::Loondog, I agree with some of the other editors who say this article needs a lot of work, and the points you are mentioning reflect that to some degree as they are not put very well. But I think you have misread this section, at least in part. 
 :::#If lower food prices result from subsidies in rich countries (i.e., the US and EU), then farmers in poorer countries cannot get the true market price. The key point the article alludes to is that the lower prices are caused by subsidies, not efficiency. That is why countries like Brazil have brought WTO complaints against US cotton export subsidies. Last I heard, the US had lost the case but was refusing to comply until the Doha Round was completed. (I am not sure if this is still correct on compliance, but I think it is.) 
 :::#I'm not sure I would say "exploitation" by multinational corporations is necessarily a question of the wages they pay. The "work or starve" choice is one that is only faced by those without capital; therefore, agreements between owners and non-owners of capital are not truly voluntary. This unequal bargaining power may be considered the basis of exploitation. However, it is not exploitation by any given employer, such as a foreign multinational, but a systemic exploitation. I think this is what underlies the discussion of low wages per se as a problem, but it is not very clearly put, IMO. 
 :::#From a Keynesian point of view, transferring jobs from group A to group B, where group B has a lower salary, simply reduces global consumption, because it means that income has been transferred not only to group B, but also to their employer, who with a higher income has a lower propensity to consume. So yes, you help create a middle class in India while hurting it in, say, the US, but the overall result is not a good one. This section of the article is based on a 1986 journal article, which is an ancient citation in this context, another problem I have with the section (besides being unclear).