Free trade globalism has been a radical and spectacular failure with the result of populism - And here is why

[untermensche]

American Democracy itself is rooted in the concept of populism...

There really is only "democracy", not "American democracy".

American democracy is not democracy.

It is a system where the very rich compete for control of the nation.

A narrowly competitive plutocracy betters describes the US system and it was deliberately set up that way.

 

[bilby]

Globalism?

Don't you mean Sinister Jewish Banker Conspiracy?

You don't have to speak in dog whistle around here. We know what the coded language means.

What I describe by "Globalism" has no race, creed, or sex. It is simply the management of global economies, the EU being the perfect example. It is possible, perhaps even probable that leaders at the economic summit in Davos, Switzerland are not stupid and are simply looking for the best possible outcome in terms of world trade. But what inevitably will happen is what has already occurred. There are winners and losers to free trade partnerships that were established without the consent of the those governed. Take Greece for example is now being asked to implement austerity in order to fulfill banking demands by people who are not even from Greece.

When a country is subject to demands of world leaders from beyond their borders, it is the pure definition of tyranny. And economically it is also a definition of communism because it is the elites who are attempting to manage everything that goes on in the world. It would be one thing if the tyranny of globalism actually worked, but since it is communism in the long run everyone is worse off for it. As I said in my OP communism just does not work, it never has worked and that has absolutely nothing at all to do with the Jewish Bankers. The Jewish Banking system just happens to always be in the right place and at the right time to make their monetary killing off others. That perhaps might be another kind of corruption as well, but it is not the focus of my OP.

So you think the USA is a communist tyranny?

When a state is subject to demands of federal leaders from beyond their borders, it is the pure definition of tyranny. And economically it is also a definition of communism because it is the elites who are attempting to manage everything that goes on in the nation.

That's your argument. Only the names have been changed.

 

[Tammuz]

In the light of the economic history of the world during the past few centuries or so, especially during the past decades, the thesis of the OP is very hard to argue for. I can't think of a single developed country that is not part of the global economy. Can you? By contrast, many under-developed countries are not as much part of the global economy.

 

[Elixir]

In the light of the economic history of the world during the past few centuries or so, especially during the past decades, the thesis of the OP is very hard to argue for. I can't think of a single developed country that is not part of the global economy. Can you? By contrast, many under-developed countries are not as much part of the global economy.

That's why we're losing to the Chinese. We have a President who manages a crime syndicate that develops properties for personal gain. They have a consortium of competent people who develop whole countries and continents for the gain of their country. Watch Africa.

 

[RVonse]

In the light of the economic history of the world during the past few centuries or so, especially during the past decades, the thesis of the OP is very hard to argue for. I can't think of a single developed country that is not part of the global economy. Can you? By contrast, many under-developed countries are not as much part of the global economy.

You are confusing the term global trade with globalism, they are totally not the same.

Global trade has been around a long time and the trade by itself is good. When the US became a country in the late 1700's the US was a tributary to Great Britain who sent us high value goods for our low value raw materials. The US had to be a tributary because, at first had no infrastructure to manufacture goods. Later on the US improved that situation and by the mid 1800's was supplying the world with high value goods. But now the US is back to being a tributary to China where China sends the US high value goods in exchange for US raw materials. That is global trade but it greatly favors China, due to China being a totalitarian controlled mercantilism government.

Globalism, OTOH is elites controlled by global corporations who decide and manage the supply chains for the world in order for their profit and benefit. And these elites could care less about the welfare of any country as long as they are making themselves better off. As the elites form world economic policy in Davos, Switzerland, some countries might do better while others do worse. But the main point to be made is that the people who live in all these countries have no say in the economic policy since they are no longer sovereign. A non sovereign nation can not be a democratic nation because the people in that nation are subservient to a non democratic process.

So yes, everyone is part of a global trade economy and has been for many centuries. But only in the past 30 or so years have we seen a radical new idea called globalism.