This one isn't easy, and Liberman's appreciation of the complexity of the issues might be mistaken for indecisiveness. For the most part, outsourcing opponents are using the word as a substitute for their opposition to free trade; and I think it safe to say that Lieberman understands the value of free trade. Here's an excerpt from a 2004 White Paper released by Lieberman's office:
Although offshoring has both positive and negative consequences, the net impact on the economy is yet to be fully measured. The most significant benefit is that it lowers corporate costs, which benefits both consumers and shareholders. The cost savings boost corporate profits, raising investor confidence. Offshoring has become a matter of survival for some U.S. corporations who have to compete globally for market share. Even venture capitalists now expect young IT companies to have an offshoring component. U.S. revenues grow when offshore providers create new foreign corporate markets for U.S. products such as telecom equipment and computers. As the standard of living improves abroad, new consumers for U.S. products are created. For example, in the first nine months of 2003, Chinese imports were up 40.5 percent over the same period a year ago, the fastest annual increase of the last ten years. Similarly, total exports from U.S. companies to India have grown from $2.5 billion in 1990 to $4.1 billion in 2002.
This long-term threat cannot be altered by stop-gap “protectionist” actions. The global economy is upon us and is not going away; we must learn to compete more effectively in it. The appropriate response requires detailed analysis of its magnitude, investigation of possible policy solutions, and a comprehensive plan of action. Therefore, since most of the available information on services and R&D performed abroad is anecdotal, we first must collect and track the volume and nature of jobs moving offshore.