Sane Americans should be vehemently opposed to globalism, simply because there is only one way to "equalize" the world's wealth and resources - by having the rich nations give up their wealth. The world's resources are limited.
Look at it in its simplest form --- there are 5 people. 4 of those have $5 each, while the 5th (you) has $80. To equalize the wealth, you would have to give up $60 of your $80, leaving you with only $20 so the other 4 could also have $20.
On a larger scale, it means you would have to give up 75% or more of everything you have - even if you are considered "poor" by American standards. That's because even America's poor are actually rich compared to many people in Third World Nations. So even if you are on welfare, you would have to give up much of what you have. Say good-bye to that nice home, college for your kids, that trip to Disneyworld, the iPhone...
Here is some perspective --- all of the world's wealth is estimated to be between $40-$44 trillion. With nearly 7 billion people (and growing), that means everyone would only have $6,000 on which to support themselves.
(Source(s): World Monetary Fund; US Federal Reserve; CIA: http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/xx.html ; PBS: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/moneyshow/mba/040601.html)
How many of you want to try living on $6,000? How much would you have to give up in order to have a net worth of just $6,000?
Moreover, what incentive do you have to go out and try to better yourself when the law of the land (globalization/socialism) says you cannot better yourself, because if you did, that would mean someone else would have to give up some of what they have so you could have "extra".
So, why would anyone innovate? Work hard? Or even bother to get a better education (assuming you could afford to do so)?
Now understand this simple fact: it would not matter. People will not change who they are. Some will save; some will spend; some will waste; some will steal. Human nature will guarantee that within 2 weeks the wealth would already start shifting back to where it was, if left unregulated. Some hard-working entreprenuer will come up with something that others will pay for, and he will grow richer while they get poorer.And that is how it should be - if you doubt that, read the parable of the talents.
Now, the only way to for socialism to prevent unequal distribution is through strict regulation. Get this straight - every regulation is a restriction on freedom. The more regulation there is, the less free you are. Check out Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela, Cuba...
Before you praise the "fairness" of golbalization, stop and think what it would mean to YOU and to YOUR FAMILY. And take a moment to realize that it would stifle innovation, kill incentive and remove all excxitement from life, as you would not be allowed to strive for something better.
That is not fairness. That is not even "life". That is mere existence.
And for those who remain unconvinced, look at the historical case studies - the USSR, which never had a "Disneyworld" or anything else that was innovative, fun or exciting. Or look at Sweden today - arguably the most socialist country that takes everyone's income for taxes, which is then redistributed into "equal" services for all. In case you missed it, Sweden has the highest suicide rate in the world. It's a lot easier to give up your life if there is so little to live for.
Frankly, if people elsewhere in the world want to have what America has, they should simply follow our example and do what America has done for 250 years. If they are unwilling to overthrow a restrictive, dictatorial government and stand for freedom, and then use that freedom to prosper, then they deserve to have exactly what they have now.
Freedom and wealth come at a price. Anyone unwilling to pay the price deserves neither.