow along too? Didn't your folks teach you better than that? As for the 80-20 paradigm, I don't buy it. But so what if they do? Rich peeps always have more of everything - money, prestige and opportunity. That's how America works - always has, hopefully when Progressivism is sent to the trash heap along with other ignorant ideologies, the US will be free to continue along our unique and quite prosperous path.
The US is the ONLY country not benefiting from globalism. Or, let me correct that: the 80% of the population that make up the regular working American citizens are not. The rich 20% are laughing all the way to their off shore banks.
Hell in a hand basket
There can be some good arguments made in favor of Globalism, such as the pooling of resources worldwide and the ease of commerce (due to one world currency with no fluctuating exchange rates and easily traversed borders). But the downside, loss of American sovereignty and autonomy, is trading away too much just so the few people at the top of the multinational corporate heap can profit even more than they do already. So, IMHO, the costs to Americans far outweigh the benefits, especially when a worldwide governing body can make laws which decide our fate, and we have no say-so in the matter.
Smart girl Last Chance!
The song "You and Me Against the World" comes to mind.