No, I don't. No one explains how, they just say "Global elites..." as if that's an explanation. People say I argue just to argue when the reality is that most people just don't want to have to explain the things they say. They want everyone else to just take their claims as fact and they don't like having to explain the origin of those claims or having the assumptions that underpin the claim questioned.
Let's take hypothetical George Soros. He's a commonly referred to boogey man of the elite. How does a one world government give him more power? What new conflicts would it let him create? If he's already involved in power dynamics across multiple nations, how does a 1 world government give him more power over more nations?
If people really thought about it, they would see that it doesn't make sense. Someone like Soros benefits from multiple small nations because he can control each of those small nations with minimal competition from other "elites". Soros can run machinations in Venezuela while the Koch brothers manipulate Brazil, each controlling a mini-fiefdom while also trying to compete in the US. Bribing the leaders of poverty stricken nation far from the scrutiny of major powers is far cheaper than bribing the leader of a world power where more people are involved in trying to control the same individual. But if it was a single nation, Soros, Koch, Russian oligarchs, etc. would all be engaged in competing for the same leaders which would push more of what they do into the open as they fight over limited resources.
That's why the majority of the claims about one world governments don't make any sense. If people were really worried about shadow groups controlling everything, they would understand that fractured small governments are easier to control. This methodology is well known and has been employed by every empire under the sun. Every major empire maintained its power by preventing small groups from banding together into larger ones.
A global government might interfere with US or Chinese hegemony but it would be horrible for elite cabals trying to run things from the shadows. The US, for example, doesn't want South America to organize under a single government because we control this region because no single entity in the region can compete with us, even though those nations would outnumber and outproduce us if they unified. We work very hard to keep them from doing so. But George Soros would be worse off because he would be forced to compete for a smaller number of elite difference makers against a larger group of elite individuals.
But if you think I'm wrong -- explain how.