Not sure if many people have been lifted out of poverty by globalisation. Some have become rich, and I was listening to a program today about an estimated 100 elephants per day being illegally killed in Africa to supply the new rich in China with ivory, but the new rich are still a tiny minority.

Meanwhile there are many millions still living in poverty in China, and it makes one wonder if there could be a better way.

The big shopping centres in the US began importing goods from China, resulting in millions of jobs being lost in the US, and the dole in the US is only about $100 a week, with 1 in 4 children in the US now living in poverty.

Most of the stuff being sold in shopping centers in Australia is now imported, with the loss of our own manufacturing industries, and we seem to be following the US trend.

runner,

The term "lifted out of poverty" is a tad nebulous when comparing the conditions between developed and developing countries. And it's not only children who are exploited in the rush to make trinkets for the West.
"Poverty lines" are constructed by countries to delineate those who are and are not living in poverty....and in China and India, for instance, these lines are set very low.

China's poverty line is set at around a dollar a day. Anyone under that is considered to be living in poverty. India has just altered its line so that anyone existing on the equivalent of 64 cents a day is under the "poverty line".
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/09/27/business/india-poverty-line/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Around 45 percent of people in developing countries live below two dollars a day.

*And it's not only children who are exploited in the rush to make trinkets for the West.*

Ah, Poirot and her Western guilt trip continue. Never mind that
greedy parents in India exploit children to make bricks for the
locals, or that they sell them to the local sex industry.

Its Western trinkets which are to blame. Never mind that some
parents are responsible and others are not. All this is forgotten
in the name of demonising her favourite evil. Sheesh Poirot,
what a chip on your shoulder that you carry, its a bit bleeding
obvious.

Well, there you go, Yabby.

All those disreputable third-world parents are just sadistic by nature, aren't they. They're human, but they're not human like us, are they.

Western parents take much more responsibility for their offspring...they don't abide by social mores at all - or do they?. It could be the reason why they now dispose of their infants into "daycare" at the earliest opportunity - so they can go out to earn money to purchase all the stuff those third-worlders make for us (while exploiting their children).

...it's a wonderful (Western constructed) utopia : )

*They're human, but they're not human like us, are they.*

Ah Poirot, feel free to create your own strawman arguments,
but of course that was not my claim.

Parents, as the guardians and creators of their children,
should be responsible for them and for their wellbeing,
no matter where they live.

Its a bit like pets really. Don't have them, if you can't
look after them

Yabby,

"It's a bit like pets really. Don' have them if you can't look after them."

For someone who purports to possess an advanced knowledge of human behaviour, you really inhabit a most simplistic Western construct. Why don't you apply your knowledge to something other than a Western paradigm? A little anthropological study would go along way to addressing your one-size-fits-all outlook.

"Simplistic" in the extreme.