Confronting Girard and Baudrillard: what if globalization is also a Myth?

I'm wondering if we cannot put Girard in conversation with Baudrillard and vice-versa: Baudrillard makes the point that terrorism is an immoral response to the immoral system of globalization; the implication being that the latter conditions the former. So, with that all too neat hypothesis, can we not apply Girard's point that all myths are cover-ups for (actual) violent foundational acts to Baudrillard's understanding of the globalization/terrorist relationship by teasing out the myth(s) of globalization and exposing the immoralities within the system and, in so doing, begin to unravel the riddle of terrorism (globalization's shadow/double/twin etc.)? Although I really don't like working with such sweeping terms as "the system" and "globalization," Baudrillard, nonetheless, has a point which becomes much clearer when we approach globalization qua myth rather than monolith. As far as potential "foundational acts" (they seem more like gestures) concerning globalization: the creation of the World Bank, IMF, NAFTA, Patriot Act. But at the heart of globalization--and not surprisingly a key aspect of Baudrillard's early thought--is consumption, the underlying force that binds the global society. I cannot to point to a specific act and say "this is the foundational act for what will become a rampant consumer culture," I'm sure there are many to explore (although right now the only thing jumping out at me is the rise of plastics--i.e. The Graduate--so I hope there are better examples or this whole email is shot!) At any rate, there are more myths about globalization than there are students in the class, and I am certainly interested to hear any and all interpretations! Sorry for rambling a bit, but unraveling the "myth(s) of globalization" was not something I wanted to take on as a solo project...Matthew P.