Capitalism is the most revolutionary force in the world and it is its nature to force change, irresistible change. And there is no such thing as "globalization" that is just a commie buzzword. There is a World Economy and has been for almost 600 yrs and there is no going back to the little fiefdomes which preceded it.
This cannot be avoided and if you believe that we are living in times where change is slow I don't know what world it is you are seeing but it is NOT the world I look upon. I am watching the world change at a tremendous pace one that is uncomfortably fast. But trying to block it would as effective as putting a boulder in a flood.
You have not thought through the implications within your friend's situation. Let us say that Intel did not move its operations to India then eventually the price differential would become so great than some other company would do it to compete with Intel. Should that continue then Intel's profits would start to fall and layoffs would result.
Price differentials in the market cannot be ignored anymore than voltage potentials can in a circuit.
One of the greatest economic thinkers, Joseph Schumpeter, described the capitalistic process as one which has a heart of "Creative destruction." Progress only comes at the cost of destroying the old. But the problem is that any impediment to that process only increases the human suffering.
Then there is the question of what governmental body is capable of making correct decisions regarding these matters and how much power you want to turn over to it.
My answer would be "none" and "none."
As I stated before, I am fairly ignorant on the subject of economics. But it does seem to me that the market *rules,* regardless of the actions of government. In other words the market is a fundamental force that exists beyond the bounds of state control. I know this probably sounds silly, but it makes sense to me - I kind of think of the market as Newtonian, when government attempts to regulate the market, there will be an opposite and equal reaction by the market, whether they like it or not.
"I'm not interested in lowering my standard of living until we reach an equilibrium with the new Chinese and Indian middle classes!"
I know you already addressed this question, but it still makes sense to me that competing openly with third world costs, if it becomes universal enough, could negatively impact our standards of living.
Your arguments about markets have a mechanistic quality to it that reminds me of the old Marxist contention regarding the “inevitability of communism.” Human beings – as they are, not how they might fit into some intellectual scheme – can not be subtracted from any economic calculus, and this is why globalization as it is currently practiced will not survive.
Unless things change “creative destruction” you will have; destroyed communities and nations. Do you really think people will accept an economic system in which they will have to relocate and reeducation themselves three, four or even five times in the course of a single lifetime just to maintain a “middle class” standard of living? Do you think people will accept an economic system that moves economic and political control further and further away from where they actually live?
The Libertarian conception of markets and government is quite anarchistic. Americans fought a revolution so that they could have greater control over their own lives; conservative call for a return to the American Constitution and federalism so that we can have greater control over our lives. Ordered Liberty is our creed.
Radical change usually gives you radical results; just look at Iran.