[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.

[jerkstate]

My entire argument is "there are a lot of unintended consequences" - naming an example is salient. I noticed that you haven't refuted any of my points so I'll assume that you are aware that global trade is worse for the environment and bad for the working class in the countries exporting their labor pool, but the benefits are so good for you that you will continue to argue in its favor. That's fine. We will clearly choose to look for different policies from our leadership.

[antidesitter]

> I noticed that you haven't refuted any of my points

But I did. I showed that free trade makes importing and exporting countries both better off.

> so I'll assume that you are aware that global trade is worse for the environment

Actually, no. I'm not "aware" of that because it's not true.

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...

As I've said elsewhere, the solution to pollution is more economic development, not less. This becomes even truer once demographic transition effects (like declining birth rates) start to kick in.

> and bad for the working class in the countries exporting their labor pool

Can you not read? The poor in exporting countries benefit the most from free trade. That was the main point I addressed in my comments, and the fact that you pretend it never happened makes it clear you're not arguing in good faith.

> We will clearly choose to look for different policies from our leadership.

You'll be making the whole world poorer with your harmful policy. And it's all due to an ignorance of the subject, an unwillingness to examine the evidence, and a resistance to changing your mind in the face of it. Shame.