Your premise is faulty and following through on it could doom the poor of the world to continued poverty.
First world consumption isn't something that's done at the expense of the 3rd world, it's something that sends money and skilled jobs to the developing world to help them bootstrap their way to wealth. Look at china, south korea, taiwan, etc. these countries have climbed out of 3rd world poverty by being "exploited" by the 1st world and have become developed and increasingly affluent. South Korea, for example, is rapidly becoming a 1st world nation. Would that more countries followed those examples.
Don't be so optimistic. The globalization project hasn't ended yet. Who will control the world is to be seen. And whether the nations will be left with the wealth they had acquired is as clear as the Libyan's future at the moment.
Like everything in capitalism, third world improvements is just an investment. The debt is due already for some nations and soon the next batch will follow the "debt settlement".
Look around yourself in your country. Are people good enough there and no "occupy wall street" actions taking place?
I know how the things are in the helped to be "developed" countries, and one from one of those.
Compared to 3rd world poverty even very severe banking and debt problems are nothing. Do you think people in, say, Greece 5 or 10 years from now will think their lives are no better than the average person living in, say, Malawi or Zambia?
To every good thing there is a bad effect. The effect of helping third nations to get in debt is hate. This hate accumulates and the result will be similar to the bubble exodus. This the modus operandi of capitalism - whoever holds the bag last will get in trouble.
There might be some few good cases but the greater part of history just serves my pessimistic view. All the empires claimed to help less developed nations to become "better". Only for some strange reason the latter didn't want this help until persuaded with military force.
No amount voting down can change the fact that economics is another form of war nowadays. The North American empire thrives at the moment, as the Romans did some time ago.
You're being down voted not because of the content of your viewpoint, but because what you say doesn't make sense, is not supported by any substantive reasoning or data and in general is meaningless defeatist rhetoric, antagonizing for the sake of it.
Calling the free market a war is false. Its a game and we have player some good some bad some have a head start some don't. Markets are based on voluntary action.
Give me an example where one countrie does something bad to a nother where they have no choise.
Edit
Typical example:
Greek was not forced to do Austerity they do so because they want to get money. The could, and should (in my opinion) have devolted long ago, like Island there much better of now.
First world consumption isn't something that's done at the expense of the 3rd world, it's something that sends money and skilled jobs to the developing world to help them bootstrap their way to wealth. Look at china, south korea, taiwan, etc. these countries have climbed out of 3rd world poverty by being "exploited" by the 1st world and have become developed and increasingly affluent. South Korea, for example, is rapidly becoming a 1st world nation. Would that more countries followed those examples.