Globalization Vs. Socialism - Part1

"Globalization" may be a recently coined term. But visionaries saw its arrival 50-60 years ago. Eisenhower, in a book written righ t after the end of WWII, wrote, " The democracies must learn that the world is now too small for the rigid concepts of national sovereignity that developed in a time when the nations were self-sufficient and self-dependent for their own well being and safety. None of them today can stand alone". About the same time, Jawaharlal Nehru, in his "Tryst with Destiny speech, said, "....Those dreams are for India, but they are also for the world, for all the nations and peoples are too closely knit together today for any one of them to imagine that it can live apart. Peace has been said to be indivisible; so is freedom, so is prosperity now, and so also is disaster in this One World that can no longer be split into isolated fragments". True, we may be far from that One World governed by one govt. But in the path of human evolution, trade came before nation states. So it is safe to assume that Golablization of markets is but one step towards Golbalization of peoples. In other words, "Globalization", even it a broader sense is inevitable. This means that eventually markets will be global, so will be the companies and so will be the people working in them. Hence, by induction, people (read Americans) who do not train today to compete with other people (read Indians, Chinese) will end up receiving unemployment benefits. There are several countries trying to avoid this pitiable situation to their population by using trade restrictions - for instance, by giving tax benefits to companies employing people from Buffalo while giving tax punishements to those employing people from Bangalore (assume disclaimers) - all in the name of Socialism. Is this good or bad? Am I saying Socialism is an outdated concept? Nope - for the simple fact that we still don't have a One govt. So what the hell are you saying? - Hang on mate, why else do I have a "Part 1" in the title.