That is an entirely different problem and more of a red herring than a talking point.
"Better" is entirely relative and using a western-centric framework to assert a "hierarchy of goodness". However, it is not an objective frame, and there are plenty of detractors both endogenous and exogenous.
What is really of interest here is one, the consolidation of wealth into a pinhead of the population, and two the egregious and worsening condition of wealth distribution in the US. Which I would argue exacerbates the global condition through manifold conductors, in essence it's imperialism-via-market but in equal measure an unabashed use of threats in other capacities to keep other countries in line.
Most people, given the time (which they necessarily trade away) would, I expect, prefer a definitively ethical, sustainable, robust product - however this comes at a cost (which is what they purchase with their increasingly devalued time) and so what we end up with is a consumer-driven market where people don't have enough time to peer down the rabbit hole of ethics and sustainability, instead opting to take the wheel for what best appears to suit their demands. This is then papered over simply by hand waving that introducing the Western market regime is improving conditions globally, which I'll again point out that this is relative. And I think this then suffers further amplification because, it seems for a great many decades, that the US itself has been suffering a slow decline. This itself has many impacts, for instance it has been increasingly salient that something like home ownership is becoming less prominent and so the social fabric must be altered. These dynamics may take a lifetime to shift to meet equilibrium, so you'll have to forgive the many hundreds of millions of people for their disinterest in global affairs when the social contract their forebears penned them is burning to ash.
"Better" is entirely relative and using a western-centric framework to assert a "hierarchy of goodness". However, it is not an objective frame, and there are plenty of detractors both endogenous and exogenous.
What is really of interest here is one, the consolidation of wealth into a pinhead of the population, and two the egregious and worsening condition of wealth distribution in the US. Which I would argue exacerbates the global condition through manifold conductors, in essence it's imperialism-via-market but in equal measure an unabashed use of threats in other capacities to keep other countries in line.
Most people, given the time (which they necessarily trade away) would, I expect, prefer a definitively ethical, sustainable, robust product - however this comes at a cost (which is what they purchase with their increasingly devalued time) and so what we end up with is a consumer-driven market where people don't have enough time to peer down the rabbit hole of ethics and sustainability, instead opting to take the wheel for what best appears to suit their demands. This is then papered over simply by hand waving that introducing the Western market regime is improving conditions globally, which I'll again point out that this is relative. And I think this then suffers further amplification because, it seems for a great many decades, that the US itself has been suffering a slow decline. This itself has many impacts, for instance it has been increasingly salient that something like home ownership is becoming less prominent and so the social fabric must be altered. These dynamics may take a lifetime to shift to meet equilibrium, so you'll have to forgive the many hundreds of millions of people for their disinterest in global affairs when the social contract their forebears penned them is burning to ash.