Globalization will be the best solution to the uneven distribution of internationla wealth.

First, I must clearly define the point that I'm arguing. You use the following definition of globalization: "The increase of trade around the world, especially by large companies producing and trading goods in many different countries; or when available goods and services, or social and cultural influences, gradually become similar in all parts of the world." I am all for this, and I do think it is "the best solution to the uneven distribution of international wealth." What I am NOT for: * One-world government under the auspices of the UN, the WTO, etc. * An international monetary standard imposed by blackmail by the IMF and World Bank * Forced redistribution of wealth from rich nations to poor via direct foreign aid and/or fiat-money central banking schemes The three elements above are generally considered parts of "globalization," but not the kind of globalization I'm talking about. I'm talking about legitimate, free-market, global trade -- voluntary on the part of all parties involved. I believe strongly in national and state sovereignty, and I'm fully opposed to the U.S.'s membership in or support of the UN, the WTO, the IMF, or the World Bank; and I'm more generally opposed to the continued existence of those institutions. Adam Smith wrote of the benefits of "division of labor" and "absolute advantage" (later expounded on by David Ricardo, more accurately, as "comparative advantage") in his groundbreaking book, THE WEALTH OF NATIONS. Smith's book -- considered by many to be the "Bible of capitalism" -- is an all-out defense of free markets AND free international trade. It warns against the folly of reciprocal tariffs and countervailing duties, etc., which inevitably lead to trade wars and a decrease in the division of labor and comparative advantages to be gained by free trade. First, let's take a brief look at division of labor: Imagine if you had to produce everything you consumed. Would you consume more or less than you do now? Would your quality of life be higher or lower than it is now? Could you prepare all of your own meals -- including growing the vegetables, raising and slaughtering the meat, cooking, etc. -- in addition to making your own clothes (raising sheep), building your own furniture, and providing your own entertainment? Perhaps you could, but your life would be miserable and your standard of living would be low. So instead, people find things they're good at and focus on those things. Maybe you're a good dairy farmer. So you produce milk. But man can't live on milk alone. So you trade your milk for beef, vegetables, clothes, furniture, and comic books. One person or family focusing on making milk for a whole village, while the rest of the village focuses strictly on other things, produces more milk than if every member of the village was responsible for their own milk. But let's take the issue of entertainment. In your village, the primary entertainment is provided by a comic book artist. He's great, but you don't like comic books. You would prefer novels. So you write your own, and they're not that good, but still better than anyone else in your village. You cut down on your milk production to write novels, but it would be much better if you could make more milk and trade them for good novels. If trade were open to more than just your village -- say, your whole state -- you would probably be able to. Now imagine if trade were open to everyone in the country. That's what we call mercantilism, and it's the economic system that Smith railed against. He advocated for CAPITALISM, which is the economic system in which there is free and unrestricted trade all over the globe. Thus, you would have access to the best, most efficiently priced products, and you would also have a global market for your goods. Comparative advantage teaches us the individuals and nations can specialize in what they have a comparative advantage in producing, and trading their surpluses for other goods. World capitalism produces the most goods and services, and thus, raises living standards. You talk a lot about racial and ethnic prejudice. Well, capitalism is the solution to these ills. Under capitalism, the racist employer loses when he hires an inefficient employee on the basis of race, while his competitor hires the best man or woman for the job. The racist consumer may pay a racial premium, but that lowers his standard of living. True laissez-faire capitalism is the bane of the aristocracy. The original conservatives (aristocrats loyal to the Crown) were the enemies of capitalism and defenders of mercantilism. Many later turned to socialism. The original liberals (the original Left) were for laissez-faire capitalism because they knew it destroyed the unearned wealth of the aristocracy. True capitalism and "democracy" (as you define it) are incompatible. "Democracy" is not a worthy goal, if you consider democracy to be "majority rule." That form of "democracy" is consistent only with socialism, which keeps people enslaved in poverty. True capitalism requires a minimalist government that limits itself soley to the role of defending life, liberty, and property -- not redistributing wealth or protecting individuals from themselves. If Third World nations want to achieve prosperity, they need to establish representative republics, based on the original intent of the U.S. Constitution. They should also reject the fiat-money overtures and blackmail of the IMF and World Bank and go with a hard currency. They should not restrict foreign ownership or trade to any degree. And they should have a strong rule of law that protects the life, liberty, and property of their citizens and foreigners, in order to foster legitimate free markets. Unfortunately, these are not things the UN, WTO, World Bank, or IMF allow nations to do.