Ron Paul...

[subwayrider]

He is ignorant.
He tries to use "studies" to justify his social darwinist views... ignoring information of a contrary nature that would discredit him.

Don't attack him; attack his argument(s). It's much more effective.

 

[acd]

Don't attack him; attack his argument(s). It's much more effective.

Please report my posts if you have a problem.
Until then, I don't need you to nanny me and teach me manners.

 

[subwayrider]

Please report my posts if you have a problem.
Until then, I don't need you to nanny me and teach me manners.

*sigh*

 

[bickelz]

You have to be the most ignorant person on this forum. Seriously. Your posts are lol worthy.
Don't pretend that you actually care about third world children, or anyone else for that matter.
Go ahead and post all the skewed data you like. Where are those studies you mentioned, btw?
Who paid for those studies to be conducted? Who conducted them?

So you think it's a choice that 8 yr olds in third world countries are working 12 hour shifts for pennies a day to make you a pair of shoes?
Because the country you live in probably put their country in the position in which entire families starve if children don't slave away?
Hey, at least it prevents them from being sold as prostitutes though. I guess that's better off in the world of Bickelz..

"In Praise of Cheap Labor" -Paul Krugman, Professor of Economics, Princeton and Nobel Prize winner
"Child Labor or Prostitution" - Thomas DeGregori Professor of Economics University of Huston
"Opportunity, Inequality and the Intergenerational Transmission of Child Labour" - Patrick M Emerson and Sean Knabb. Emerson is a professor at Oregon State and Sean Knabb is a professor of economics at Western Washington University, where I go to school. I'm actually taking a class from him right now and he's mentioned child labor in developing countries a couple of times.

[video=youtube;O2sW2wt3nLU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2sW2wt3nLU[/video]

...and much, much more. It's a big area of study within developmental economics.

But it's okay, you can make sure that they go back into prostitution instead of the opportunity for upward development. We had sweatshops a while ago but now children don't work in the industrialized world because they were an avenue to get out of those conditions. It's a phase in economic development and if you inhibit that phase, it only prolongs their poverty.

I've hear people talk about how rich people try to keep poor people poor from people like yourself who are against things like child labor. The irony is that you turn around and do the same thing although there is little evidence of it being done against you.

 

[bickelz]

He is ignorant.
He tries to use "studies" to justify his social darwinist views... ignoring information of a contrary nature that would discredit him.
I find it offensive and insulting for someone to justify the misery of an entire population of people because it suits their misguided philosophies.

Views like the ones he touts are what is wrong with this planet.
Utterly destructive and unsustainable. No, I don't respect his opinion at all.

No, you're the one who is prolonging the suffering of these people who are in poverty. The solution is to work; to produce something that people value. It's a starting off point.

It goes along with the cliched statement "give a man a fish, he eats for a day, teach a man to fish, he eats for a lifetime. Third world countries need to bring themselves out of poverty. They need the first world to invest in them. We can't just give out money forever hoping that things get better. Work for many of these children will lead to better conditions overall, that's what globalization is about. But go ahead, argue with my points that are backed up by virtually everybody in developmental economics. I mean shit, I even quoted Paul Krugman for chrissake. I disagree with almost everything he writes in his NYT op-ed, yet we agree on child labor policy.

 

[subwayrider]

Thinking realistically, I think [MENTION=3545]bickelz[/MENTION] might be right. There's no turning back; the only way on is forward. In an ideal world, we wouldn't even be having this discussion-- but we don't live in one.

Well, I've got some reading to do before I make up my mind. Thanks for the information, everyone.

 

[manatee]

Hey, at least it prevents them from being sold as prostitutes though. I guess that's better off in the world of Bickelz..

It isn't?


By the way, [MENTION=3545]bickelz[/MENTION] , you should probably balance your views by reading some stuff by bleeding-hearts libertarians. You know, the type of bitchiz who reject the term capitalism, think of corporations as evil, try to make a point out of calling market-based economics leftist, attempt to work the fact that a lot of property in the current world has been acquired through strictly unlibertarian means into their philosophy, emphasize that even when it comes to sweatshops that only employ people who voluntarily agree to work for them there would be better options if it weren't for interventions in other parts of the market (largely lobbied for and brought about by aforementioned sweatshops) etc. I once read an apt analogy for this: A does B a favor for throwing C in quicksand. A then offers to drag C out of it, provided that C does A a favor. If you just look at the transaction between A and C, sure, it might be questionable, but strictly speaking it's legitimate from a NAP perspective. What's more important though, is the A->-B->C thing.

 

[bamf]

Having your country ravaged by outside multinational companies so that no jobs can realistically survive except extreme wage-slavery to produce cheap products with your country's resources that you will never use will never help you "rise above" the current situation. When you don't have access to your own resources or the products they produce, you have no hope.

 

[MindYourHead]

I don't think any system of government is perfect. But, feel Capitalism provides the most opportunity for those that are currently considered under priviliged or poor, to make a better life for themselves. The less government involvement in our lives by way of regulations makes it easier for someone to start their own business and hopefully prosper.

Just as an example, I'm not so sure Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak would be able to start a computer company today in a garage like they did, considering today they would have OSHA the EPA, Zoning officials, and God knows whatever other government entity breathing down their necks and demanding they comply with costly regulations.
It would put them out of business before they could even begin.

 

[bickelz]

Having your country ravaged by outside multinational companies so that no jobs can realistically survive except extreme wage-slavery to produce cheap products with your country's resources that you will never use will never help you "rise above" the current situation. When you don't have access to your own resources or the products they produce, you have no hope.

Really? So working for money doesn't make you richer?

 

[Nixie]

Really? So working for money doesn't make you richer?

The situation isn't as clear as you seem to want to make it. I got an idea, go find a minimum wage job and live on your own for awhile and then tell everyone what you think of the state of the world for the poor.

 

[MindYourHead]

European Socialist economies aren't doing so well either these days.
The whole World is in a funk.

 

[acd]

No, you're the one who is prolonging the suffering of these people who are in poverty. The solution is to work; to produce something that people value. It's a starting off point.

It goes along with the cliched statement "give a man a fish, he eats for a day, teach a man to fish, he eats for a lifetime. Third world countries need to bring themselves out of poverty. They need the first world to invest in them. We can't just give out money forever hoping that things get better. Work for many of these children will lead to better conditions overall, that's what globalization is about. But go ahead, argue with my points that are backed up by virtually everybody in developmental economics. I mean shit, I even quoted Paul Krugman for chrissake. I disagree with almost everything he writes in his NYT op-ed, yet we agree on child labor policy.

My concern is for the exploitation of people.... and then the culture of destruction and unsustainability that is inevitably perpetuated by that.
Corporations go to these places because they can pay the workers next to nothing and there are no regulations to ensure they are treated humanely because that would cost them time and money.
Nobody is doing any of those people a favor by giving them a life of hard labor. First world countries created these problems for them in the first place.

Having your country ravaged by outside multinational companies so that no jobs can realistically survive except extreme wage-slavery to produce cheap products with your country's resources that you will never use will never help you "rise above" the current situation. When you don't have access to your own resources or the products they produce, you have no hope.

I think that's a good way of putting it.

 

[bamf]

Really? So working for money doesn't make you richer?

What does this statement have to do with what you quoted me saying in the slightest?

 

[bickelz]

The situation isn't as clear as you seem to want to make it. I got an idea, go find a minimum wage job and live on your own for awhile and then tell everyone what you think of the state of the world for the poor.

I have worked minimum wage and I worked full time at a $10/hr job this summer. I haven't worked since and I'm supporting myself off of that $3500 I made. And even if I did what you suggested, that wouldn't mean that I know how poor people are living. Even the poorest people in the united states are far better off than people in the third world. Also, the job that I worked in over the summer was for a painting company that almost exclusively hired first generation immigrants and people that didn't speak a whole lot of English. The conversations that I did have with them about government yielded their opinion of it: they don't want any help. They just want to work and improve their conditions for their families and provide a better future for their children.

That's the American dream and it takes a generation. The fact of the matter is that most of the poor people are the people that I worked with; first generation immigrants with mid-level skills. They struggle, but their children will have opportunities that they never had, and that's the important bit. This has been seen time and time again and studies tracking individual households show that the people who make up the poor change, because most poor people lift themselves out of poverty within 10 and 20 years.

My concern is for the exploitation of people.... and then the culture of destruction and unsustainability that is inevitably perpetuated by that.
Corporations go to these places because they can pay the workers next to nothing and there are no regulations to ensure they are treated humanely because that would cost them time and money.
Nobody is doing any of those people a favor by giving them a life of hard labor. First world countries created these problems for them in the first place.

That's great you don't want people to be exploited. But if both parties are entering into an agreement, how can you say people are being exploited? If they are being made better off than before how is anything about them working bad? You're also shifting the argument. Let me be clear, I'm against slavery and anybody who physically harms other people. If there are beatings, I'm against people working there. But if the conditions in the sweatshop are better than scavenging for trash in a landfill and they make more money, where is the argument against this system? If you really don't want it, then don't buy so that there is no foreign investment.

What does this statement have to do with what you quoted me saying in the slightest?

You said this...

Having your country ravaged by outside multinational companies so that no jobs can realistically survive except extreme wage-slavery to produce cheap products with your country's resources that you will never use will never help you "rise above" the current situation.

When you mention "having your country ravaged by corporations, what you really mean is that there is foreign investment into cheap labor. Although, you were able to put an eloquent spin on it that blows the rhetoric of this whole conversation way out of where it should be. You view foreign investment as this exploitative thing much like a lot of people on this thread and you view that as prohibiting upward mobility. The thing is, it just isn't given the conditions that I have laid out. It is simply work and work gets you paid, which raises your standard of living. This is all a part of economic development. These are growing pains and they will go away. Just give it time. They have an advantage because all the technology the need to get out of poverty already exist because we frickin' invented it already in the industrial revolution.

If we really truly invested hard into the third world and just let these places develop economically without all the environmental and "ethical" rhetoric, I think they can be where we were in the early 1900s - 1950s within 50 years. It's not implausible.

This is literally the answer to their problems and thus far I haven't heard anything from anyone else. Sure, shoot me down and shoot down an entire branch of economic thinking. But have a solution of your own. Don't get in my way or anyone else's way when you don't have a legitimate answer of your own. The guilt trips and superiority complexes are rediculous and ever sunce I've declared my self as libertarian, I've gotten nothing but shit. It's amazing that I had ever aligned myself with liberal thinking because I just get condescended to by people everywhere on the internet. I've been called the stupidest person in the world twice in the past two weeks because I had an argument that was actually logical.

 

[the]

[MENTION=3545]bickelz[/MENTION] is angry because I didnt tell him publicly (I did so privately) that I thought his picture was stupid. Well here I am telling exactly that publicly - at his request. I hope this makes you feel better.

 

[Lerxst]

I have worked minimum wage and I worked full time at a $10/hr job this summer. I haven't worked since and I'm supporting myself off of that $3500 I made. And even if I did what you suggested, that wouldn't mean that I know how poor people are living. Even the poorest people in the united states are far better off than people in the third world. Also, the job that I worked in over the summer was for a painting company that almost exclusively hired first generation immigrants and people that didn't speak a whole lot of English. The conversations that I did have with them about government yielded their opinion of it: they don't want any help. They just want to work and improve their conditions for their families and provide a better future for their children.

Spoken like a typical 20 year old that's been fed and brainwashed all the BS they've heard in college and other adults who have lead a fairly privileged life. A typical family with actual bills to pay and people to support needs to spend over $1100 a month for the bare necessities in miserable living conditions. A minimum wage employee earns $1160 a month for full-time work. You can either visit one of the "Projects" in New York or a trailer park in Florida to see what conditions are really like for these people.

In short, you have no clue how these people are trying to live and what they've living like. The ONLY reason their poverty levels aren't down to the third world standards you mention are because we DO have these safety nets.

The problem with Capitalism is that you'll always get what you pay for. You ever been to a free clinic? Ever eaten government-issued food? You know how much a Welfare check is? Know how much a retirement home costs? Without those things or support for those things, anyone making less than $XX.00 an hour will just simply die. Makes it hard to get reelected when all the gullible fools that voted a Libertarian into office are buied in pauper's graves around the country after losing their jobs.

 

[subwayrider]

OK, OK. A number of people seem to have jumped on the "let's bash on bickelz" bandwagon. But, according to him and his sources, the whole child labor situation should work itself out within the next 50 years or so.

Does anyone else have any viable solutions for the people of the Third World? What do you propose we do?

This is clearly not a question of sympathy, as all the sympathy in the world on its own won't accomplish anything unless something is done about it.

 

[Lerxst]

OK, OK. A number of people seem to have jumped on the "let's bash on bickelz" bandwagon. But, according to him and his sources, the whole child labor situation should work itself out within the next 50 years or so.

Does anyone else have any viable solutions for the people of the Third World? What do you propose we do?

This is clearly not a question of sympathy, as all the sympathy in the world on its own won't accomplish anything unless something is done about it.

Remove the need for crude oil - it won't last and it can't last. The more we rely on it, the harder we'll fall.

Improve the safety and use of nuclear power vs fossil fuels. Fund and research alternative sources.

Promote electric vehicles - capitalism has intentionally killed the development of the electric car

Remove corporate person-hood or put them (every executive, every board member) on trial if they break a law that is illegal in their home country.

Promote groups like UNICEF and the Peace Corps over military service - offer the same benefits for serving in the Peace Corps as you would for military service for instance.

What this will all come down to is allowing them to govern themselves without harmful, self-indulgent interference from global corporations. If you remove every excuse they have for wanting to be there to take advantage of the local populations, most companies will simply leave. They can't break the law and get away with it, they'll need to pay minimum wage according to their home country's standards, they'll have no use for crude oil or other fossil fuels to strip-mine out of those countries.

And the international groups you get in place of these corporate-rapists are the humanitarian ones that will help with education and healthcare. Outside of that, those countries will be free to govern themselves, even if it causes revolutions and bloodshed, the aftermath will still be more stable.

 

[subwayrider]

Some of these are great ideas.

Improve the safety and use of nuclear power vs fossil fuels. Fund and research alternative sources.

Apparently, nuclear power isn't even as potentially dangerous as some people make it out to be, if the proper precautions are taken. The incidents at Three-Mile Island, Chernobyl, etc. only happened because of carelessness.

Promote electric vehicles - capitalism has intentionally killed the development of the electric car

This one is BIG. Of course, there's so much money currently invested in fuel-burning automobiles and the fuel itself, that, yes, the development of the electric car has been all but suppressed. IMO, cars are still very, very dangerous and I'm not sure I have much faith in them, anymore, electric or not. So many drivers are careless in their habits-- this puts not only them, but other drivers, and, especially, pedestrians in danger. But, turning to electricity is still a big plus.

Promote groups like UNICEF and the Peace Corps over military service - offer the same benefits for serving in the Peace Corps as you would for military service for instance.

This one is also very good, although there are things the average person may not know about what has actually happened when people were sent overseas on these programs. Here is a link to a 20/20 Peace Corps special:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOnz0YX97Gg

They interviewed a group of women who were raped during their tour. There was even one woman who was murdered. I think improvements definitely need to be made the way these things are run-- added security, perhaps. What's most shocking about this is that the Peace Corps was trying to hush up what had happened to the women-- to preserve its good name and its allure. 23 women involved in the Peace Corps program have been murdered since its inception. Many more have been raped or otherwise harassed.