Globalization is a contentious subject, with passionate partisans on both sides of the issue. Proponents talk about the benefits of a global economy while the detractors emphasize the evils of concentrated economic power in the hands of a small number of large international organizations. Both sides are correct, but they are talking about different things.

The benefits of trade in general are linked to the economic concepts of division of labor and comparative advantage. When someone specializes in a limited set of skills, he or she can become more productive in that particular area. That excess production can then be traded with others, who themselves have an excess because they specialized and became more productive in a different set of skills. Similarly, each individual is comparatively more or less productive in some skills than in others. By concentrating on the areas where the comparative advantage is greatest, productivity can be increased. Brain surgeons thus hire receptionists. Hiring someone for to do work for which he or she has a lower comparative advantage allows more time to devote to the higher paying skill of surgery.

The same goes for geographic areas. By concentrating on those things at which they are most productive and trading for the things at which they are less productive, all parties in those regions can be better off. The wider the area of trade, the more people who are included and the greater the potential benefits to all. Thus, globalization, in the sense of being able to freely trade with anyone anywhere on the entire globe, is most certainly a positive development which could benefit every participant. Societies develop because of trade.

The major problem with free trade, at least as it is currently being practiced, is that it is not free. The North American Free Trade Agreement has nothing to do with the freedom of people of the United States to trade with whoever, wherever, however, and whenever they want. It is a set of limitations on trade that give artificial advantage to those countries, businesses and individuals which politicians and bureaucrats deem worthy of their beneficence. Trade agreements in general are limitations of the rights of citizens to trade. They are protections of certain special interests at the expense of the general population.

Anti-globalists also have a powerful argument. The concentration of economic and political power in the hands of the few is dangerous to the rights and welfare of the many. Large, international corporations are not bad because they are large or because they are international. There are sometimes very real, recognized economies of scale. Bigness in particular organizations can be better for everyone in some circumstances. The major problem lies in the influence which large organizations can have on national and international politics. The owners and managers of large corporations and non-governmental organizations are often very influential with or personally involved in national and international governing bodies. They influence the politicians to enact laws which give them an unfair advantage over their competitors. They concentrate pressure to promote special interests at the expense of everyone else. They use money taken from taxpayers against those very same taxpayers.

Globalism is most certainly a bad development when the meaning is international government and political influence peddling. The United Nations is the essence of what is bad with globalization. It is not a peaceful organization that promotes the general welfare and freedom of all people, as it is typically made out to be. It is a smiley face mask hiding the evils of international socialism, the mechanism used by international billionaires to consolidate power and influence. The World Bank and other International political institutions are not benevolent organizations to help the poor of the world, but rather political bodies designed to coerce compliance with the wishes of international influence peddlers. One needs only to look at what has happened over the decades to understand the true purposes and the real results of those organizations.

The difficulty in discussing and dealing with globalism is that people confuse its different manifestations. People are rightly incensed about the abuses of power wielded by large corporations and unaccountable internationalist non-government organizations, but they wrongly attribute those abuses to free markets and economic freedom. The abuse of political power is not freedom or markets, but rather the opposite. It is good to discuss the implications of trade, but it is essential to make sure that all parties are talking about the same face of globalization in order to reach a true understanding.