[caethan]

The problem is with the consistent hand-waving between economically efficient - on average we've got more wealth - and we all have more wealth.

Suppose my neighbor has a plot of land that he's not really using - it's mostly idle, he's just got a little garden on it. I know that if I get it, I could produce much more wealth - maybe I'm a skilled farmer and I could grow high-value crops on it. It would be more economically efficient for me to own the farm. We'd produce more wealth collectively that way. But there are several ways to get to that more efficient state: 1) I could buy the land from my neighbor for a fair price. He gets the money from the land, which is worth more than he made from his garden. I get the land and produce lots of wealth, minus the money I paid my neighbor. We're both better off, huzzah! 2) I could steal the land from my neighbor. He's worse off - he no longer has his garden at all. I'm much better off - I get the land and I don't have to pay for it anymore!

Economically efficient moves by definition mean that there's enough wealth to compensate everyone who loses. A lot of the anger about globalization is people being pissed because they're losing - their job or their benefits or whatever - and the folks who are winning respond by telling them that it's economically efficient so they'll just have to suck it up. It's one thing to say "Hey, change is inevitable, but at least we're all getting wealthier!". It's another thing to say "Hey, change is inevitable, and we're getting way more than you're losing!"