Globalization is way more prejudicial for third world countries than it is beneficial.

Sweatshops are still jobs, as you say. However, I'm just saying that those people don't deserve the horrible situations they work under. The wages are incredibly low for 12-18 hour days. These jobs may boost the economy, but not in the long run, as minimum wages keep going down instead of up. In a documentary called "The Race to the bottom" it is shown how multinational companies advertise low wage jobs to other companies saying something to this effect, "In El Salvador you can get workers like Rosa, for only 47 cents an hour." 5 years later the same advertisement said 31 cents an hour. Even with the currency difference one can't survive with less than $4 per week. My point is that the main role players in globalization don't care about helping 3rd world economies, only about maximizing profits with minimum expenditures. I would like to reiterate that I didn't say globalization was not helpful at all, but it costs way more than it is worth for developing countries. There is aid to people and industries in poor countries but not nearly enough. It is in developed countries' best interest to help and gain a good reputation, but they'll make sure not to give too much so that it takes away from their profits. For instance, the U.S. boasts of giving international aid when only less than 1% of the budget is for that purpose. This is the country that gives huge tax breaks to those multinational companies, the heads of globalization. I must disagree with your third point. It's true that cheaper jobs mean less cost. But it definitely doesn't mean that the people who have those jobs will have more access to products. These people can barely survive, how will they buy those products? Assuming that not most of them are sent to the U.S. i.e. Nike's sports goods, they cost about 50 cents to make and are sold for about 500-1000 times as much. I hope this is what you meant by "people who have a job because of the flourishing industries created by globalization." (If not, I apologize for the mistake). The fact that there is less cost only benefits multinationals because, as I said before, this allows them to maximize profits without too much cost. Furthermore, they get to overlook working conditions regulations with which they wouldn't get away in countries like the U.S.,U.K.or any other developed nation. Now, you finish off talking about Adam Smith and his "Inquiry into the nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations." He tried to answer the question "How does a society survive if everyone looks out for number one?" He said that profit-hungry entrepreneurs wouldn't take unfair advantage of consumers as well as other entrepreneurs because of competition, and that would keep the prices fair. However, remember that Adam Smith wrote during the 18th century. Now, in our 21st-century society globalization brings huge multinational corporations and conglomerates. That is, there is no possible way that local businesses can compete with huge mergers, therefore the country keeps selling their labor for which they receive little to no profit. I don't believe for one second that this practice benefits the country. Adam Smith's theories were correct for the time he lived in, but surely you know that the world has changed immensely since that time. One of the most negative changes has been the increase of unfair trade, and we have globalization to thank for that.