1) Not developing a local economy isn't a reason to stop farming. Losing an existing economy might be. But that's different.
I think you're missing a pretty important part of the picture - these countries are actively trying to industrialize. So its not a choice between stay on the farm verses leave, but rather of the quality of life of those people who leave, and what happens on the road to industrialization.
Generally speaking, globalization impairs both the beginnings of industrialization, as well as undermines quality of life.
3) Maybe this is the biggie. But it's not the LMC, it's other imports. Or are you talking about exports driving up local prices?
Other way around. Predatory practices (i.e. sweatshops) allow LMC's to produce goods below the cost of what a local (i.e. smaller and/or better paying) business can produce. This means local producers either cannot form, or are driven out of business. For much the same reason, imports can also impair local growth, as cheaper foreign imports prevent the development of local production. Its easy to deal with these issues if you restrict the accessibility of local markets to products produced by LMC's and foreign imports - i.e. act in an anti-globalization fashion.
Either way, your family can live on your own supplies of chickens, pigs, goats and grain and just not participate in the market.
So you're saying that people shouldn't strive for a better life?
PS: Since you're so sure that globalization helps the 3rd world, why don't you provide some outside evidence that is the case.
I'm not so sure, but this is a puzzle I've never been able to solve. Plenty of people say "globalization bad" but nobody can explain why.
I provided several achedemic papers that analyze that very question, and come up with empirical answers to it. Maybe start with those, instead of google. As you say, google is full of anti-globalization, anti-big business, anti-everything claptrap. But go to the right source and you can find the odd gem on the ol intertubes...
Bryan
