well I understand that im not based in reality at all when I think we shouldn't have to risk our lives to make money. Id rather not have money control my life and the decisions I make, that is a lack of freedom in my eyes. I guess its a matter of what you think freedom is. Are you truly free when you have to risk your life to make some cash to feed your kids?

the only problem is that I am also aware that fixing this problem is next to impossible.

11/18/2006 1:11:44 PM

Well, to be fair, there aren't that many people in life-risking jobs simply to "feed their kids."

Most of them are compensated far better than a basic level of poverty in the jobs that truly risk fatality. So, given that most of them are doing it for a better lifestyle than survival, I'd say it is an exercise of freedom. If you didn't allow them to do so of their own volition, then they would be unfree.

11/18/2006 1:25:46 PM

but what stopped the practices of child labor, the 12 hour work day and working in dangerous conditions to begin with? Was it the corporations that stopped this practice or was it the workers forcing the government to enact regulations. Are we taking away the workers freedom by allowing him to stop working after 8 hours? Are we taking away the right of the family to allow their 8 year old to work in a factory? Are we taking away the freedom of the man who wishes to have extremely dangerous chemicals tested on him? Are we protecting people from corporations or protecting people from themselves? honestly I dont know.



[Edited on November 18, 2006 at 1:39 PM. Reason : !]

11/18/2006 1:33:13 PM

Quote :

" but I don't think you can honestly say to me that you think most people use anything beyond basic algebra after high school"

I would argue that geometry is pretty useful. A case could be made for basic statistics, too. Higher level algebra and any sort of calculus (beyond maybe the basic concepts), not so much for the Average Joe. Not as important as, say, personal finance, for sure.

[Edited on November 18, 2006 at 1:51 PM. Reason : from the perspective of someone who took calc up through Differential Equations, and a stats course]

11/18/2006 1:50:14 PM

Well Dental, presumably enough of the country got wealthy enough that those kinds of conditions were no longer tolerable as a society. You see, if people would starve to death without child labor or sweatshop work, they'll work it whether it is legal or not. The only way we finally got rid of it was because we could afford to.

Have you read "In Praise of Cheap Labor" by Paul Krugman? Its a good article on child labor as a good thing for the impoverished.

11/18/2006 2:10:51 PM

Quote :

"Id rather not have money control my life and the decisions I make, that is a lack of freedom in my eyes."

Then don't, that is your freedom. If you don't want to care about money then don't. The issue is, the workers at Wal-Mart want a DVD Player and frozen pizza so they seek jobs that pay money.

Quote :

"but what stopped the practices of child labor, the 12 hour work day and working in dangerous conditions to begin with?"

Oddly enough child labor had been all but eliminated before the states began outlawing the practice because parents became wealthy enough to want to send their children to school instead.

Quote :

"Are we taking away the workers freedom by allowing him to stop working after 8 hours?"

But that is not what you are doing. If the workers wanted to stop working after 8 hours then they would do so. What you have done is eliminate a worker's right to work longer than 8 hours, regardless of how many mouths he needs to feed.

Quote :

"Are we protecting people from corporations or protecting people from themselves? honestly I dont know. "

You are trying to protect people from themselves, simple as that. And who gave you the right to try and stop them from taking such obvious risks? Maybe the higher pay makes it unwise not to take these risks, should they have the right to make you take a dangerous job?

Of course not. Like I said, everyone should mind their own business.

11/18/2006 3:01:43 PM

Quote :

"Then don't, that is your freedom. If you don't want to care about money then don't."

that's my point in the other thread.

just don't argue that you should pay a smaller percentage of your income in taxes because you make less money.

remember, the whole reason you're making less money is because you don't care about money, right?

11/18/2006 3:04:47 PM

^ Who are you talking to? Obviously not me because I desperately care about money, both mine and the money of others. Similarly, I care how much money is being taken in taxes, etc.

11/18/2006 3:17:53 PM

we seriously dont agree on what freedom is and how it is abused and who really abuses it.

simple as that

[Edited on November 18, 2006 at 3:46 PM. Reason : !]

11/18/2006 3:40:55 PM

Not at all. You view freedom as the ability of the majority to impose its ethical beliefs on the minority. I view freedom as the ability of the minority to ignore the ethical beliefs of the majority. In your examples, the minority is played by the workers and their bosses attempting to contract services from each other (cash from one, labor from the other) and the majority is played by you.

Now, of course, I disagree with you, so I have painted your position in harsh words, but this is more or less true, right?

Either way, this is fun. Now, try to explain my position back to me using as many harsh words as I did for you. Thanks !!!

11/18/2006 6:18:52 PM

Quote :

"Since the thread seems to have taken some wrong terms, I'll admit I haven't read it all, so pardon me if any of this is redundant: I've always been a proponent of this. I'd like to think that I'm a reasonably intelligent person, but I had no idea how to write a check until I got to college and had to start doing it, and there's a lot of other basic stuff I don't know because I haven't run into it yet -- 401(k), IRA, all of these things are complete fucking mysteries to me. "

Just about. I'm aware enough of the importance of investing, saving, and planning for things like
- owning a home
- retirement
- schooling (be it mine or someone else's)
that I intend to research my options before diving in...but there are many people who don't understand opportunity cost. At all. Or saving. I had a friend who had a couple grand just sitting in a checking account that only paid 0.75% interest, or something like that, and it was mostly pocket money - mom and dad paid things like tuition and rent. I had to lay out why it was a good idea to move a bunch of that to a savings account. I figured anything more drastic than that might have scared them off of making any decision

...As long as that's the case, something needs to change, and at a level that affects everyone who attends school. So 9th grade, at the latest, really.

I've learned a LOT from watching my parents struggle with bad financial decisions. Most parents don't clue their kids into what's going on, so they don't/can't learn from it. Schools shouldn't have to do parents' jobs, but we've seen how well that works

[Edited on November 18, 2006 at 8:29 PM. Reason : alskja]

11/18/2006 8:28:39 PM

Quote :

"Either way, this is fun. Now, try to explain my position back to me using as many harsh words as I did for you. Thanks !!!"

ha I can do that.


You view freedom as the ability for the few rich to control the choices and lives of the many poor. In your example the minority is played by the view rich corporation owners and the majority is played by the poor masses which need to scrape at the leftovers of the robber barons in order to make a living. They believe they are free but continue on there worthless lives filling the pockets of their bosses with no increase in wealth or standard of living.

11/18/2006 9:56:20 PM

Democracy > Capitalism > Communism > Facism

11/19/2006 3:12:01 PM

What is the order listed there? I can't pick it out.

11/19/2006 3:45:41 PM

democracy isn't an economic system so that list is retarded

11/19/2006 5:34:24 PM

Quote :

"Have you read "In Praise of Cheap Labor" by Paul Krugman? Its a good article on child labor as a good thing for the impoverished."

Have you ever read "A Modest Proposal" by Jonathan Swift? It's a good book an cannibalism as a good thing for the impoverished.

Quote :

"Like I said, everyone should mind their own business."

Things don't always work out the most effectively from that, just look at the prisoner's dilemma, that way of thinking doesn't always work out to pareto optimality, and one would hope it could at least add up to that, if not better.

11/19/2006 10:47:26 PM

I wish the USA would mind its own business and stop blowing up other countries with my tax dollars.

11/20/2006 12:47:54 AM

So it would be good for countries to mind their own business but bad for people to mind their own business?

^^ The difference, Kris, is that Paul Krugman was not being sarcastic. He was merely analysing the historical evidence which shows the presence of unfettered sweat shops 30 years ago, for some reason, results in a rapid increase in productivity and living standards.

We have our theories, mine is that the promise of cheap sweat shop labor encourages investment from all over the world and thus integration with the global economy. Coupled with time these two trends make an economy modern and therefore highly productive.

11/20/2006 10:03:47 AM

Quote :

"Have you ever read "A Modest Proposal" by Jonathan Swift? It's a good book an cannibalism as a good thing for the impoverished."

Well Kris, I haven't read it, but if it is related in some way to Krugman's Child Labor piece, then it must be something like "It is better to eat one another than to starve to death" and, if that were its main point, I would have to agree.

Krugman basically says "Child Labor is a good thing, because the next best alternative is to pick through a trash dump in Manilla for 10 hours a day. A back-breaking, worse than sweat-shop job with a smaller return. The idea is that the next best alternative is terrible, so child labor is a good thing. Jackasses from other countries swinging the stick of morality at them tell them "You can no longer use child labor, we have to ban it, it is immoral" can feel better that no children are working at a factory only because they don't have to watch the alternative and are free to ignore the starvation and worsening conditions that they force the others into.

11/20/2006 10:14:58 AM

Quote :

"Well Kris, I haven't read it, but if it is related in some way to Krugman's Child Labor piece, then it must be something like "It is better to eat one another than to starve to death" and, if that were its main point, I would have to agree."

I was hoping you had read it, you'd get the joke and the point I was trying to make. It was a piece on how the Irish should sell their children to be eaten, and he goes into the economic effects, the lowered population effects, and on and on for the entire book, all while ignoring the fact that you're talking about eating children. It was a great work of irony, something like the first "Colbert Report".

Quote :

"Krugman basically says "Child Labor is a good thing, because the next best alternative is to pick through a trash dump in Manilla for 10 hours a day."

I'm sure those are the only two options. Oh good god, where would these people be without us to feed them, it's not as if their people had survived for thousands of years already without our help.

And even if those were the only two conditions, being the lesser of two evils doesn't make it any less wrong. We should not impose those living conditions on them even if their current ones are worse. Not only does it mess up the competitive footing with civilized countries, it's still simply wrong.

11/20/2006 11:12:55 AM

Well maybe you don't really know what "impose" means. Under current scenario, they have options of all types (2 in my scenario, and apparantly dozens under yours) and they choose to work in factories. This is somehow an imposition?

And in your world, those conditions are immoral and we shouldn't force/allow them to live under them EVEN if their next best alternative is worse? It looks like you people actually think sweat-shop labor at HIGHER pay than otherwise available truly is "a fate worse than death."

Also, just because civilizations in Africa have has mass starvation for centuries but have managed to continue to survive doesn't mean they're "getting along" fine without our help. The fact that you implied it about those in Manilla is a sign of how ridiculous you're willing to go given any subject.

The truly sad part is that you think we are forcing them to work in those factories.

__

Quote :

"Not only does it mess up the competitive footing with civilized countries, it's still simply wrong."

How does being too poor to care qualify as an uncompetitive advantage? We have far better machines and equipment than do they, does that mean we are being uncompetitive by using them? It is their competitive advantage. They have cheap labor and rough working conditions, we have highly productive labor and highly productive machines. When our advantage wins out, we produce, and when theirs does, they produce.

[Edited on November 20, 2006 at 11:19 AM. Reason : .]

11/20/2006 11:17:56 AM

Quote :

"Under current scenario, they have options of all types (2 in my scenario, and apparantly dozens under yours) and they choose to work in factories. This is somehow an imposition?"

Yes, by introducing that sweatshop you've changed their economy, thus you've imposed your economy on them. It doesn't matter what they chose, because they can't choose the worth of their money or the money the amount their wealth will change due to the introduction of the foriegn economy.

Quote :

"EVEN if their next best alternative is worse? It looks like you people actually think sweat-shop labor at HIGHER pay than otherwise available truly is "a fate worse than death.""

No you're simply changing their economy before it's ready, have you ever heard of the northern snakehead? It's something like bringing one of those into a new ecosystem.

Quote :

"Also, just because civilizations in Africa have has mass starvation for centuries but have managed to continue to survive doesn't mean they're "getting along" fine without our help."

Most likely "our help" is what caused them to get that way to begin with.

Quote :

"The truly sad part is that you think we are forcing them to work in those factories."

What's sad is that you don't see how we do by changing their economy. We limit the choices to "work here or die", rather than simply presenting them with a new one.

Quote :

"How does being too poor to care qualify as an uncompetitive advantage? We have far better machines and equipment than do they, does that mean we are being uncompetitive by using them?"

You missed my point there. We are prevented by law to have certain guidelines for labor, if we trade with people who do not have somewhat similar laws, we put our own labor at a de-jure disadvantage, which reduces their ability to compete with foriegn labor. Now you could argue for the disspation of our own labor laws (which I woudn't doubt you'd do), or the enforcement of somewhat similar guidelines on our trade partners, but you couldn't disagree with both of these and still support us trading with these countries.

11/20/2006 11:46:37 AM

Financial planning courses would help.

11/20/2006 11:51:56 AM

so I guess this comes down to being an ass who thinks child labor is ok and then not being an ass who thinks child labor is ok.

BUT ITS GOOD FOR THE ECONOMY!

11/20/2006 11:57:21 AM

Quote :

"What's sad is that you don't see how we do by changing their economy. We limit the choices to "work here or die", rather than simply presenting them with a new one."

And Kris, what were the old options and how did we eliminate them?

Quote :

"if we trade with people who do not have somewhat similar laws, we put our own labor at a de-jure disadvantage, which reduces their ability to compete with foriegn labor"

Not as a whole, no. You are once again showing your ignorance on the subject of international trade. Only types of labor are competing, not labor as a whole. For example, by trading with low wage Mexico our economy shifts to produce more airplanes and fewer shoes (we trade airplanes for shoes). As such, because of the flexible exchange rage regime, our shoe makers are not competing with China's shoe makers, they are actually competing with Boeing. You see, the better Boeing does the higher the dollar goes and the cheaper Mexican shoes become.

If, as you say, Mexico always has cheaper shoes but never buys airplanes then the dollar will fall until Mexican shoes (even with poor labor standards) are more expensive than American shoes. So, like I said, if you manage to wreck Boeing then you could save the American shoe industry, with losses for everyone all around. As such, since it is really Boeing and Converse that are competing and they both have high labor standards, it doesn't seek likely that a race to the bottom can ensue.

11/20/2006 1:21:51 PM

Quote :

"You missed my point there. We are prevented by law to have certain guidelines for labor, if we trade with people who do not have somewhat similar laws, we put our own labor at a de-jure disadvantage, which reduces their ability to compete with foriegn labor. Now you could argue for the disspation of our own labor laws (which I woudn't doubt you'd do), or the enforcement of somewhat similar guidelines on our trade partners, but you couldn't disagree with both of these and still support us trading with these countries. "

I have no real problem with child-labor laws in this country, but only because we have alternatives that are available. It is my guess that even if we abolished child-labor laws in this country, we'd still have no or very few child laborers. I didn't miss your point, what you missed is the logic behind it. If every country had universally imposed wages, environmental, and labor laws, the country with the most productive workforces would be the only that got economic growth and wealth creation. On the world stage, American workers compete on productivity and skill. Other countries that lack that are forced to compete based on shitty pay and long hours. As they get wealthier over time, they will then compete based on skill and productivity, rather than breaking their backs. What you propose is to take away the only advantage impoverished workers have and starve them out. You seem to think that it is the factories that are keeping the people down, but that's just incorrect. They were worse off before the factory came there, the rest of the world just didn't take as much notice, or climb quite as high up on the high horse.

11/20/2006 1:35:44 PM

Quote :

"If every country had universally imposed wages, environmental, and labor laws, the country with the most productive workforces would be the only that got economic growth and wealth creation."

It's not as if countries have varying amounts of natural resources.

Quote :

"As they get wealthier over time"

And how does this process work? I mean Africa was imperialized several hundreds of years ago, and they don't seem like they have gotten "wealthier" over time.

Quote :

"They were worse off before the factory came there"

Che Guevara and many others would disagree with you, but regardless, it's not your responsibility to force your economic system on others.

11/20/2006 1:48:36 PM

Quote :

"And how does this process work? I mean Africa was imperialized several hundreds of years ago, and they don't seem like they have gotten "wealthier" over time. "

How did the U.S. get wealthier from 1800-now?

Quote :

"Che Guevara and many others would disagree with you, but regardless, it's not your responsibility to force your economic system on others. "

Some people are stupid/blind, I accept that. It isn't my responsibility, you're god damn right. That's why I didn't go build a factory. But you're absolutely fucked up retarded if you think that you forcing factories NOT to open there is any less of an imposition of ideals than letting factories open and operate.

[Edited on November 20, 2006 at 2:00 PM. Reason : more/less]

11/20/2006 1:57:50 PM

AHA, this thread is funny.

hooksaw claims that such a class could become politicized, and everyone was all, "Maybe..."

But just look at this thread. hooksaw was right.

That said, financial literacy should most definitely be taught in public schools. I say that because that information is important and hard to get. I mean, there are free seminars and classes were you can get tips and whatnot, but people are, as they should be, wary of those things; books can be checked out from the library, but still some people could benefit from an actual teacher.

Anyway, by not teaching this information in schools, we are potentially depriving a population the "American Dream," the opportunity for true independence. Give it to them young, and give it to them for free.

[Edited on November 20, 2006 at 2:01 PM. Reason : sss]

11/20/2006 2:00:38 PM

Bridget, so what you're saying is:

It will get politicized, but that's okay, we should allow them to be indoctrinated?

11/20/2006 2:01:56 PM

^It could get politicized. That fact doesn't mean anybody is being indoctrinated.

I imagine the students would probably be the most likely to bring "politics" into it, as most teachers are forced to follow fairly strict curricula.

A healthy debate never hurt anybody. It's gotta be healthy though, and it takes a good teacher to keep it healthy.

11/20/2006 2:11:17 PM

Quote :

"How did the U.S. get wealthier from 1800-now?"

Sound economic investments and the capital to invest in them.

Quote :

"That's why I didn't go build a factory. But you're absolutely fucked up retarded if you think that you forcing factories NOT to open there is any less of an imposition of ideals than letting factories open and operate."

That obviously wouldn't be the way we'd be stopping them, policemen are going to be out there arresting people who try to build factories. I'd close the loophole they exploit by raising tariffs on or refusing to trade with countries who do not abide by certain minimial standard labor laws.

Quote :

"hooksaw claims that such a class could become politicized, and everyone was all, "Maybe...""

Well I think the response would better be described as "so can any other subject, but that shouldn't stop us from teaching those". bgmims and I are talking more about macroeconomics and world trade, not the kind of stuff that would be covered in a simple personal finance class. The kind of stuff that would be covered there would be simple ROI, basic accounting, and common sense money stuff like: don't buy lottery tickets, you won't make millions of dollars off Amway and other stuff.

11/20/2006 2:17:21 PM

Quote :

"That obviously wouldn't be the way we'd be stopping them, policemen are going to be out there arresting people who try to build factories. I'd close the loophole they exploit by raising tariffs on or refusing to trade with countries who do not abide by certain minimial standard labor laws."

Ok Kris, so you don't trade with them. What is the alternative? I mean, what do the people do without sweat shops?

See, in my opinion, this is as far as people get with their argument. People like you who are anti-corporate (compared to me, at least) and people who are protectionist for the "they took our jobs" mentality agree we have to jack up the tariffs or in some other way prevent us from trading with them, but I don't think they think about what the next best alternative is.

I would think you'd be smart enough to know that labor standards are many steps down an economic evolutionary process. You can't jump start them by forcing them to have high labor standards. Its a progression.

11/20/2006 2:21:23 PM

Quote :

"What is the alternative? I mean, what do the people do without sweat shops?"

Surely they got by the few thousand years they've been around before international trade was such an issue, I'm sure they could make it. But most likely they will trade, they'll abide by the standards we've set, and they'll ease trading into their economy rather than saturating it by letting it completely take over.

Quote :

"See, in my opinion, this is as far as people get with their argument. People like you who are anti-corporate (compared to me, at least) and people who are protectionist for the "they took our jobs" mentality agree we have to jack up the tariffs or in some other way prevent us from trading with them, but I don't think they think about what the next best alternative is."

I think things through a bit more than that, but I don't see it as such a bad thing that people were able to stop and say "this is not right" and stopping it there, rather than accepting your rather overgenerallized and unsupported idea that working in a sweatshop is the best option for them. Further I believe you fail to realize the effect of just offering a sweatshop has on the local economy by inflating it and forcing the people to work there.

Quote :

"I would think you'd be smart enough to know that labor standards are many steps down an economic evolutionary process. You can't jump start them by forcing them to have high labor standards. Its a progression."

I'd disagree, I'd say it's more like technology, only one person has to go through the process, then he can share it with others. Everyone didn't have to develop their own combustion engine, only one person had to figure out how to do it, then he could share it with everyone. We may have had to go through years without proper labor regulation, but that doesn't mean everyone else does too.

11/20/2006 2:51:23 PM

if I could eat Bgmims babies I would

11/20/2006 2:52:43 PM

I can see what you're attempting, I just think you are wrong. If they were making ceramic pots before (not a stretch), then the presence of a factory will not stop them from making ceramic pots. And to think that better working conditions are like technology is wrong, but I do see what you're trying to do there. It isn't as if someone said "Hey man, I think working 15 hours a day blows donkeyballs, I think I'm just gonna work 8" and then everyone else said "Shit, I'd never thought of doing that before, let's all do that."

You don't need one person to dream of a better life and then it catches on for everyone like wildfire.

Also, your idea that a factory would EVER open if given U.S. standards is suspect. Why would they ever go there if they couldn't get the same level of productivity for the same costs?

And sure, they got along for thousands of years before now without any economy to speak of, but that doesn't mean that they were living well. The rest of the world has moved up their standard of living, and staying the same doesn't make you any worse off in absolute terms, but in relative terms it certainly does.

___

Quote :

"if I could eat Bgmims babies I would"

Well, I guess the only thing actually preventing you from eating my babies is their lack of existence. When I get around to fathering some, you may make me an offer then.

[Edited on November 20, 2006 at 3:08 PM. Reason : .]

11/20/2006 3:07:03 PM

Quote :

"What's sad is that you don't see how we do by changing their economy. We limit the choices to "work here or die", rather than simply presenting them with a new one."

And Kris, what were the old options and how did we eliminate them?

Quote :

"if we trade with people who do not have somewhat similar laws, we put our own labor at a de-jure disadvantage, which reduces their ability to compete with foriegn labor"

Not as a whole, no. You are once again showing your ignorance on the subject of international trade. Only types of labor are competing, not labor as a whole. For example, by trading with low wage Mexico our economy shifts to produce more airplanes and fewer shoes (we trade airplanes for shoes). As such, because of the flexible exchange rage regime, our shoe makers are not competing with China's shoe makers, they are actually competing with Boeing. You see, the better Boeing does the higher the dollar goes and the cheaper Mexican shoes become.

If, as you say, Mexico always has cheaper shoes but never buys airplanes then the dollar will fall until Mexican shoes (even with poor labor standards) are more expensive than American shoes. So, like I said, if you manage to wreck Boeing then you could save the American shoe industry, with losses for everyone all around. As such, since it is really Boeing and Converse that are competing and they both have high labor standards, it doesn't seem likely that a race to the bottom can ensue.

Quote :

"And how does this process work? I mean Africa was imperialized several hundreds of years ago, and they don't seem like they have gotten "wealthier" over time."

That's right Kris. And do you see any Nike sweat-shops in Zimbabwe? Did we 30 years ago? Not at all like we saw in South Korea or Hong Kong 40 years ago or China today. It is the building of factories (sound economic investment as you said) that makes the place richer and few if any were built in Africa.

11/20/2006 3:13:28 PM

the judicial system as we know it would crumble.

[Edited on November 20, 2006 at 4:27 PM. Reason : so yes i agree, but it will never happen]

11/20/2006 4:26:42 PM

Quote :

"If they were making ceramic pots before (not a stretch), then the presence of a factory will not stop them from making ceramic pots."

But it could lower the value of the ceramic pots and the makers would no longer be able to live off of making ceramic pots.

Quote :

"And to think that better working conditions are like technology is wrong, but I do see what you're trying to do there. It isn't as if someone said "Hey man, I think working 15 hours a day blows donkeyballs, I think I'm just gonna work 8" and then everyone else said "Shit, I'd never thought of doing that before, let's all do that.""

That's not too much of a stretch, you're forgetting that unions started labor reform.

Quote :

"Also, your idea that a factory would EVER open if given U.S. standards is suspect. Why would they ever go there if they couldn't get the same level of productivity for the same costs?"

Whoa, I never said that. I said some standards should be in play, but there will be wage disparities and other factors. I never said the standards should be identical.

Quote :

"The rest of the world has moved up their standard of living, and staying the same doesn't make you any worse off in absolute terms, but in relative terms it certainly does."

I feel that without proper regulation, stardard of living could go down even by absolute terms from before.

Quote :

"And Kris, what were the old options and how did we eliminate them?"

I answered this in the pot maker example.

Quote :

"You are once again showing your ignorance on the subject of international trade."

Oh, still bitter from the "demand can go down and supply can stay fixed and price will not change" thread?

Quote :

"Only types of labor are competing, not labor as a whole."

Well what does that matter? Most of our regulation only impacts one type of labor, the low wage labor, this tends to be the exact type in competition with foriegn labor.

Quote :

"And do you see any Nike sweat-shops in Zimbabwe?"

Yes, there are a shitload of sweatshops in africa, also pretty much any other poor country.

Quote :

"Did we 30 years ago?"

Agian, yes we did.

Quote :

"Not at all like we saw in South Korea or Hong Kong 40 years ago or China today."

Yes, there were just as many in many of the other places, South Korea and Hong Kong were lucky and managed to shrug them off.

11/20/2006 4:38:01 PM

Quote :

"Yes, there are a shitload of sweatshops in africa, also pretty much any other poor country."

BullShit! The last remaining international corporation operating in Zimbabwe today is a diamond mining concern and international observers fear even this last bastion of employment is going to be nationalized soon. In Zimbabwe's case there used to be some international companies running factories, but all that ended in the 90s (which is also when the nation's per-capita income peaked). Think back to all those documentaries from poorest Africa, you never see any fucking advertising. The people don't work in factories, they farm or join the militia!

Go to Wal-Mart and find me a single item stamped with "Made in Zimbabwe" or "Made in Sudan" or "Made in Haiti." You cannot because it is not there to find and that is why these nations are poor.

Quote :

"Agian, yes we did."

Again, no we didn't. Again, go back in time to a Sears catalog and find me a single item stamped "Made in..." a poor African country.

This is the "Made in..." theory of economic development. Back in the 1960s to 1980s everything sold appeared to be made in Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong, or Taiwan, by western owned factories. Today these nations are rich. More recently everything sold appears to be made in China by western owned factories (ok, with a 99 year lease), and China is getting rich.

Ok, so, to win this argument is easy, just find a single item somewhere in the city stamped with "Made in Zimbabwe", take a picture of it, post it here.

Quote :

"Yes, there were just as many in many of the other places, South Korea and Hong Kong were lucky and managed to shrug them off."

Odd you say that when it is completely false. S. Korea has a thoroughly free economy, all corporations seeking to do business are treated equally and Foreign Direct Investment has historically filled a sizable share of the economy.

Quote :

"Oh, still bitter from the "demand can go down and supply can stay fixed and price will not change" thread?"

Of course I am, you keep talking, none of it is true, then act like it is my problem you don't understand shit.

Quote :

"I feel that without proper regulation, stardard of living could go down even by absolute terms from before."

Economically speaking that is not impossible, just ridiculously unlikely, especially if you do not bar Foreign Direct Investment which has never been shown to introduce any potential dangers. Even so, the little risk from inDirect Investment can be eliminated by changing how the nation's currency operates. For example, pegging your currency too low (as China has done) will eliminate the short term risk, while being quite wasteful. My favorite solution is dollarization as occurred in Ecuador (2000), El Salvador (2001), and East Timor (2000), or the use of the U.S. Dollar as the official currency. After a short period this eliminates all possible harm from Foreign Investment.

[Edited on November 21, 2006 at 9:29 AM. Reason : .,.]

11/21/2006 9:23:37 AM

economy > people

11/21/2006 9:38:45 AM

http://www.transafricaforum.org/reports/lesothosweatshops121.pdf

There's a report on sweatshops in Lesotho, a poor African company, you are wrong. And I can provide more, but considering I've already proven your statement wrong, I don't really need to.

Quote :

"Odd you say that when it is completely false. S. Korea has a thoroughly free economy, all corporations seeking to do business are treated equally and Foreign Direct Investment has historically filled a sizable share of the economy."

How does that make what I said "completely false".

Quote :

"Of course I am, you keep talking, none of it is true, then act like it is my problem you don't understand shit."

It is your problem, you don't understand basic economics. You read books by Hayek and such, who already understand basic economics, and take their interpretations of real world economics as undisputable proof, but you don't understand that it isn't undisputable, and that you trying to do the same without even the most basic understanding of supply and demand isn't going to make me take your skewed interpretation as fact.

11/21/2006 10:06:15 AM

Quote :

"I said some standards should be in play, but there will be wage disparities and other factors"

So which Central Planning Commission is in charge of determining which labor and wage practices are "fair."

11/21/2006 10:46:42 AM

Quote :

"There's a report on sweatshops in Lesotho, a poor African company, you are wrong. And I can provide more, but considering I've already proven your statement wrong, I don't really need to."

And they appear to be working, thanks for proving my point. "In 2001, Lesotho’s GDP was $906 million and thriving at an annual growth rate of 3.3%." Between 2001 and 2002 unemployment fell from 45% to 35%, that is at least 10% more of the workforce that can feed their families. One only hopes this trend continues as more western factories open up and employ more of the local workforce.

How did you think linking a pdf file about a country working its way out of poverty thanks to sweat shops would somehow disprove that sweatshops help move people out of poverty?

Quote :

"How does that make what I said "completely false"."

I'm sorry, did you say S. Korea weaned itself off sweat shops or weaned itself off western factories? I ask because it did neither, the sweat shops simply could not longer compete with other employers for employees, so they went out of business. Which, BTW, is the destiny for all sweat shops built in a free-market economy, it is just a matter of time before workers find better jobs.

Quote :

"So which Central Planning Commission is in charge of determining which labor and wage practices are "fair.""

George Bush.

[Edited on November 21, 2006 at 1:41 PM. Reason : .,.]

11/21/2006 1:26:56 PM

Quote :

"And they appear to be working, thanks for proving my point. "In 2001, Lesotho’s GDP was $906 million and thriving at an annual growth rate of 3.3%." Between 2001 and 2002 unemployment fell from 45% to 35%, that is at least 10% more of the workforce that can feed their families. One only hopes this trend continues as more western factories open up and employ more of the local workforce."

Unfortunately you failed to check current statistics on it.

Quote :

"How did you think linking a pdf file about a country working its way out of poverty thanks to sweat shops would somehow disprove that sweatshops help move people out of poverty?"

You said there were no sweatshops in africa, my link proves there are. You were wrong.

Quote :

"I'm sorry, did you say S. Korea weaned itself off sweat shops or weaned itself off western factories? I ask because it did neither, the sweat shops simply could not longer compete with other employers for employees, so they went out of business."

They were lucky and managed to shrug off sweatshops.

Quote :

"So which Central Planning Commission is in charge of determining which labor and wage practices are "fair.""

I'd like some kind of international trade organization to do it, the current ones are jokes in that respect.

11/21/2006 2:04:40 PM

Quote :

"You said there were no sweatshops in africa, my link proves there are. You were wrong."

No, I said "And do you see any Nike sweat-shops in Zimbabwe? Did we 30 years ago?" My point was that western run sweatshops are not prevalent in cronically poor countries. In response, you linked an article showing sweat shops exist (and have only existed for a decade or so) in one of the wealthiest countries in Africa. Good going there chief, are you convinced yet?

11/21/2006 3:17:59 PM

Quote :

"I'd like some kind of international trade organization to do it, the current ones are jokes in that respect."

Oh, so you think taking away the sovereign rights of nations in order to enforce some idea of a moral working environment. Welcome to the USSW.

11/21/2006 3:30:32 PM

Quote :

"No, I said "And do you see any Nike sweat-shops in Zimbabwe? Did we 30 years ago?""

Actually I said there were sweatshops in africa and you responded with "Bullshit!". I was right.

Quote :

"in one of the wealthiest countries in Africa"

Maybe one of the wealthier countries in africa, but far from the wealthiest, and still dirt poor.

Quote :

"Oh, so you think taking away the sovereign rights of nations in order to enforce some idea of a moral working environment. Welcome to the USSW."

Where did I suggest that? We're not going to be putting a gun to anyone's head to do it, why would you even think that would be required?

11/21/2006 4:36:49 PM

Quote :

"Actually I said there were sweatshops in africa and you responded with "Bullshit!". I was right."

Sorry, you misapplied my "Bullshit", I was responding to the statement that foreign owned sweatshops existed in "pretty much any other poor country" which is untrue. Most poor countries are so hostile to business or simply prone the theft that only local factory owned factories exist, which leads to perpetual grinding poverty.

Once your economy is free enough that dozens of foreign companies start setting up sweatshops then it is only a matter of time (a generation or so) before poverty is defeated. It isn't the sweatshops themselves that end poverty, it is the economic liberty that allows them which breeds wealth and ends poverty..

Quote :

"and still dirt poor"

Yea, according to the pdf you linked the first GAP factories opened in the 90s AND the country is still predominantly corrupt and nationalization happy, so it's gonna be 40 years hence.

[Edited on November 21, 2006 at 4:59 PM. Reason : .,.]

11/21/2006 4:57:56 PM

Quote :

"I was responding to the statement that foreign owned sweatshops existed in "pretty much any other poor country" which is untrue. Most poor countries are so hostile to business or simply prone the theft that only local factory owned factories exist, which leads to perpetual grinding poverty."

Well I already disproved your claim, so why don't you take a shot at mine?

Quote :

"Once your economy is free enough that dozens of foreign companies start setting up sweatshops then it is only a matter of time (a generation or so) before poverty is defeated."

Explain Africa.
Explain Chile, which got poorer as their market got more free, hell there are lots of poor south american countries that have tried free markets and not gotten anything but mounting debt.

11/21/2006 5:00:27 PM