[antidesitter]

> I think everyone agrees that outsourcing work to third world economies creates immense wealth in first world economies.

It also creates wealth in those third world economies. In fact, they benefit the most.

> We also know that burning fossil fuels is the cheapest way to make useful heat. That doesn't mean it doesn't have a lot of negative unintended consequences.

Can you explain why you think this comparison is relevant?

[jerkstate]

Hollowing out the lower/middle class in those first world economies and forcing people into social welfare programs is a big unintended consequence here.

[ummonk]

Yes, it transfers wealth from the extremely well off (by global standards) first world middle class into building up the third world middle class.

[jerkstate]

To be fair, it almost entirely transfers wealth to the extremely well off by any standards first world upper class, everything else is a rounding error. Outsourcing is colonialism by another name.

[antidesitter]

> To be fair, it almost entirely transfers wealth to the extremely well off

Wrong. Free trade benefits the poor the most. It is responsible for massive reductions in poverty at the global level, and is critical to the economic growth of developing countries. Trade barriers (particularly in agriculture) are a major source of harm to the world's poor:

http://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/trade/publication/the-role...

I encourage you to open your mind on this subject and accept reality rather than hang on to a view that is fundamentally incorrect.

> Outsourcing is colonialism by another name.

What do you mean by "colonialism"?

[jerkstate]

> Free trade benefits poor the most

Surely you do not mean on an absolute basis!

> What do you mean by "colonialism"?

Do you not have a dictionary?

Look, there's really no reason to call me closed-minded, we can both surely cite a lot of reputable sources that agree with our position, mine being that outsourcing causes a lot of problems and yours that outsourcing is a net positive on global gdp and increases incomes globally. I think we're both right! But what you may not be considering is - what do you think would happen if 8 billion people had a first-world carbon footprint? So what's the rush to get new labor pools into the global economy? Call me cynical but I think it is almost completely self interest on the part of the first world economies with only lip service paid to the well being of the poor Laotians.

[antidesitter]

> Surely you do not mean on an absolute basis!

Not sure what you mean by this.

> Do you not have a dictionary?

I asked what you meant by colonialism, so enlighten me. Explain why you think outsourcing is "colonialism".

> But what you may not be considering is - what do you think would happen if 8 billion people had a first-world carbon footprint?

That's a discussion for another day. But you would have to reframe your argument as "Free trade is bad because the world's poor escaping poverty would be a bad thing for the environment."

> So what's the rush to get new labor pools into the global economy?

Simply put, extreme poverty.

> Call me cynical but I think it is almost completely self interest on the part of the first world economies with only lip service paid to the well being of the poor Laotians.

Of course it's self-interest. That's how economies work. Whether it's self-interest or not doesn't determine whether it's good or bad.