Agreed, there are serious problems of distribution and opportunity, as I said in my last paragraph in the GP. > economists have been selling globalization to t

Agreed, there are serious problems of distribution and opportunity, as I said in my last paragraph in the GP. > economists have been selling globalization to the US voter with that idea for a long time And politicians have too. The argument long has been, as I understand it: There's a big aggregate benefit and the rising tide will lift all boats. Obviously that hasn't worked out, which shouldn't be surprising, raising a few issues: 1. People need opportunity to participate in the globalized economy. Opportunity and social mobility have decreased in the U.S. for decades, IIUC. Just consider access to quality K-12 and higher education, the latter probably being important for getting into the globalization game, much less the necessities for survival such as health care. 2. If people are to vote and work for the country's and world's aggregate benefit, rather than their particular benefit, then the 'aggregate' needs to support them in return through social benefits such as unemployment insurance and guarantees of basic needs such as healthcare, shelter, food, and education, and through opportunity (see #1). As it is, the beneficiaries are arguing for aggregate benefit, and then putting the benefits in their particular pockets and walking away with it. 3. My hypothesis for the cause is that working people simply didn't have a seat at the table when these deals were negotiated. Big business insisted that the particulars of their needs were explicitly addressed in great detail; consider the global intellectual property regime, for example. Working people were told that it would just work out somehow, 'a rising tide lifts all boats'. Strange that wasn't the response to Wall Street's and Hollywood's demands. Assuming things would just magically sort themselves out for everyone else was lazy and careless governance.