The problem is with the consistent hand-waving between economically efficient - on average we&#x27;ve got more wealth - and we <i>all</i> have more wealth.<p>Suppose my neighbor has a plot of land that he&#x27;s not really using - it&#x27;s mostly idle, he&#x27;s just got a little garden on it.  I know that if I get it, I could produce much more wealth - maybe I&#x27;m a skilled farmer and I could grow high-value crops on it.  It would be more economically efficient for me to own the farm.  We&#x27;d produce more wealth collectively that way.  But there are several ways to get to that more efficient state:
1) I could buy the land from my neighbor for a fair price.  He gets the money from the land, which is worth more than he made from his garden.  I get the land and produce lots of wealth, minus the money I paid my neighbor.  We&#x27;re both better off, huzzah!
2) I could steal the land from my neighbor.  He&#x27;s worse off - he no longer has his garden at all.  I&#x27;m much better off - I get the land and I don&#x27;t have to pay for it anymore!<p>Economically efficient moves by definition mean that there&#x27;s enough wealth to compensate everyone who loses.  A lot of the anger about globalization is people being pissed because they&#x27;re losing - their job or their benefits or whatever - and the folks who are winning respond by telling them that it&#x27;s economically efficient so they&#x27;ll just have to suck it up.  It&#x27;s one thing to say &quot;Hey, change is inevitable, but at least we&#x27;re all getting wealthier!&quot;.  It&#x27;s another thing to say &quot;Hey, change is inevitable, and we&#x27;re getting way more than you&#x27;re losing!&quot;