The world coming to our homes, to put it in the simplest way, is a wrong description of globalization. Globalization does not remove borders, as one might hope for. It does not create a complete free market economy with a sense of equality amongst the players. Neither does it cook or clean for us in a hard day's night. There are many arguments for and against globalization, but as Professor Stiglitz explains, the main problem is that through globalization development is possible, yet is not inevitable(I personally prefer "not likely"). Wolf has every right to praise the market economy as it actually does work(Yep, I said it) and does fit the human nature, yet it provides no equality, instead providing tools such as the Gini coefficient to measure the existing inequality and analyze it. 'Tis true that many people do benefit from globalization. India's economy, having a huge boom thanks to the outsourcing, and China of course are examples. Yet the benefits are never to be equal, as the rules of the market support the "developed" players only, as the US has so many carrots to force growing economies such as China to cooperate, yet if the carrots don't work and the necessity arises the whole market can turn into a big stick in which case cooperation will become inevitable. The WTO, not even existing until 1995 is now seen as crucial for the world. But while it forces China to stop fixing their exchange rates to keep Yen weak against Dollars and increase their exports(though overheating on exports is not so healthy for China, It provides rapid growth), the WTO does not provide adequate tariffs to protect the third world farmer; as the thirld world cannot support their farmers with as much subsidies as the US does. Punishing China for create unfair advantage against the US producers, but not punishing the US
for creating unfair advantage against the third world farmers..hardly fair.
