I think I'd broadly agree with your definition of globalisation.
I think we disagree on two points then. Firstly, I don't think globalisaiton has made the problems that you've mentioned possible, not to the extent that you believe it has anyway. I think that globalisation intersects with these problems, but that fundamentally many of them are functions of factors inherent to that country anyway.
Secondly, where globalisation has contributed directly to some problems (such as structural unemployment in the west), I'd say that in general the outcome has still been positive on net. Greater labour mobility, freer trade, cheaper goods for consumers; the list of positives i think vastly outweighs the negatives.
In the arguments I've made so far I don't mean to suggest that there was once an economic Eden before globalisation that we should long for or that basic human nature has had no role in this mess we're in now.
Furthermore when I said globalisation hasn't been questioned enough I never said that globalisation hasn't had any benefits, of course it has benefited us, ( I wouldn't be typing this right now if we lived in an insular world), but I also believe its had nasty kickbacks as its given the grounds for many of weeds plaguing our society space to put down roots, which I don't think a lot of its cheerleaders will admit., which makes it into a religion rather than a model open to criticism