Guest hawkeye Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 On the subject of Free Trade or Protectionism, which of these do you support and why? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rozalia Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 Protectionism. Free Trade is just a tool of those who oppress and exploit. Where it in some pure perfect pristine form like the followers of the free market holy ghost often make out then I could see it, but as it's not and never will be then no. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest hawkeye Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 I'm going to request that this is moved to the debate forum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spite Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 Protectionism is literally stupid. It means your people pay more for goods which cost more to produce and are of lower quality. 1 Quote ☾☆ Priest of Dio just because the Nazis did something doesn't mean it's automatically wrong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rozalia Posted March 12, 2016 Share Posted March 12, 2016 Protectionism is literally stupid. It means your people pay more for goods which cost more to produce and are of lower quality. Says a globalist who if I recall correctly is an admitted neo-liberal. There are times where the foot has to go down and the exploitation that goes on is halted. Not simply at home but those poor sods, some children too aren't exploited in some backwater. Of course to globalists they care little about their own poor so exploiting poor people elsewhere who are worked like slaves is perfectly fine to them. Just one of the many positive traits of free trade, pseudo-slavery. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kemal Ergenekon Posted March 12, 2016 Share Posted March 12, 2016 Says a globalist who if I recall correctly is an admitted neo-liberal. There are times where the foot has to go down and the exploitation that goes on is halted. Not simply at home but those poor sods, some children too aren't exploited in some backwater. Of course to globalists they care little about their own poor so exploiting poor people elsewhere who are worked like slaves is perfectly fine to them. Just one of the many positive traits of free trade, pseudo-slavery. Are these "exploited" people forced to work in these jobs? Or do they choose to work in these jobs because it pays better than being a dirt farmer? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayne Posted March 12, 2016 Share Posted March 12, 2016 Are these "exploited" people forced to work in these jobs? Or do they choose to work in these jobs because it pays better than being a dirt farmer? Everyone should be paid $10 an hour and have heathcare... Quote ☾☆ Warrior of Dio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordRahl2 Posted March 12, 2016 Share Posted March 12, 2016 heh, amusingly I just started a debate about this in another forum. Mine seems to be going better. Quote -signature removed for rules violation- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rozalia Posted March 12, 2016 Share Posted March 12, 2016 Are these "exploited" people forced to work in these jobs? Or do they choose to work in these jobs because it pays better than being a dirt farmer? A false choice (what it is ultimately with the circumstances put on them) is no choice at all. Those people could be paid decently, but due to the nature, greed, and exploitation of globalisation/free trade they ain't and for the most part no one seriously cares to see them paid better. So our people suffer with having it offshored, and the people they are offshore to also suffer as while it may bring them some meager earnings it's far less than they deserve, but hey it's something so thats worth being a virtual slave apparently. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordRahl2 Posted March 12, 2016 Share Posted March 12, 2016 A false choice (what it is ultimately with the circumstances put on them) is no choice at all. Those people could be paid decently, but due to the nature, greed, and exploitation of globalisation/free trade they ain't and for the most part no one seriously cares to see them paid better. So our people suffer with having it offshored, and the people they are offshore to also suffer as while it may bring them some meager earnings it's far less than they deserve, but hey it's something so thats worth being a virtual slave apparently. Could you back any of that up with statistics or facts? Quote -signature removed for rules violation- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur James Posted March 12, 2016 Share Posted March 12, 2016 (edited) Protectionism: to defend your local worker have jobs and make sure their products can be out sales within their market....(although the workers attitude and the working environment is also part of its consideration) The Free market is not always free which simply gives the Giant comany to manipulate gain upper control over the small business company and also control wages. Edited March 12, 2016 by Arthur James Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordRahl2 Posted March 12, 2016 Share Posted March 12, 2016 Protectionism: to defend your local worker Is it really? Do you have facts that support this? Quote -signature removed for rules violation- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rozalia Posted March 12, 2016 Share Posted March 12, 2016 Could you back any of that up with statistics or facts? You do this a lot but what exactly is it you're asking me for exactly? Backwater's worker numbers and wages and the companies they work for's profits to show they could pay them better? That it? I'd think offshoring resulting in job losses would be obvious enough, as would the fact many are very badly paid in primarily the east. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordRahl2 Posted March 12, 2016 Share Posted March 12, 2016 (edited) I'd think offshoring resulting in job losses would be obvious enough Lets go with that. You want a specific question? Fine. Has free trade resulted in the decrease in manufacturing employment in the United States? Pretend that it is not obvious to me and provide some evidence. Edit: And I "do this a lot" (by which I assume you mean asking leading follow up questions) because learning something yourself is preferable to having someone lecture to you. Self discovery results in enhancements in real knowledge and understanding of the topic. If you find it difficult to answer the question then there might be a flaw with your assumption. Edited March 12, 2016 by LordRahl2 1 Quote -signature removed for rules violation- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chapsie Posted March 12, 2016 Share Posted March 12, 2016 (edited) EDIT: I thought about it, I misunderstood the question. Edited March 12, 2016 by Chappie Quote We have seized the means of production. Though union, and self-governance, we have organized between all peoples of the land. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kemal Ergenekon Posted March 12, 2016 Share Posted March 12, 2016 A false choice (what it is ultimately with the circumstances put on them) is no choice at all. Those people could be paid decently, but due to the nature, greed, and exploitation of globalisation/free trade they ain't and for the most part no one seriously cares to see them paid better. So our people suffer with having it offshored, and the people they are offshore to also suffer as while it may bring them some meager earnings it's far less than they deserve, but hey it's something so thats worth being a virtual slave apparently. This is not a false choice at all. We are not talking about what these people could be paid. We are talking about whether they choose to work for the wages offered to them as opposed to choosing their next best alternative. It is an uncontested fact that these workers you are talking about have experienced tremendous increase in their income. Where do you think the nearly double digit growth rate of China in the past few decades came from? If you actually cared about the plight of these "exploited" people, you would try to enhance their capability set so that they would have better choices than working for MNCs for low wages, or being dirt farmers for even lower income. Let me tell you exactly what would help their situation: letting them immigrate to developed countries. The reason why they get paid less than Americans of equal productivity is because they are tied to their land. They cannot immigrate to the US and get a competitive wage. Hence they have to make do with the lower wages. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woot Posted March 13, 2016 Share Posted March 13, 2016 The benefits of free trade have been accepted by economists since The Wealth of Nations. If you look up any poll on it - here's a good one: http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/poll-results?SurveyID=SV_0dfr9yjnDcLh17m There's as strong an academic consensus for it as there is for the existence of climate change or the benefits of vaccination. Now of course, not every individual immediately wins, but the long term and net benefits are massive. Any debate should be about how to distribute the gains from free trade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doktor Avalanche Posted March 13, 2016 Share Posted March 13, 2016 Free Trade. However "Free Trade" and "Protectionism" has differing definitions to many people around the globe. Wiki uses the most general definition: Free trade is a policy followed by some international markets in which countries' governments do not restrict imports from, or exports to, other countries. Protectionism is the economic policy of restraining trade between states (countries) through methods such as tariffs on imported goods, restrictive quotas, and a variety of other government regulations designed to allow (according to proponents) fair competition between imports and goods and services produced domestically. Due to the tariff wars which mainly hurt the consumers, I still am a supporter of Free Trade. 1 Quote Beer. Damn Good Beer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fox Fire Posted March 13, 2016 Share Posted March 13, 2016 Protectionism is literally stupid. It means your people pay more for goods which cost more to produce and are of lower quality. You mean like how China makes everyone cheap crap? I think a degree of protectionism is necessary for the sake of living equality. The benefits of free trade are benefits of exploitation. For example: Are these "exploited" people forced to work in these jobs? Or do they choose to work in these jobs because it pays better than being a dirt farmer? Of course they aren't forced. Nobody wants to be a dirt farmer, because they would make no profits and starve to death trying to sell people what they stand on. So they have to work relentless jobs just to make the bare necessities to survive with no realistic hope of ever moving beyond this social situation. It's exploitation of a persons situation. The same way illegal immigrant are hired on farms around here. Because farmers know they will work for less money, as they are desperate and can't get a real job. Japan does the same thing to foreigners from China and completely screws them financially under false pretenses. 2 Quote _________________________________________________________________ <Jroc> I heard \ is an anagram of cocaine<\> I can't be rearranged into a line, I already am a line. --Foxburo Wiki-- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rozalia Posted March 13, 2016 Share Posted March 13, 2016 (edited) Lets go with that. You want a specific question? Fine. Has free trade resulted in the decrease in manufacturing employment in the United States? Pretend that it is not obvious to me and provide some evidence. Edit: And I "do this a lot" (by which I assume you mean asking leading follow up questions) because learning something yourself is preferable to having someone lecture to you. Self discovery results in enhancements in real knowledge and understanding of the topic. If you find it difficult to answer the question then there might be a flaw with your assumption. Asking a question for asking a questions sake doesn't really contribute no if the answer is obvious (and perhaps you're asking it to purposely nitpick), but I think I was out of order there. Has free trade resulted in the decrease in manufacturing employment in the United States? Yes. http://www.citizen.org/documents/NAFTA-at-20.pdf Rather than creating the promised hundreds of thousands of U.S. jobs, NAFTA has contributed to an enormous new U.S. trade deficit with Mexico and Canada, which had already equated to an estimated net loss of one million U.S. jobs by 2004. This figure, calculated by the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), includes the net balance between jobs created and jobs lost.4 Much of the job erosion stems from the decisions of U.S. firms to embrace NAFTA’s new foreign investor privileges and relocate production to Mexico to take advantage of its lower wages and weaker environmental standards. EPI calculates that the ballooning trade deficit with Mexico alone destroyed about seven hundred thousand net U.S. jobs between NAFTA’s implementation and 2010.5 This toll has likely grown since 2010, as the non-oil U.S. trade deficit with Mexico has risen further.6  More than 845,000 specific U.S. workers have been certified for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) as having lost their jobs due to imports from Canada and Mexico or the relocation of factories to those countries.7 The TAA program is quite narrow, only covering a subset of jobs lost to trade, and is difficult to qualify for. Thus, the NAFTA TAA numbers significantly undercount NAFTA job loss.  NAFTA has contributed to downward pressure on U.S. wages and growth in U.S. income inequality. NAFTA’s broadest economic impact has been to fundamentally transform the types of jobs and wages available for the 63 percent of American workers without a college degree. Most of Public Citizen NAFTA’s 20-Year Legacy _____________________________________________________________________________________ February 2014 4 those who lost manufacturing jobs to NAFTA offshoring and import competition found reemployment in lower-wage jobs in non-offshorable service sectors. They added to the glut of workers seeking jobs in these growing sectors, pushing down wages. There is broad consensus among economists that recent trade flows have been a significant contributor to the historic rise in U.S. income inequality; the only debate is about the degree of trade’s responsibility.  According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, two out of every three displaced manufacturing workers who were rehired in 2012 experienced a wage reduction, most of them taking a pay cut of greater than 20 percent.8  As increasing numbers of workers displaced from manufacturing jobs have joined those competing for non-offshorable, low-skill jobs in sectors such as hospitality and food service, real wages have also fallen in these sectors under NAFTA.9 The resulting downward pressure on middle-class wages has fueled recent income inequality growth.  Soon after NAFTA’s passage, the small pre-NAFTA U.S. trade surplus with Mexico turned into a massive new trade deficit and the pre-NAFTA U.S. trade deficit with Canada expanded greatly. The inflation-adjusted U.S. trade surplus with Mexico of $2.5 billion and the $29.6 billion deficit with Canada in the year before NAFTA have morphed into a combined NAFTA trade deficit of $177 billion.10 The rosy job-creation promises made at the time of the NAFTA votes were predicated on NAFTA improving the U.S. balance of trade. The reality has been the opposite.  U.S. manufacturing and services exports to Mexico and Canada grew slower after NAFTA took effect. Since NAFTA’s enactment, annual growth in U.S. manufacturing exports to Canada and Mexico has fallen 62 percent below the annual rate seen in the years before NAFTA. 11 Even growth in services exports, which were supposed to do especially well under the trade pact given a presumed U.S. comparative advantage in services, dropped precipitously after NAFTA’s implementation. Annual growth of U.S. services exports to Mexico and Canada since NAFTA has fallen 49 percent below the pre-NAFTA rate.12 Indeed, the overall growth of U.S. exports to countries that are not FTA partners has exceeded combined U.S. export growth to countries that are FTA partners by 30 percent over the last decade.13  Despite a 239 percent rise in food imports from Canada and Mexico under NAFTA,14 the average nominal price of food in the United States has jumped 67 percent since the deal went into effect.15 This is the opposite of the outcome promised when NAFTA passage was debated. Then, some NAFTA proponents acknowledged that the deal would cause the loss of some U.S. jobs, but argued that U.S. workers would win overall by being able to purchase cheaper imported goods.  The reductions in consumer goods prices that have materialized have not been sufficient to offset the losses to middle-class wages under NAFTA. U.S. workers without college degrees (63 percent of the workforce) have likely lost an amount equal to 12.2 percent of their wages under NAFTA-style trade even after accounting for the benefits of cheaper goods. This net loss, calculated by the Center for Economic and Policy Research, means losing more than $3,300 per year for a worker earning the median annual wage of $27,500.16  During the NAFTA debate, scores of U.S. corporations promised to create specific numbers of jobs if NAFTA passed. Public Citizen catalogued these pledges, the failure to meet them, and even the record of the same firms’ relocation of jobs to Mexico and Canada, in a comprehensive report. 17 Public Citizen NAFTA’s 20-Year Legacy _____________________________________________________________________________________ February 2014 5  Scores of NAFTA countries’ environmental and health laws have been challenged in foreign tribunals through the controversial “investor-state†system. More than $360 million in compensation to investors has been extracted from NAFTA governments via investor-state tribunal challenges against toxics bans, land-use rules, water and forestry policies and more. More than $12.4 billion are currently pending in such claims. These claims include foreign investor challenges of medicine patent policies, a fracking moratorium and a renewable energy program. 18  The average annual U.S. agricultural deficit with Mexico and Canada in NAFTA’s first two decades reached $975 million, almost three times the pre-NAFTA level.19 U.S. food processors moved to Mexico to take advantage of low wages and food imports soared. U.S. beef imports from Mexico and Canada, for example, have risen 133 percent since NAFTA took effect, and today U.S. consumption of “NAFTA†beef tops $1.3 billion annually.20  Imports of food into the United States from Mexico and Canada have risen more steadily and to a greater degree than U.S. food exports under NAFTA. Over the last decade, U.S. food exports to Mexico and Canada have actually fallen slightly while U.S. food imports from Mexico and Canada have more than doubled.21 This stands in stark contrast to the promises made to U.S. farmers and ranchers that NAFTA would allow them to export their way to newfound wealth and farm income stability.  The export of subsidized U.S. corn did increase under NAFTA’s first decade, destroying the livelihoods of more than one million Mexican campesino farmers and about 1.4 million additional Mexican workers whose livelihoods depended on agriculture. 22 The mass dislocation exacerbated the widespread instability and violence of Mexico’s spiraling drug war.  The desperate migration of those displaced from Mexico’s rural economy pushed down wages in Mexico’s border maquiladora factory zone and contributed to a doubling of Mexican immigration to the United States following NAFTA’s implementation. 23  Though the price paid to Mexican farmers for corn plummeted after NAFTA, the deregulated retail price of tortillas – Mexico’s staple food – shot up 279 percent in the pact’s first 10 years.24  Real wages in Mexico have fallen below pre-NAFTA levels as price increases for basic consumer goods have exceeded wage increases. A minimum wage earner in Mexico today can buy 38 percent fewer consumer goods as on the day that NAFTA took effect. Despite promises that NAFTA would benefit Mexican consumers by granting access to cheaper imported products, the cost of basic consumer goods in Mexico has risen to seven times the pre-NAFTA level, while the minimum wage stands at only four times the pre-NAFTA level.25  Facing displacement, rising prices and stagnant wages, over half of the Mexican population, and over 60 percent of the rural population, still fall below the poverty line, despite the promises made by NAFTA’s proponents.26 This is not a false choice at all. We are not talking about what these people could be paid. We are talking about whether they choose to work for the wages offered to them as opposed to choosing their next best alternative. It is an uncontested fact that these workers you are talking about have experienced tremendous increase in their income. Where do you think the nearly double digit growth rate of China in the past few decades came from? If you actually cared about the plight of these "exploited" people, you would try to enhance their capability set so that they would have better choices than working for MNCs for low wages, or being dirt farmers for even lower income. Let me tell you exactly what would help their situation: letting them immigrate to developed countries. The reason why they get paid less than Americans of equal productivity is because they are tied to their land. They cannot immigrate to the US and get a competitive wage. Hence they have to make do with the lower wages. It seems that something no matter how bad is acceptable if there is some (minor) plus side to it. Being heavily exploited by big business who make massive profits is fine, just fine, the slaves get a couple of coins for their work. If you're ever going to put forward an argument asking for the re-implementation of slavery that'd be the argument to go with I suppose. The slave has a choice of working or getting beaten, and they work which tells us working as slaves is what they want to do. In this case they work for very little or starve to death, charming. Such things come at a price and there are more important things than mere statistics. Someone who supports the virtual slavery they have to go through doesn't have a leg to stand on to attack me on the matter sorry. I support protectionism which regardless of what faults you might place on it does not exploit such people. Protectionism doesn't result in foreign poor children making shoes for a pittance, instead it rips away the profits from the corporations in some cases and in others outright lays down the law that they shall not do their little globalisation tricks. As for, "well you're a bad man for not wanting them to immigrate". I disagree with such a view as saying no to them isn't an act of malice, but we only have so much to go around, further immigration only helps the villains, and we must look after our own. I wish them luck in their fights at home to get a better life and I do not support what the meddling governments in the west do to prevent them getting their changes either. Having low wages is one thing, having unfair wages is quite another. The benefits of free trade have been accepted by economists since The Wealth of Nations. If you look up any poll on it - here's a good one: http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/poll-results?SurveyID=SV_0dfr9yjnDcLh17m There's as strong an academic consensus for it as there is for the existence of climate change or the benefits of vaccination. Now of course, not every individual immediately wins, but the long term and net benefits are massive. Any debate should be about how to distribute the gains from free trade. In other news, the Pope and his Cardinals are in agreement that following Catholicism is a good thing. Free trade has an ugly end goal where the people are screwed everywhere (that is including consumers) and big business reigns supreme. Nation States have been weakened to stop anyone from meddling with this, and in some cases where someone did try to stop it through nationalisations and the like, they got their goons to put a stop to it (America being one such goon). Edited March 13, 2016 by Rozalia Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kemal Ergenekon Posted March 13, 2016 Share Posted March 13, 2016 Of course they aren't forced. Nobody wants to be a dirt farmer, because they would make no profits and starve to death trying to sell people what they stand on. So they have to work relentless jobs just to make the bare necessities to survive with no realistic hope of ever moving beyond this social situation. It's exploitation of a persons situation. The same way illegal immigrant are hired on farms around here. Because farmers know they will work for less money, as they are desperate and can't get a real job. Japan does the same thing to foreigners from China and completely screws them financially under false pretenses. Go up and read my previous post. If you care so much about their plight, you should let them immigrate to developed countries, so that they aren't "exploited." Because what's being exploited is their inability to move to countries where the pay is better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kemal Ergenekon Posted March 13, 2016 Share Posted March 13, 2016 It seems that something no matter how bad is acceptable if there is some (minor) plus side to it. Being heavily exploited by big business who make massive profits is fine, just fine, the slaves get a couple of coins for their work. If you're ever going to put forward an argument asking for the re-implementation of slavery that'd be the argument to go with I suppose. The slave has a choice of working or getting beaten, and they work which tells us working as slaves is what they want to do. In this case they work for very little or starve to death, charming. Such things come at a price and there are more important things than mere statistics. Someone who supports the virtual slavery they have to go through doesn't have a leg to stand on to attack me on the matter sorry. I support protectionism which regardless of what faults you might place on it does not exploit such people. Protectionism doesn't result in foreign poor children making shoes for a pittance, instead it rips away the profits from the corporations in some cases and in others outright lays down the law that they shall not do their little globalisation tricks. As for, "well you're a bad man for not wanting them to immigrate". I disagree with such a view as saying no to them isn't an act of malice, but we only have so much to go around, further immigration only helps the villains, and we must look after our own. I wish them luck in their fights at home to get a better life and I do not support what the meddling governments in the west do to prevent them getting their changes either. Having low wages is one thing, having unfair wages is quite another. It is you who has no ground to stand on because you are outright lying. You try to look like you care for the plight of these foreign workers, but your actual agenda is just trying to find some excuse to support protectionism. Where is the exploitation? These people are not earning "unfair" wages, because there is nothing such as "fair" wages. People get paid something between their marginal product and their best outside option (in this case, dirt farming). Yes, corporations do not give a flying !@#$ about the welfare of their workers. This is because they are for-profit. They maximize profits, which means they want to cut costs as much as possible. If these "poor exploited workers" abroad had better outside options like in the developed world, they would be paid more for their work (and by the way, the price of all the goods you consume would go up, xdxd). I offered you a way to give them better outside options: creating a borderless world where labor can migrate to where the marginal product of labor is highest. What they are being paid isn't fair or unfair. It is obviously better than what they could have earned without the job, so they choose to work in that job. If you feel for their plight, either let them immigrate, or send them donations to be used for unemployment benefits so that their outside option is large enough. Oh wait, it would be more costly than actually helping the Americans who lost their jobs due to free trade. Oh boy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rozalia Posted March 13, 2016 Share Posted March 13, 2016 It is you who has no ground to stand on because you are outright lying. You try to look like you care for the plight of these foreign workers, but your actual agenda is just trying to find some excuse to support protectionism. Where is the exploitation? These people are not earning "unfair" wages, because there is nothing such as "fair" wages. People get paid something between their marginal product and their best outside option (in this case, dirt farming). Yes, corporations do not give a flying !@#$ about the welfare of their workers. This is because they are for-profit. They maximize profits, which means they want to cut costs as much as possible. If these "poor exploited workers" abroad had better outside options like in the developed world, they would be paid more for their work (and by the way, the price of all the goods you consume would go up, xdxd). I offered you a way to give them better outside options: creating a borderless world where labor can migrate to where the marginal product of labor is highest. What they are being paid isn't fair or unfair. It is obviously better than what they could have earned without the job, so they choose to work in that job. If you feel for their plight, either let them immigrate, or send them donations to be used for unemployment benefits so that their outside option is large enough. Oh wait, it would be more costly than actually helping the Americans who lost their jobs due to free trade. Oh boy. You misunderstand what I said I think. I said someone who supports a psudo-slavery, even championing it as some grand act of good seemingly, has no ground to attack me as a "bad man" on the issue as not caring. Now to answer your attack... I don't even bother adding in a response to that at the end of my posts on such matters anymore. I used to say when people would scorn me over immigrant issues that in reality I care far more about immigrants than they do, I may wish to deny them entry but at the very least I don't support their exploitation be it here at home or in their countries. I don't care about consumer prices going up, the government I want could control the necessities anyway. Screwing our people and making virtual slaves of foreigners isn't worth cheaper items which are often grossly overpriced to begin with. You've offered no solution at all, thats what is called the status quo and it is a hated failure, one that still only goes on because politicians are bought. On the other hand I could tell you a solution that would have led to those corporations being defeated and it ain't the free trade that they grow fat off, it ain't open borders that aids them further, it ain't any such guff. A simple dose of Protectionism would do, governments both at home and far away merely need to invoke their power and we could combat the greed and exploitation of such villains. As I always say we have plights at home that need fixing before the idea of aiding those elsewhere should be thought of. Due to the mad logic of those who love (mass) immigration however (who I argue against as it is a harmful thing), half the time I'm defending immigrants as unlike them I don't want cheaper and cheaper workers (+ more unemployed who are then scorned for not having a job) at home. I don't want virtual slaves working in their far away sweat shops for barely anything. I don't support mass exploitation so we can point to a sheet and remark "Look how good business is doing". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fox Fire Posted March 13, 2016 Share Posted March 13, 2016 Go up and read my previous post. If you care so much about their plight, you should let them immigrate to developed countries, so that they aren't "exploited." Because what's being exploited is their inability to move to countries where the pay is better. That's ridiculous. Quality of life is not a set geographical fact. The entire planet could migrate to the US and then our quality of life would all go down. How about people stay where they are and stop letting their governments not do their job? 2 Quote _________________________________________________________________ <Jroc> I heard \ is an anagram of cocaine<\> I can't be rearranged into a line, I already am a line. --Foxburo Wiki-- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kemal Ergenekon Posted March 14, 2016 Share Posted March 14, 2016 You misunderstand what I said I think. I said someone who supports a psudo-slavery, even championing it as some grand act of good seemingly, has no ground to attack me as a "bad man" on the issue as not caring. Now to answer your attack... I don't even bother adding in a response to that at the end of my posts on such matters anymore. I used to say when people would scorn me over immigrant issues that in reality I care far more about immigrants than they do, I may wish to deny them entry but at the very least I don't support their exploitation be it here at home or in their countries. I don't care about consumer prices going up, the government I want could control the necessities anyway. Screwing our people and making virtual slaves of foreigners isn't worth cheaper items which are often grossly overpriced to begin with. You've offered no solution at all, thats what is called the status quo and it is a hated failure, one that still only goes on because politicians are bought. On the other hand I could tell you a solution that would have led to those corporations being defeated and it ain't the free trade that they grow fat off, it ain't open borders that aids them further, it ain't any such guff. A simple dose of Protectionism would do, governments both at home and far away merely need to invoke their power and we could combat the greed and exploitation of such villains. As I always say we have plights at home that need fixing before the idea of aiding those elsewhere should be thought of. Due to the mad logic of those who love (mass) immigration however (who I argue against as it is a harmful thing), half the time I'm defending immigrants as unlike them I don't want cheaper and cheaper workers (+ more unemployed who are then scorned for not having a job) at home. I don't want virtual slaves working in their far away sweat shops for barely anything. I don't support mass exploitation so we can point to a sheet and remark "Look how good business is doing". You are either delusional or knowingly distort facts, and I cannot tell which since both result in the same commentary. What you call pseudo-slavery is something better than they had otherwise. Go and ask those Chinese workers if they would like to keep their work, or go back to being farmers, for whom starving to death is commonplace. Face it: those workers who you think are working under horrible conditions would be worse off without those jobs. If they would not be worse off, they would not have agreed to work in the first place. Your protectionism would increase the price of goods in the US, increase the living costs for everyone, while condemning workers in the developing world to starve to death, as opposed to being able to work. If you cannot follow the logic, please stop participating in debates. Unless someone is coerced to do a particular work, that means they prefer that work over the next best alternative. What you are essentially saying is that those people should starve to death instead of working under conditions which the almighty Rozalia calls "pseudo-slavery." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.