Quote :

"This might be true in some cases, but definitely not in all. Just because someone isn't earning a wage doesn't automatically mean they are dying in the streets. Plenty of subsistence cultures have had to deal with pollution without any of the industry's benefits. Unfortunately, they have no legal recourse."

As I am unwilling to invade and occupy their country, there is nothing we as consumers can do about getting them legal recourse. Making these workers worse off will only make them worse off. The only evidence we have is that embargoes discourage political change. As such, we can argue for political change all we want, but what we should do physically is leave them alone and trust the now employed poor will use some of the money to buy their freedom. That is how the west became free, maybe it will work for the 3rd world too.

1/27/2011 2:21:26 PM

or you could boycott the product/demand better standards of the company you believe has unfairly polluted . . . . . . . which was the original contention

Quote :

"employed poor will use some of the money to buy their freedom. That is how the west became free, maybe it will work for the 3rd world too. "

can you explain this further?

[Edited on January 27, 2011 at 3:22 PM. Reason : ....]

1/27/2011 3:14:38 PM

^ Won't work, which was my original contention. Either consumers will become apathetic, which is normally the outcome, or in those rare instances where the boycott works the company will close up shop and move production elsewhere. Nike closed down their factory and moved it to Japan. If Nike is going to pay for good environmental standards, they are going to do it where worker productivity will cover it, leaving their former workers without either the job or the clean environment.

According to Adam Smith, feudalism was gradually eroded away as serfs earned enough money and purchased their own freedom from the crown, playing a distant king against the feudal lords, becoming "free-traders" or "free-burghers". Such free men founded market-towns where they negotiated to be left alone independent of the feudal lords as long as the town paid its annual tribute in gold to the crown. These towns were self governing, self policing, and self taxing. Freed of feudal interference, the towns prospered through trade and manufacture, ultimately powerful enough to use their money and guile to liberate the rest of the country. The feudal system sold away absolute authority in exchange for gold. The best deal ever made in history.

1/27/2011 4:26:45 PM

Nike has been accused of moving their factories around, I wont argue with that (although Im not sure they have been in Japan for some time now). But I was under the impression that the bulk of the pressure on them was for worker rights/sweatshop conditions. Due to that pressure they now release the names of every factory/supplier they use for third party verification of conditions and release a report of self-audited abuses. I'm not going to argue they are a perfect company, but I would say they have improved, if only slightly, in this regard.

1/27/2011 5:06:13 PM

since it's on the topic... even though the OP is rather moronic...

Quote :

"WASHINGTON -- Tea party-backed Republican Sen. Rand Paul favors cutting U.S. aid to Israel as part of a deficit-driven effort to slash government spending by $500 billion this year, drawing criticism from Democrats and Republicans who argue the U.S. must be unwavering in its support for the longtime Mideast ally. "

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/28/AR2011012803373.html

So I got to thinking how much we spend each year in aid to other countries.

In 2008, here are your top 10 for Combined Economic and Military Aid:
Afghanistan
Iraq
Israel
Egypt
Russia
Sudan
Tanzania
Ethiopia
Pakistan
Columbia

Cutting out Israel would definitely be a chunk, but overall aid to foreign countries was $40billion in 2008, and when taking that in context of how much the overall spending was in 2008 (2.9 Trillion), that'd mean that Foreign aid was only 1.38% of overall spending.

I think

Granted, cutting a little here and a little there HELPS, I find it telling/interesting/humorous that he picked Israel as the first one.

1/28/2011 4:05:32 PM

Cutting aid to Israel would have other economic and social impacts outside of eliminating the monetary costs. Our support of Israel is one of the major talking points for Islamic extremists. Granted, they'd still have lots of other shit to hate us for, but it would take that one off the list and undoubtedly improve our relations with virtually every other Middle Eastern country.

Still don't think we should do it, but aid to Israel has lots of costs outside of the $.

1/28/2011 4:14:12 PM

We are unwavering in our support of Canada, doesn't mean we need to give them $1 billion every year.

I say cut off everyone we can. If the payment is in our own best interest, such as paying Afghanistan to kill fewer American soldiers, then I'm all for it. But paying Egypt and Israel not to make war upon each other when they clearly have no interest in such a war is ridiculously stupid.

2/1/2011 2:27:32 AM