>>15
but we are, on the other hand, getting cheap tv's and sneakers, so maybe we should just see through that bit of child labour and stuff, it's in china! they're all communists anyways!
also, to
>>13, the mechanics of the market are there, because there is a market, they are there when there isn't amarket, albeit in an oppressed and somehow different form, it's not something that's there because adam sith said so, it was something that was there and adam smith said "hay guyz, look at this lorlzorz". also, if it wasn't for "globalization" as you call it, most places in the world would rot like the hellholes they are.
expansion of culture and trade, thus expansion of markets, have been an inevitable part of history since the beginning of time. In general, the more evolved trade has been the more evolved culture has been, which one is derived from the other is, however, disputable. if china hadn't opened up their markets to the rest of the world they would rot in hell, if europe hadn't had trade it wouldn't hae had the age of enlightement it had and thus it would probably be a rotting shithole. the US has the benefit of being a largely self-sufficient nation. the US is able to produce almost everything they need in order to keep their nation from being crappy, and has generally been isolated from attacks and geographically based disputes since the end of the civil war. the self-sufficiency factor is one of the reasos america wouldn't rot in hell if it didn't trade, and thus why it can allow itself to be very demanding or cautious as to how and why it opens up trade, but that's another amtter