Ron Paul...

[bickelz]

The question is: whose responsibility is it?

The consumer's responsibility. If consumers demand that these places only work so many hours, have a certain amount of break-time and withhold money until they do so, companies have to meet the demands. There are groups out there that monitor this behavior and put pressure on companies to provide good conditions.

Collective bargaining can be good [MENTION=1871]muir[/MENTION] but the problem can be that companies will pick up and leave to places where they actually pay the workers more than they would if they had just raised wages. This has to do with implicit costs. The lower wage place might not have very good roads, shoddy government and it could just be a downright dangerous place to do business. So, they will move their operation somewhere that has better conditions and pay people more, that don't need it quite as much. Fun fact, the country that the United States invests in the most, the United Kingdom. After that, it's basically the rest of Europe, japan ect...

 

[subwayrider]

Nuclear power is dangerous. The leak of radiation into the biosphere from chernobyl and from fukishima will manifest in ways that might be hard to quantify

Also the pro-nuclear lobby never seem to factor in the costs of fixing disasters like fukishima or the cost of maintaining and finally decommissioning stations when they talk about start up costs.

Chernobyl was a lesson, fukishima was another one, now its time to learn from the lessons. Nuclear power is neither safe nor clean

After doing a bit of reading, I am more inclined to agree. No matter how many safety measures are implemented, it's only a matter of time before something like an earthquake of the magnitude(s) we've been seeing lately, tsunamis, etc. etc. sets off what is in some ways a time bomb. Then again, it's possible that in light of all the failures, safety systems can be improved far beyond what they've been up to now. I'm not sure though. I appreciate your input, but I have to look into it myself.

 

[subwayrider]

And a homogenous culture/people

Well, they do have one of the lowest drop-out rates, and their (pre-college) education system seems to be beating ours-- as evidenced by higher test scores, for what they're worth.

 

[894tt3h9]

The question is: whose responsibility is it?

Truthfully I'm not familiar with ecomonics and business structures so I'm not sure what would be the best solution for this kind of thing. I think people need to be responsible for themselves. They need to know their rights and what they're entitled to. That being said, I don't pretend to know what it's like in these other countries, how their governments are run, how people are treated and what resources they have available to them to improve their situation.

I certainly don't feel it's my responsibility or my country's responsibility to march in and tell another nation how they're supposed to be running things. I don't think it's up to us to put pressure on another country to abide by our rules and our ideals. We're a relatively new nation (as is the USA) and while we have it pretty good in the First World I'd also say that we have our priorities pretty mixed up here, too. So really, I think that it's the responsibility of the people of that nation to demand that they're treated fairly, paid fairly and that they are able to live and if the government doesn't provide for their needs then they need to do something about it.

I don't like to see revolts happen, I don't like to see the violence that often occurs when a population becomes dissatisfied with their leaders and demand change but I do think that they're capable of re-working the system in their favour. That's not up to me though and I don't pretend to know what's best for them either.

 

[subwayrider]

The consumer's responsibility. If consumers demand that these places only work so many hours, have a certain amount of break-time and withhold money until they do so, companies have to meet the demands. There are groups out there that monitor this behavior and put pressure on companies to provide good conditions.

As an extension, couldn't it be demanded that they up the pay, if enough consumers withheld money? Couldn't anything be demanded if consumers withheld money?

 

[bickelz]

As an extension, couldn't it be demanded that they up the pay, if enough consumers withheld money? Couldn't anything be demanded if consumers withheld money?

Yeah, within reason. That's the whole idea behind incentive and why the idea of the "benevolence of the baker" can be used as leverage to influence companies.

 

[subwayrider]

Yeah, within reason. That's the whole idea behind incentive and why the idea of the "benevolence of the baker" can be used as leverage to influence companies.

Cool beans.

 

[muir]

I understand that the conditions in these sweat shops (or rather these countries even) are less than stellar and what we would consider sub standard. I think that if there's an issue it's up to that country to look at the labour conditions and do something about it though I'm really not sure that they will. It's unfortunate but I think that's the reality we're dealing with.

Personally I'd rather see children be children instead of having to work but I also recognize that that is just not their reality. Even if corporations are "exploiting" these people I am not sure that there is a lot that can be done about it. These people are agreeing to work under those conditions. I suppose they could strike or fight back somehow and maybe their country will implement labour laws that will upgrade their pay and conditions but I'm not sure that will be happening.

Its not a case of these countries deciding for themselves they have been taken over by the west. The west topples the democratically elected leaders in these countries, often assassinating them to remove them and uses force to put their own puppet governments in or they bribe corrupt officials in these countries to take out loans through the IMF or world Bank which indebts the country to these organisations which are run through the US

The countries are then forced to hand over their resources as interest on the unpayable loans. This is a new form of imperialism called 'neo-imperialism'. The old form was physically invading countries and forceablly grabbing their resources although the US is involved in that as well as it is occupying oil producing countries at the moment.

Here's a good John Pilger film about how the corporate interests use the IMF and world bank to control other countries, called 'War By Other Means':

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-5399796928596929639

An ex CIA agent wrote a book called the Confessions of an Economic Hitman about how he used to threaten and intimidate third world leaders on behalf of the US corporations and when they refused to bow to him he would send in the 'jackals' or CIA hitmen to assassinate the leader:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTbdnNgqfs8

They don't tell people this stuff in the mainstream news because the mainstream media companies are owned by the coporate interests. They form part of a 'power elite' : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elite

We can do something about all this. Firstly we can make lifestyle choices about how we spend our money, for example Asarya already mentioned FAIRTRADE products earlier in the thread.

The second thing we can do is campaign to change how the system operates in order to change its priority from profit and on to whats good for people. The Occupy Wallstreet Movement is a great place to start.

The third thing we can do is educate ourselves about what is going on and explain to others as this will create the widespread awareness which is needed to bring about positive change

 

[InvisibleJim]

...

Nonsense and nonsense and nonsense. I love how socialists relabel themselves 'libertarians' whilst attempting to push economically interfering agendas. That is not liberal at all, that is statism.

The reason people in the 3rd world work in factories is the same reason that people in the industrial revolution did here...

The living conditions although dangerous were supplemented with a better standard of living.

You see this in the oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico and the North Sea. Dangerous but compensated for it.

And a homogenous culture/people

This an extremely important factor.

One can have a cohesive sharing community organised around a state OR they can have a melting pot with free capitalism.

Any compromise will eventually lead to a sub-par outcome.

 

[bamf]

Nonsense and nonsense and nonsense. I love how socialists relabel themselves 'libertarians' whilst attempting to push economically interfering agendas. That is not liberal at all, that is statism.

The reason people in the 3rd world work in factories is the same reason that people in the industrial revolution did here...

The living conditions although dangerous were supplemented with a better standard of living.

You see this in the oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico and the North Sea. Dangerous but compensated for it.

Again, this can't be compared to the industrial revolution. These workers are not getting access to their products, nor the profits made from the products. Their resources get stolen, and the money made off of these resources stays overseas. Allowing them rightful ownership over their nation's resources (including labor) is hardly statism and is libertarian.

 

[InvisibleJim]

Again, this can't be compared to the industrial revolution. These workers are not getting access to their products, nor the profits made from the products. Their resources get stolen, and the money made off of these resources stays overseas. Allowing them rightful ownership over their nation's resources (including labor) is hardly statism and is libertarian.

You're blurring the lines in denial. They have access to these resources if they can compete in the market. If the conditions were poor they wouldn't take the jobs.

What you preclude is that by protecting your own state, by stopping them having the work, is that they can 'better afford' the goods.

No, because they will have a much larger trade deficit which they can't repay by earning the money back.

Now if you were really progressive, you would be campaigning to wipe out the use of passports or nationalities thus allowing them to move to the US and share your standard of living and opportunities.

It would certainly be better than confusing your priorities and demeaning these individuals who are making individual choices which they have decided are in their interest.

Daddy knows best is not a libertarian philosophy.

 

[muir]

Nonsense and nonsense and nonsense. I love how socialists relabel themselves 'libertarians' whilst attempting to push economically interfering agendas. That is not liberal at all, that is statism..

No its not nonsense. There are libertarians on the right of the political spectrum and there are libertarians on the left of the spectrum

The 'socialism' you are talking about here is state socialism where the economy is centrally controlled. Left wing libertarians want little or no government the same as right wing libertarians.

That's why i don't disagree with everything that some of the so called 'anarcho-capitalists' on the forum say, because we do have some common ground in that we both distrust government and we both think that the system is being run by a coercive monopoly

What we have at the moment is state capitalism where the government is interferring with the markets. Basically things are centrally controlled through the government and through the federal reserve or central banking system.

Its called 'socialism' by the corporate owned media because they want to change the meaning of the word to hide what true socialism is which is when the means of production are owned in common by the workers and the workers decide matters for themselves.

So state capitalism and state socialism both create the same situation where the economy is centrally controlled by an elite made up of various sub elites.

The reason people in the 3rd world work in factories is the same reason that people in the industrial revolution did here...

The living conditions although dangerous were supplemented with a better standard of living.

You see this in the oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico and the North Sea. Dangerous but compensated for it...

No that's not true they are having to work in those conditions because of neoliberalism. Their countries are often resource rich but the resources are being stolen by the corporate interests.

John Pilger has made a number of good documentaries about this stuff which i have posted links to earlier in the thread.

I know you won't like to admit it Jim but Pilger knows more about this stuff than you, so if you genuinly want to learn more you should watch them. I'm sure you can bring the required open minded approach to learning

Also working on rigs is incomparable to working in sweat shops. Sweat shop work is subsistance whereas working on the rigs can be highly lucrative and also is usually in a 2 weeks on 2 weeks off or 3 weeks on 3 weeks off rota which means oil rig workers have a life outside of work, whereas many sweat shop workers don't. Also if an oil rig worker can't work there is welfare to fall back on, whereas if a sweat shop worker can't work they starve.

This an extremely important factor.

One can have a cohesive sharing community organised around a state OR they can have a melting pot with free capitalism.

Any compromise will eventually lead to a sub-par outcome.

Not true what are you basing this on? There are groups who are living successfully outside of both the systems you have mentioned.

What is sub par is entirely dependant on what you prioritise. capitalism prioritises PROFIT and puts it before people, the environment and the truth which is why we have sweat shops, environmental decline and a lying mainstream media.

This situation would probably get worse under 'free capitalism' as there would be no checks and balances.

 

[muir]

You're blurring the lines in denial. They have access to these resources if they can compete in the market. If the conditions were poor they wouldn't take the jobs.

What you preclude is that by protecting your own state, by stopping them having the work, is that they can 'better afford' the goods.

No, because they will have a much larger trade deficit which they can't repay by earning the money back.

Now if you were really progressive, you would be campaigning to wipe out the use of passports or nationalities thus allowing them to move to the US and share your standard of living and opportunities.

It would certainly be better than confusing your priorities and demeaning these individuals who are making individual choices which they have decided are in their interest.

Daddy knows best is not a libertarian philosophy.

You can't compare their situation to our industrial revolution as they are not in control of their resources whereas we were in the industrial revolution.

In fact we were not only in control of our resources we were also in control of the third worlds resources due to imperialism; which is to say we had invaded third world countries and were controlling their resources and using protectionism to protect our own industry.

That's partly what Ghandis revolution was about the Indians ability to weave their own cotton which is why the charka spinning wheel is on the centre of the Indian flag; their ability to spin their own cotton is a symbol of their independance. That's why ghandi chose to wear a dhoti and advised others to do the same to free themselves of British control....its an old game the west is playing and it is not about being fair or 'free' it is about control and despite our piracy our economies are still broken.....which kind of serves us right

It seems to me that the false arguments you put forward are more designed to displace any blame that an exploiting party should feel rather than to face the realities of the situation

 

[Quiet]

As an extension, couldn't it be demanded that they up the pay, if enough consumers withheld money? Couldn't anything be demanded if consumers withheld money?

I believe so. People wield so much power in their hot little hands but we have been brainwashed into thinking we are powerless. We will only get abused and treated unfairly as long as we allow it. Corporations only have one goal- profit and the bottom line. I dont hate them for that but we can modify our actions to respond to their nature.

A corporation may invest into exploitive labour in a country that has weak governments and then withdraw their investment when the people begin demanding fairness. The corporation then moves their investment into a less developed country where they will have fewer rules and regulations to contend with. The workers have very limited power in this situation, but we as consumers have all the power.
Corporations need us to buy their product, if we dont do that they're screwed.

Its as simple as putting your money where your mouth is. Only buy ethical products form ethical companies. Boycott companies that are unethical. Only make ethical investments. There are a ton of resources available to advise consumers about the ethics of business'

In truth though, this is easier said than done. I have been trying to live this way for a long time now and it can be painful, inconvenient and frustrating. There are only certain places I can shop and eat. I still dream about eating kit kats, I miss them so much. I havent driven a car for three years because Im waiting until I can afford to buy my dream green car. It can get bloody hot where I live, and i have a child so this choice can seem very restrictive and annoying at times - I hate feeling hot so much I need to move to the snow I think. I get all my clothing fairtrade or from op shops. Thankfully there has been an awesome movement over the past 5 years where many people have become invested into ethical consumerism so my choices for products arent as limited anymore. As this movement grows, more and more businesses will have to adapt.

The role that corporations currently play in developing countries is analagous to a vampiric leech. If we really want conditions to improve in these countries we can do so by investing in education, health, media, trade and communication. We don't have to exploit them and bleed them dry to help them. We should stop overthrowing legitimate democratically elected governments and replacing them with dummy puppets that serve only our own interests and not their own constituents. We should stop using oil! We should invest into renewables. We can make an informed vote at elections.

I believe strongly that the developed world has a responsiblity to the developing world. The lifestyle we have created for ourselves is unsustainable and comes at the expense of others and the Earth. I only have what I have because other people have none. It is not possible for everone in the world to start guzzling down oil, wasting thousands of tonnes of food, buying disposable everything and creating vast amounts of landfill. Is is simply not possible or sustainable. We have to share, and apparently there's plenty to around as long as we all start being more mindul and start managing our resources better.

I feel that we all have an obligation to try. I understand that most people do not see how they are responsible for the well being of families living in the developing world. I accept that and respect that. A lot of people have too much on their plate to even consider the issue. Life has much more potential and opportunities, but it is certainly not handed to people on a silver platter just because they happened to be born in a developed nation. Its not my responsibility to preach at others but to live with integrity according to my principles. And in all honesty, I feel that I have many failures in trying to achieve this. Sometimes I just get caught up in my own petty shit, get too emotional, get distracted and forget. Especially the times in my life where I have worked full time for little pay and had little time off. Its easy to fall into a rut of wake up, work, eat, sleep, pay bills. No time to watch the news, keep informed, learn, and experience. No time or money to do the things you want. Too easy to distract yourself with consumerism, mindless media, alcohol, and drugs in your limited spare time to make the monotony and tedium of your life more bearable.

And the worst of it all is that I still smoke cigarettes, which makes me the biggest hypocrite in the world considering tobacco companies are the evilest of the lot. But the point is that I need to keep trying to live as ethically as I can. Each individual has the power to make a difference, and together we are unstoppable.

Some quotes by people that are greater and more intelligent than me:

The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it- Albert Einstein
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing - Edmund Burke
Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter - Martin Luther King Jr
Be the change you wnat to see in the world - Gandhi

 

[this is only temporary]

Again, this can't be compared to the industrial revolution. These workers are not getting access to their products, nor the profits made from the products. Their resources get stolen, and the money made off of these resources stays overseas. Allowing them rightful ownership over their nation's resources (including labor) is hardly statism and is libertarian.

With all due respect, I think it can very much be compared to the industrial revolution. I admit, I don’t know much about life in China, or third world countries, or political philosophy but I have to say, it seems very very remarkably similar to life in the US during the industrial revolution. It seems like a cycle that has happened before.

I recently visited an old mine that was active in the 1900s and the situation was very similar in that workers were coming from extremely rural, hard lives (sustenance faming is NOT utopia; it is brutally hard work) to make comparatively large amounts of money in mining. The conditions were obscenely horrible and people died and went deaf from the machinery and lost various parts of their bodies, and these rural farmers had never encountered electricity and kept electrocuting themselves on the low and unsafe overhead lights, which were a new innovation for the time. It was awful.

And the wealth that was generated was largely taken out of the region. (Maybe not out of the country but certainly out of the region)

(In China, aren't the government officials getting rich? And isn't there a burgeoning middle class that loves its consumer goods? I thought that was the case. Correct me if I'm wrong.)

And this sort of thing kept happening in mines and other places until people started protesting and making labor unions and OSHA.

So I think it is directly related to the process of industrialization – it is part of a cycle that has already occurred in developed nations and people in China will eventually (hopefully sooner rather than later) insist on better labor conditions. It would be great if people in the US did too.

I also think China has a culture where people are more inclined to respect authority, which exacerbates the problem. They don’t speak up readily. I think there is something cultural going on that is partly responsible for the problem, more so than politics. They need to protect each other and protect their people and they don’t – that is a big part of the problem.

 

[this is only temporary]

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

It doesn't look too dead to me.

Meet my next car: http://www.chevrolet.com/volt-electric-car

 

[InvisibleJim]

With all due respect, I think it can very much be compared to the industrial revolution.

Indeed, and I just did

It was once said that Socialists love the poor so much they make more every time they get their way. The whole process of industrialisation creates a wealthy producing middle class, but its a matter of time and economic development. Stopping it just keeps the poor poor.

 

[muir]

With all due respect, I think it can very much be compared to the industrial revolution. I admit, I don

 

[muir]

Indeed, and I just did

It was once said that Socialists love the poor so much they make more every time they get their way. The whole process of industrialisation creates a wealthy producing middle class, but its a matter of time and economic development. Stopping it just keeps the poor poor.

That's state socialism you are talking about not true socialism!

Also you might not have noticed but the middle class is currently being destroyed in the UK and US

What you need to understand is the kind of arguments made in say the 'Economist' for example are ones made by apologists for the current system. They will tell you that these countries need to open their doors to the west (ie let the west exploit them) but anyone with half a brain knows that the countries that are thriving are the ones who have control over their own resources and aren't being exploited by the west, the 'BRIC' countries: Brazil, Russia, India and China

Its not simply a case of industrialising, its a case of managing your own affairs without being exlpoited by the west.

Look at Argentina for example. They only began to make a recovery once they refused to follow the IMF's demands any longer

As for whether the kind of progress you are talking about is the best way forward....that's another subject. Where i differ from what a lot of economics students seem to say is that i also factor in the human cost of things whereas economics students are not being trained to think in these terms because the current paradigm is a profit orientated one which doesn't take into account 'externalities' such as environmental damage, nuclear waste and pollution, human suffering, wars and conflict etc

 

[Oright]

The poor will always be poor, and Im not referring to the working class, Im talking about those in less developed countries who are literally willing to die, in the same sense, as hunter predator in the wild, for their food. The lack of resources and opportunities, let people sink to the point of no return, broken, hurt, and life goes on, because the masses are not willing to stick together, Our individualistic society structured so that will always be lead, not leaders, and less developed countries, the cases are even more severe.

People turn their face from the truth, because the higher classes give the illusion, that they have more control over our life's, when in reality, its extremely limited. The media being the main tool to set trends, fashion, and keep the world moving in the same direction, its supposed to.

Such cases, cannot be analysed correctly, without the right time, and .........erm courage.

And as always. I cant stress it enough. "Perception is selection". They're multiple perpectives, but just 1 intense reality. Open your eyes and find it.