I’ve always thought of these world trade meetings as being no more significant than the anti-globalization protests that they spawn, but I’ll defer to others, who think that they matter.

Peter Gallagher owns the issue in the blogosphere (at least from a photojournalism perspective).

TechCentralStation has a forum on the topic.

Ronald Bailey is doing embedded journalism for Reason. But Ron’s a tough guy who is willing to handle tough assignments, even the rigors of Cancun.

The best overall site may be Cato’s globalization symposium, with its pro and con essays. For example, in the pro camp, Brink Lindsey writes,

Critics charge that the world is suffering from an excess of “market fundamentalism.” To which this market fundamentalist can only reply: what planet are they living on? According to the 2000 Economic Freedom of the World report, state-owned enterprises continue to operate across a broad range of sectors in 74 countries with 67 percent of the world’s population. Price controls remain widespread in 54 countries with 39 percent of the world’s population. In 40 countries with 57 percent of the world’s people, state-owned banks still hold a clear majority of total deposits. The dead hand of the collectivist past retains all too tight a grip on economic life.

UPDATE: My hunch that the WTO is irrelevant may not be so off-base. Marginal Revolution points to some research that may support my view.

For Discussion. Does “globalization” mean something different from free trade? Are there legitimate arguments for or against one but not the other?