[PeterisP]

I don't see why the effect of a policy should be judged with a so wide focus that it's considered worthless unless it helps the whole humanity and foreigners.

Policy is decided, implemented and evaluated on the level of societies, not on a global level. We have no global government, and the only global cooperation is voluntary, with wealth redistribution only happening as much as one society arbitrarily chooses to spend on charity and foreign aid for another. Social policies are not implemented worldwide but rather by some society for its own benefit, and if some policy makes a society successful, that's a great policy for that society. Leaders in democratic societies are accountable to people of their society about ensuring that their needs, desires and choices get met, they are not accountable to humanity in general but rather the people they represent, and in general these voters give a very limited mandate to sacrifice prosperity of their society to "raise the bar" of worldwide prosperity. If the society chooses to make policies that benefit everyone else, great, but if it does not, then the policy is good if and only if it fits the choices of that particular society. We can make a strong argument that there is a moral imperative not to harm other societies, however, ignoring them is an acceptable 'default' state of noninterference.

If doing something allows you to "pick winners" so that all of your society are winners, that would be great (certainly better than what we have now) and would have effectively solved things that matter for that society, even if it does not extend to the world beyond its borders.