Letters to the Editor - June 27

June 27, 2011

The new meaning of 'global' is frightening

To the editor:

The adjective "global," like many words in our language, doesn't have the same connotation that it did when we seniors were in our formidable years.  

It meant having to do with the world (the earth) as in global travel or global weather patterns. Common usage did not refer  to the things that we now find ourselves concerned with. We now hear references made to global government and global currencies, and actually those references make a chill run up my spine.  Are we moving toward global, meaning "one world"? Is America being directed into just another state in a centrally controlled world government?

 After World War II, a global event, we were briefly the only superpower and the rest of the world relaxed and regrouped into relative peace. We were economically the king of the hill. Wartime had forced us into becoming the greatest manufacturing nation.  

America made everything that one could imagine at the time.  Then the smart guys in the room concluded that America should shift to a "service economy" (as in financial  service) and let others in the world with their much less expensive (slave) labor take care of our manufacturing needs.  

We shifted into being an importer of many of our goods that we had previously grown or made ourselves. This export of labor  even extended to white-collar workers. And along the way we became true oil junkies without developing our own sources for this valuable commodity.

 The result has been our loss of influence in the world and respect for our currency as the basis for evaluation of all goods and services. The smart guys in the room have so directed our economy (by flooding the world with our ever declining dollar) toward a hyperinflation from which we cannot recover and set the stage for the coming world government and currency.

 Has America been hoodwinked by a few global power brokers into a decline from which there is no return? I truly hope not. Americans must be ever vigilant to see that the future does not include this kind of change.

Ned A. Garrett

The Herald-Mail Articles