I mean, your position is the worst of all. In the 1990s, activists organized to boycott companies that used sweatshop labor, encouraging them to put in new business practices. Sometimes it worked; a lot of times it didn't. In one famous Pakistan case, for example, Western Europeans found out that child laborers in Pakistan were making their soccer balls. They boycotted, so the company pulled out of Pakistan completely (instead of just working with the factories to figure out what could be done). The result? A study five years later found that many of the children went into prostitution.

You're not only advocating boycotting sweatshop conditions though -- you're advocating boycotting entire countries. In fact, most of the world, since you only want to buy advanced-economy goods. Where does that leave poor countries? They're now not only punished for sweatshop conditions, they're now not even being rewarded for good work conditions. Nevermind the arguments in the '90s against anti-sweatshop activists (the argument being that sweatshop labor is better than nothing, and that economic growth -- even in the US and Western Europe -- initially required a lot of bad labor conditions in order to economically grow the economy so that people could install better work conditions). Your plan is basically like a sanction against all countries that aren't already rich. And the result of sanctions is usually starvation.

There's another issue. Have you read Alexander Gerschenkron's "Economic Backwardness in Historical Perspective?" The argument, in a nutshell, is this: backwardness is a relative position. Poor countries need to catch up very, very, very quickly to rich countries now because they're so far behind. So, imagine it like a race. If you were in a 10 person race and 3 people got 5 minute early starts, you would have to run twice as fast just to catch up with them. If you don't, their leads will only grow and grow, making it almost impossible for you to ever catch up.

What you're advocating is that money only transfer between rich countries. Which means our economies continue to grow, while poor countries don't. The result? Well, they still have to buy stuff from us (cause we still make better medicine and technologies). But since you don't even want to buy their cheap sneakers, they're caught in a bad position. They have to make more and more just to buy your one bottle of medicine. And over time, that disparity grows, as you've kept all the technology and skilled labor in your country, forcing them to do little more than export raw materials.

How to enact change? Only boycott stuff that's obviously bad -- like blood diamonds -- since that encourages actual slave labor. Then look to see which companies are doing good work abroad and support them. Also, don't assume that just because something is made in Vietnam or whatever that some kid is chained to the floor and beaten within an inch of his life. People abroad are working for a better life, and hopefully with economic growth, they can eventually have a stronger government (which they can only have with economic growth, incidentally) that will enforce better conditions. Poor governments can't enforce good work standards. And your not buying from them isn't helping their economy grow.