I'm not denying that the scope of the market is global. I'm denying that that fact gives Congress the power to regulate local transactions in that market. What you're essentially trying to argue is that Congress, by virtue of its grant of power to regulate interstate commerce, has the power to regulate things that affect interstate commerce. Not so. Never in any other field of governance has the power to regulate an activity been understood to mean the power to regulate things that affect said activity. That's purely an invention of modern courts.
Only those things which are in essence elements of the market itself. So if it's a hot dog market, part of the food market which has interstate scope, Congress has the power to regulate all of the elements that have an effect. There is no requirement, nor is there any justification to artificially dissembling the market into local and regional parts. If an individual wishes to make and eat their own hot dogs they can do so w/o following regs. However, they are not allowed to market them, w/o following the regs, because the regs apply to the elements of the market itself.
" Never in any other field of governance has the power to regulate an activity been understood to mean the power to regulate things that affect said activity. That's purely an invention of modern courts."
You are refering to extraneous effects. Effects which are not an integral part of the market. You are correct, there is no logical justification for claiming extraneous market forces are subject to regulation under the commerce clause.