There's been a storm of controversy (in that hackneyed journo cliche) over Gregory Mankiw's comments that job outsourcing was "probably a plus for the economy in the long run". Politically it may not have been the smartest thing to say but back here on planet Earth it's actually true. I was going to devote a goodly amount of time to going into it, but the good folks at The Economist have done a far better job.

Mankiw is a good economist who left academia for politics. No doubt chastened he has quickly realised the truth doesn't always play well with the punters. He also wrote the textbook I endured through university economics and it almost made Macroeconomics bearable. Almost.

There's one more point to consider. Job outsourcing is nothing new. It's been going on for a couple of hundred years. It is obvious the world has only improved for the better in terms of standard of living in that time. There is not mass unemployment in developed countries. There has been no giant sucking sound. The reality is if someone can do the job cheaper (for the same quality) that results in a net gain.

I fully understand that the adjustment process is difficult. Losing a job sucks no matter what the reason. It always helps to be able to blame someone or something, and add in a dash of xenophobia and it's those foreigners taking away our jobs. What makes matters worse is these ideas require thinking whereas those against can simply trot out slogans.

History is the proof that free trade (which job outsourcing is a part of) works. If you don't like it North Korea is open for immigrants. Look how well they've done and they've got no problems with job outsourcing.