Fair. But on the flipside, what could we say to those families, those many millions, whose jobs and local economies get destroyed as multinational chains open shop and start arbitraging labor costs? What to say about rapid decline in quality of every good on the market, and the inability to even find a quality good if you have money? There were trust relationships that sort-of regulated this, but now I can't even find a decent furniture source, as both low and high-end brands ultimately have the same cheapest garbage parts somewhere in their supply chain. Consumer laws fix the worst problems here, but it's not perfect.

I'm not saying we should revert globalization; I'm right now only trying to learn about the good and bad sides, their relative balance, to figure out whether and where something needs to be done to achieve a better outcome for everyone. Because I get this growing feeling that screwing up local communities in exchange for freer money flow isn't turning as good a deal as advertised.

Your initial paragraphs talk about freedom, and I appreciate this view coming from a principle. Though looking at the world as it is today, couldn't you say that this focus on individual freedom, scaled up, actually ends up taking freedom from individuals away? How come when talking about freedom we focus on freedom to choose, but ignore the increasing constraints, the disappearance of options to choose from?