First he Implies that we are all better off these days. The "gap between rich and poor countries has steadily closed." And people used to fear "gaps between the rich and poor would grow ever wider", implying that the gap is not growing. But then, when it suits his purpose he does admit the possibility of  "rising inequality, real or imagined," but of course it is not due to globalization, because that would defeat his thesis. And of course, anybody who has lost ground is an "alleged" loser.

Two things really burn me about this sort of argument. 1. They always talk about average benefits and average growth. As if everybody benefits equally. We don't. We are not all better off if a small percentage get al the benefits. 2. Why should those in the lower classes have to give up in order for the underdeveloped to gain? It's not the wealthy who are giving up anything. They make out like bandits from globlization. How about, instead, we stop exploiting underdevoloped countries' resources.