I was talking with a coworker a while back who is a die-hard capitalist. He argued that we shouldn't be bothering to do anything about immigration, off-shoring, currency manipulation, etc., because the free market would ultimately triumph and correct all of these problems.
Yes, of course the market will ultimately take care of things; but time and weather will eventually clean up Superfund Sites too. In the meantime, you've created a lot of loss and waste. Just because it will be corrected doesn't mean you shouldn't help it along.
One of the biggest examples in that regard is income disparity in the United States. I read countless columns, from many reputable, and otherwise competent, sources, who blame growing income disparity on some new-found greed among the upper classes. In my mind, that can be easily classed as bologna. The upper classes today are no more greedy than they were in generations past. The difference is the comparative value of labor.
In the last thirty years, China and India joined the global economy. They were virtually undeveloped countries with massive supplies of labor. With that huge infusion of labor, to make the supply and demand curves match, either the cost of labor had to drop, or the cost of capital had to rise. What we've witnessed is a huge increase in the value of capital, and those who own it have become tremendously wealthy. That wages have stagnated is no surprise--they should have fallen.
Managing globalization, in this case, should include efforts to increase the supply of capital. The more capital to be used, the more labor will be needed to use it, the more wages will rise. Investing in infrastructure, which is badly needed in the United States, would probably be one of the best things we could do at the moment, despite the "inevitability" of globalization.