Financial Times: Globalism Is Dying, Even Though It’s the Better Choice

Trade liberalisation has stalled and one can see a steady rise in protectionist measures  …  Has the tide of globalisation turned? This is a vitally important question. The answer is closely connected to the state of the world economy and the west’s politics.  – Financial Times

This article present a lot of positives surrounding “globalism,” which is a fundamental elite meme, almost as important as central banking itself.

And who is the author, Martin Wolf? According to his FT bio, he is chief economics commentator at the Times, London. He was awarded the CBE (Commander of the British Empire) in 2000 “for services to financial journalism.”

Wolf is very obviously a globalist. Nonetheless, one might be impressed with Wolf’s sincerity since the article itself is postulating that globalism is somehow “losing.”

Here’s more:

Globalisation has reached a plateau and, in some areas, is in reverse.  An analysis from the Peterson Institute for International Economics argues that ratios of world trade to output have been flat since 2008, making this the longest period of such stagnation since the second world war.

The impetus towards further economic integration has stalled … Globalisation is no longer driving world growth. If this process is indeed coming to an end, or even going into reverse, it would not be the first time since the industrial revolution, in the early 19th century.

… A principal focus of US economic and foreign policy after 1945 was to recreate the global economy, but this time among sovereign states and guided by international economic institutions. If Donald Trump, who has embraced protectionism and denigrated global institutions, were to be elected president in November, it would be a repudiation of a central thrust of postwar US policy.

Of course, Wolf doesn’t want globalism to end. Somehow he sees globalism as providing prosperity to people around the world.

His main regret when it comes to globalism is that it elevated poor people around the world at the expense of wealthier nations, thus creating a good deal of resentment.

Why would the Financial Times, itself a globalist organ, publish an editorial claiming that globalism is losing momentum and attractiveness?

From our point of view, it allows writers like Wolf to position themselves as both wise and regretful. In other words, if any serious difficulties do arise as a result of, say, Brexit, globalists like Wolf will seem in retrospect to be the repositories of real acumen.

Of course, we do think there will be significant difficulties as a result of Brexit, not because Brexit is inherently troublesome but because globalists like Wolf are determined to undermine it.

This is actually part of a larger elite that presents “globalism” and “populism” as the two choices facing the West today.

Globalism is to be seen currently as “losing” – it’s not – and populism is to be seen as “winning” – whatever populism is.

In fact, the populism we speak of here is actually a kind of nationalism. But one of the best parts of owning the entire Western mainstream media is that you get to define your terms pretty much as you would like to.

Populism, for instance, is the sentiment animating pro-Brexit voters, despite the warnings of bankers, politicians and economic “experts” generally that Brexit was going to be a disaster.

The people are to be known as “globalists” and are therefore positioned in opposition to the “populists.”

Eventually, when the bankers and EU politicians have made Britain thoroughly miserable, another strand of the dialectic will be produced: That Brexit was a thoroughgoing mistake and that the “populism” that produced it was also wrongheaded.

The corollary to this conclusion will doubtless be that “globalists” had the right idea in the first place, and given a choice between no-nothing populism and the mild, wise and cohesive approaches of globalism, there should not even be any hesitation. Globalism is clearly the correct pick.

This particular elite meme is one we will be living with for years, no doubt. And while it has been triggered in part by Brexit, major elite programs like this one are not restrictive.

Trump, in fact, can be seen as populist as well, and win or lose, Trump will continue to be in the news representing populism – with all its supposed racism, isolationism and know-nothingism.

This globalism versus populism meme implies further set-backs for both globalist and populist perspectives – as globalism must be seen to be “losing” despite its wisdom while populism must be seen as creating disaster after disaster.

Wolf mention many of the purported populist disasters that are starting to take shape as globalism remains on the defensive.

• Labor has fewer opportunities in an era of populism that restricts “free trade.”
• Cross-border trade decreases for the same reason.
• Financial assets will cease to be liquid and the availability of loans and liquidity around the world will suffer as a result.
• Entrepreneurial activity will be stifled.

These are just some of the problems that Wolf foresees – again from the standpoint of gentle – and wise – regret.

Of course, we don’t agree either with his points or with the idea that globalism is some sort of unalloyed good, or even a good at all.

Globalism is basically an elite mechanism intended to build the foundation for world government – with which we also vehemently disagree.

And the building blocks of both globalism and world government are monopoly central banking and multinational corporatism.

Multinational corporatism would not exist without Supreme Court decisions regarding intellectual property rights and corporate personhood.

Central banking, certainly in the US, would not exist without Congressional approval.

Both central banking and modern day corporate technocracy would not exist without force. When  Wolf argues in his gentle, regretful way for globalism, he is actually promoting incarceration for those who disagree with him and wish to act on their points of view.

By leaving out fundamental points regarding the origins of globalism, Wolf mischaracterizes the movement and attributes positives to it that simply do not exist.

Globalism is basically a forceful erection of the State; and world government, if it ever gets to that, will be even worse. The “populism” of the modern-age as Wolf and others are defining it, seems to us to be the far better choice.

Conclusion: What’s wrong with allowing people to decide on their own course of action and take control of their own lives? Wolf, of course, holds that the better choice is to put wise globalists in charge. But need only look around the world today to see that this point of view is surely insupportable.

More at TheDailyBell.com 

– Misunderstanding Libertarianism   
– Time to Consider More Gold and Silver Following the Latest Fiat Crash?