Economics
It’s hard to graduate from the University of Chicago without getting just a little indoctrinated in the virtues of the free market. While I’m not a libertarian or much of a small-government advocate (I tend to think government-funded programs are a good thing), it does bug me when people think free trade should be restricted for humanitarian reasons.
This blog post from some UChicago economists points out that both Wal-Mart and trade with China drive the prices of basic goods lower than they would otherwise be. While there are plenty of things to dislike about Wal-Mart and its effects on local economies, it’s actually beneficial to the poorest people in the communities, who are effectively less poor when prices go down and their purchasing power goes up. The goods may be shoddy, but their availability is a boon to people who can’t afford higher-quality versions. The same argument in reverse applies to working conditions (both in Wal-Mart and in developing countries that are producing cheap goods) — the jobs may be low-quality and low-pay, but they’re the best options available to these workers (if Wal-Mart’s employees could find better jobs, they would).