Let me give it a try: Under globalism, the concept of national sovereignty with respect to economic policy is effectively banned, and this ban is enforced by in

Let me give it a try: Under globalism, the concept of national sovereignty with respect to economic policy is effectively banned, and this ban is enforced by international agencies such as the World Trade Organization and the International Monetary Fund. For examples, see the international spread of excessive copyright, anti-circumvention laws, "free trade" agreements that include criminal enforcement of trade secrets, and require governments to submit to investor-state dispute settlement, effectively subjugating their laws to unelected international arbiters: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investor-state_dispute_settlement#Examples https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investor-state_dispute_settlem... Then there's the chilling effect on lawmaking. It cost Australia $39 million to defend their tobacco plain packaging law [1], the USA was forbidden from enforcing country-of-origin labeling on beef [2] (despite politicians at the time lying the free-trade agreement wouldn't impact sovereignty), and Canadian and Mexican governments are known to severely restrict their environmental law-making to avoid getting sued under NAFTA [3]. Other impacts of free trade as dictated by globalist organizations such as the WTO are also far from clearly positive [4]. In fact, anti-globalism used to be extremely well represented by the political left [5,6]. But somehow, all that opposition faded away. Hmmmmmmmmm. Now is there any other extremely well documented and reported-upon term you'd like to pretend to be ignorant of? Edit: I committed the same sin as my sibling comment. Defining globalist as "a person who advocates the interpretation or planning of economic and foreign policy in relation to events and developments throughout the world" is a much too broad definition (since it describes almost everyone, including die-hard nationalists). Similarly, the definition that I gave is much too narrow. To qualify as globalism, sovereignty in economic matters wouldn't have to be 'banned', as I wrote. 'Significantly reduced' would be enough. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jul/02/revealed-39m-cost-of-defending-australias-tobacco-plain-packaging-laws https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jul/02/revealed-39... [2] https://www.ecowatch.com/country-of-origin-labeling-meat-2572003641.html https://www.ecowatch.com/country-of-origin-labeling-meat-257... [3] https://ejsclinic.info.yorku.ca/2018/03/naftas-effect-on-canadian-environmental-regulation/ https://ejsclinic.info.yorku.ca/2018/03/naftas-effect-on-can... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Organization#Criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Organization#Criti... Some prominent skeptics cite the example of El Salvador. In the early 1990s, they removed all quantitative barriers to imports and also cut tariffs. However, the country's economic growth remained weak. On the other hand, Vietnam which only began reforming its economy in the late 1980s, saw a great deal of success by deciding to follow the China's economic model and liberalizing slowly along with implementing safeguards for domestic commerce. Vietnam has largely succeeded in accelerating economic growth and reducing poverty without immediately removing substantial trade barriers. [..] Economist Ha-Joon Chang himself argues that there is a "paradox" in neo-liberal beliefs regarding free trade, because the economic growth of developing countries was higher in the 1960-1980 period compared to the 1980-2000 period even though its trade policies are now far more liberal than before. [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-globalization_movement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-globalization_movement [6] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/11/anti-g8-protest-headquarters-london-riot-police https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/11/anti-g8-protes...