Kemal Ergenekon Posted March 14, 2016 Share Posted March 14, 2016 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? The wage you get depends on which country you are in. Which country you are in depends on your citizenship and the immigration policies of other countries with respect to your citizenship. The workers in the developing world who "took your jerbz" are being paid less than you not because they are less productive, but because they do not have the magical citizenship. Do you have *any* idea how hard it is for people from the developing world to immigrate to developed countries? Those people are living on less than one tenth of your income just because they were unlucky enough to be born in a shitty country. Now, you can say "I don't give a damn about their plight," and although I wouldn't approve, that would be somewhat acceptable. But when you go on and use their working conditions as an argument to make their lives worse, I will call you on your BS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rozalia Posted March 14, 2016 Share Posted March 14, 2016 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." You think I don't know that? I know the very simple and crude "benefits" of globalisation don't you worry. Knowing it however does mean a person simply accepts it as simply what is and what will be, instead I see it and I say it's wrong, very wrong. I think beyond the short term. Globalisation you say improves their status over there with the pittance they get for their work, but at the same time it affects us here negatively (like I said, there are more important things then price reductions on overpriced goods). However that isn't enough for you and you want a "borderless" world on top so many can also come over here and make life worse for our citizens. It has a devastating effect on culture, on crime, it breeds hatred, and puts strain on welfare. Those who say "well immigrates don't suck up so much welfare like you'd think" miss the step that said immigrants ultimately put citizens on welfare... and then when it's reached critical the right wing comes along and tells people we got to cut back on it all and then we're set back years, decades, all because neo-liberals have to have their cheap workers. One of the reasons why I can't join with most people on the left, they fail to see that the immigrants they love (among other things/issues) so much are just tools of the villains who oppress and exploit. Just because you can claim some marginal benefit doesn't make it right. Greasing the wheel so such abuse keeps going on and on is wrong, starting it to begin with was wrong. Take it away and the people there will revolt, fight, and die if they have to, to raise from their poor situation and gain a government that actually takes care of them instead of leaving them at the mercy of the multinational band of criminals. It's a weak and pretty sad defense of globalisation/free trade if going "well, well, it's not slavery alright... they have a choice of a tiny pittance or starving to death because they're at the mercy of the companies". The wage you get depends on which country you are in. Which country you are in depends on your citizenship and the immigration policies of other countries with respect to your citizenship. The workers in the developing world who "took your jerbz" are being paid less than you not because they are less productive, but because they do not have the magical citizenship. Do you have *any* idea how hard it is for people from the developing world to immigrate to developed countries? Those people are living on less than one tenth of your income just because they were unlucky enough to be born in a shitty country. Now, you can say "I don't give a damn about their plight," and although I wouldn't approve, that would be somewhat acceptable. But when you go on and use their working conditions as an argument to make their lives worse, I will call you on your BS. I don't understand how it is you can try and take a superior moral ground (what it looks like) when these people seemingly exist to be exploited to you. The fact they're abused doesn't matter a single bit to you, as you put it they were "unlucky enough to be born in a shitty country". I mean I sometimes think I'm uncaring but talk to a neo-liberal and that quickly unravels to me, today the supporters of corporations makes nationalists of today look like saints by comparison. Though I suppose perhaps "Imperialist" is the word I should be using for corporation supporters? It never quite ended, it just has a new face. I care about the working conditions and opportunities of my own people, and the tiny pittance and abuse that comes with it for such people in foreign lands comes in hand with that (as what effects them ultimately effects us). Being a revolutionary sort who believes in very big change I'm of the mind that letting them "starve" as you put it is the nicest thing that could be done for them, for people do not simply sit back and take it in such a bad situation. I'd look forward to big change in their country and when they win and gain themselves a better life (what they should have, not this corporate nonsense) I'll give a toast to their success. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fox Fire Posted March 14, 2016 Share Posted March 14, 2016 The wage you get depends on which country you are in. Which country you are in depends on your citizenship and the immigration policies of other countries with respect to your citizenship. The workers in the developing world who "took your jerbz" are being paid less than you not because they are less productive, but because they do not have the magical citizenship. Do you have *any* idea how hard it is for people from the developing world to immigrate to developed countries? Those people are living on less than one tenth of your income just because they were unlucky enough to be born in a shitty country. Now, you can say "I don't give a damn about their plight," and although I wouldn't approve, that would be somewhat acceptable. But when you go on and use their working conditions as an argument to make their lives worse, I will call you on your BS. The !@#$ are you on about? 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...
LordRahl2 Posted March 14, 2016 Share Posted March 14, 2016 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 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. 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). I find it slightly amusing that you cited a work from an organization founded by Ralph Nader (who is/was left of Bernie Sanders fwiw). Anyway. What that article shows is that employment in manufacturing fell in the US. What it tires to do is to link that to NAFTA. However, having read it and checked its sources to the best of my ability, there remains no linkages between the two that are causational (vice correlative). So I will ask a follow up question. Has real manufacturing output declined in the US, lets say since the implementation of NAFTA? Surely since employment in manufacturing has gone down and all those jobs were shipped overseas manufacturing production has also gone down. Right? Quote -signature removed for rules violation- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordRahl2 Posted March 14, 2016 Share Posted March 14, 2016 How about people stay where they are and stop letting their governments not do their job? This is where you lack a good understanding, still, of the way the world actually is today FF. It is not really your fault because I do not doubt that your parents and teachers were instructed based on the way the world used to be. However it has changed since they were in school. The media is even less informed. Generally speaking (and what I will say does have exceptions) the governments of the world are "doing their job". If by doing so you mean to imply that basically all of the factors related to human development are moving in a positive direction. Abject poverty is way down (by % and by raw numbers). Infant mortality is way down. Fertility rate is way down. Life expectancy is way up. Vaccinations rates are way up. Schooling for children (male and female) is way up. Etc. Etc. There is certainly more to be done - doubtful this will ever change. Once we have eliminated abject poverty there is no reason not to begin addressing "relative poverty". However, it is undeniable that globally life on this planet is improving. And this goes back to you too Roz: these positive changes are in fact correlated with globalization and free trade generally. Causation can certainly be argued - but the correlation is very strong at the country and global level. So if you actually give a shit about the poor and impoverished of the world then free trade seems to be a factor making their lives immensely better. Quote -signature removed for rules violation- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kemal Ergenekon Posted March 14, 2016 Share Posted March 14, 2016 You think I don't know that? I know the very simple and crude "benefits" of globalisation don't you worry. Knowing it however does mean a person simply accepts it as simply what is and what will be, instead I see it and I say it's wrong, very wrong. I think beyond the short term. Globalisation you say improves their status over there with the pittance they get for their work, but at the same time it affects us here negatively (like I said, there are more important things then price reductions on overpriced goods). However that isn't enough for you and you want a "borderless" world on top so many can also come over here and make life worse for our citizens. It has a devastating effect on culture, on crime, it breeds hatred, and puts strain on welfare. Those who say "well immigrates don't suck up so much welfare like you'd think" miss the step that said immigrants ultimately put citizens on welfare... and then when it's reached critical the right wing comes along and tells people we got to cut back on it all and then we're set back years, decades, all because neo-liberals have to have their cheap workers. One of the reasons why I can't join with most people on the left, they fail to see that the immigrants they love (among other things/issues) so much are just tools of the villains who oppress and exploit. Just because you can claim some marginal benefit doesn't make it right. Greasing the wheel so such abuse keeps going on and on is wrong, starting it to begin with was wrong. Take it away and the people there will revolt, fight, and die if they have to, to raise from their poor situation and gain a government that actually takes care of them instead of leaving them at the mercy of the multinational band of criminals. It's a weak and pretty sad defense of globalisation/free trade if going "well, well, it's not slavery alright... they have a choice of a tiny pittance or starving to death because they're at the mercy of the companies". I don't understand how it is you can try and take a superior moral ground (what it looks like) when these people seemingly exist to be exploited to you. The fact they're abused doesn't matter a single bit to you, as you put it they were "unlucky enough to be born in a shitty country". I mean I sometimes think I'm uncaring but talk to a neo-liberal and that quickly unravels to me, today the supporters of corporations makes nationalists of today look like saints by comparison. Though I suppose perhaps "Imperialist" is the word I should be using for corporation supporters? It never quite ended, it just has a new face. I care about the working conditions and opportunities of my own people, and the tiny pittance and abuse that comes with it for such people in foreign lands comes in hand with that (as what effects them ultimately effects us). Being a revolutionary sort who believes in very big change I'm of the mind that letting them "starve" as you put it is the nicest thing that could be done for them, for people do not simply sit back and take it in such a bad situation. I'd look forward to big change in their country and when they win and gain themselves a better life (what they should have, not this corporate nonsense) I'll give a toast to their success. Oh my god, where to begin... Yes, I do believe that you are completely ignorant about how the globalization benefited the billions of people in the developing world. In the past few decades, the world has witnessed a previously undocumented increase in the living conditions of billions of people, thanks to the integration of the developed countries with the rest of the world markets. - Click this link: http://ourworldindata.org/data/growth-and-distribution-of-prosperity/world-poverty/. - Go to the interactive graph titled: Share of the population below the international poverty line. - Press the play button to see how poverty goes down in East and South East Asia like no one's business from 1981 to today. Thanks to globalization, billions have experienced an increase in life quality. You are whining about how they toil under very harsh working conditions. Recall that your ancestors 2-3 generations ago in the developed world went through the same during the hey-day of industrial revolution. They had similar working conditions, and still they were much better off than the poor sods living in the then non-industrialized world, living in more or less medieval conditions. This is progress in action. And if the developed world had adopted a protectionist stance, both the developed world and the developing world would be worse off -- and the developing world would be much worse off. Do you know of all the famines and shortages in these countries back in the day? Millions died. Millions. So now that your ignorance (or intentional downplaying of the benefits of free trade) is dispelled, let's move onto the rest of your post. You make several arguments about how it affects "us" negatively. First, this is false if you consider the economy as a whole -- this is uncontested by any economist: free trade is overall a net benefit. What you are probably complaining about are the losers, and how the winners do not compensate them. If your whole argumentation relied on you personally attaching more importance to the welfare of the Americans who are directly negatively affected as a result of free trade, I wouldn't have much to complain about. If you concede your mistaken point about how free trade hurts people in the developing world, we can talk about this one. You are talking about "abuse" and "exploitation." I think you are completely clueless about what these words mean; or otherwise just trying to score cheap points in the debate by using such language. If a worker is earning $1 an hour somewhere, and if I then go to him and offer him a job that pays $3 an hour, I am not "exploiting" him. I am giving him an opportunity to earn more. There is obviously some surplus, and he gets $2 per hour of it. You might argue that the worker deserves more according to some personal justice criterion that I cannot even fathom. However, you can be assured that these workers would prefer an additional $2 per hour regardless of how much an equivalent worker earns in another country. And they would just tell you to !@#$ off if you tried to take it away from them. I do take the superior moral ground, because it is where I stand. I am not even a capitalist -- I lean very left, and I care about the plight of the people in the developing world much more than you. What you propose -- protectionism in the US -- helps some tens of thousands of people in the US, whereas it hurts billions in the developing world as well as millions of consumers in the US. If you want to argue for protectionism, stick to your usual arguments: how those poor people who lost their jobs in the US hurt so much, and how you would value American jobs over jobs of the people in the developing world. At least you would be logically consistent, if morally ambiguous. I will just ignore your unfortunate paragraph where you claim billions in the developing world should just starve to death and revolt instead of experiencing growth rates in living conditions with double digits. Are you high, Rozalia? Why should they starve and revolt and kill each other? It would make the situation worse. FFS. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rozalia Posted March 14, 2016 Share Posted March 14, 2016 I find it slightly amusing that you cited a work from an organization founded by Ralph Nader (who is/was left of Bernie Sanders fwiw). Anyway. What that article shows is that employment in manufacturing fell in the US. What it tires to do is to link that to NAFTA. However, having read it and checked its sources to the best of my ability, there remains no linkages between the two that are causational (vice correlative). So I will ask a follow up question. Has real manufacturing output declined in the US, lets say since the implementation of NAFTA? Surely since employment in manufacturing has gone down and all those jobs were shipped overseas manufacturing production has also gone down. Right? I'm sorry whats strange if I were to use a left wing guy's work? I'd think it's quite clear I draw from both the right and left. I'll save us a lot of time as I know you're going to keep asking for more and nitpick whatever is given. Any points I have will not be related apparently, and any you have will be in spite of free trade not because of it apparently and so forth. And this goes back to you too Roz: these positive changes are in fact correlated with globalization and free trade generally. Causation can certainly be argued - but the correlation is very strong at the country and global level. So if you actually give a shit about the poor and impoverished of the world then free trade seems to be a factor making their lives immensely better. You're in support of a decent minimum wage for such workers? The foreign ones in other countries? I don't like them getting a bad wage no, mostly because it has the effect hurting our own workers. If after our protectionism they suffer my heart goes out to them but we got our own issues to fix. Like I said I've done them no wrong, I purposely don't want to exploit them. You on the other hand "give a shit" but thats just your dressing, you just want them to be exploited as hard as possible so your shiny toy can cost some bucks less. Oh my god, where to begin... Yes, I do believe that you are completely ignorant about how the globalization benefited the billions of people in the developing world. In the past few decades, the world has witnessed a previously undocumented increase in the living conditions of billions of people, thanks to the integration of the developed countries with the rest of the world markets. - Click this link: http://ourworldindata.org/data/growth-and-distribution-of-prosperity/world-poverty/. - Go to the interactive graph titled: Share of the population below the international poverty line. - Press the play button to see how poverty goes down in East and South East Asia like no one's business from 1981 to today. Thanks to globalization, billions have experienced an increase in life quality. You are whining about how they toil under very harsh working conditions. Recall that your ancestors 2-3 generations ago in the developed world went through the same during the hey-day of industrial revolution. They had similar working conditions, and still they were much better off than the poor sods living in the then non-industrialized world, living in more or less medieval conditions. This is progress in action. And if the developed world had adopted a protectionist stance, both the developed world and the developing world would be worse off -- and the developing world would be much worse off. Do you know of all the famines and shortages in these countries back in the day? Millions died. Millions. So now that your ignorance (or intentional downplaying of the benefits of free trade) is dispelled, let's move onto the rest of your post. You make several arguments about how it affects "us" negatively. First, this is false if you consider the economy as a whole -- this is uncontested by any economist: free trade is overall a net benefit. What you are probably complaining about are the losers, and how the winners do not compensate them. If your whole argumentation relied on you personally attaching more importance to the welfare of the Americans who are directly negatively affected as a result of free trade, I wouldn't have much to complain about. If you concede your mistaken point about how free trade hurts people in the developing world, we can talk about this one. You are talking about "abuse" and "exploitation." I think you are completely clueless about what these words mean; or otherwise just trying to score cheap points in the debate by using such language. If a worker is earning $1 an hour somewhere, and if I then go to him and offer him a job that pays $3 an hour, I am not "exploiting" him. I am giving him an opportunity to earn more. There is obviously some surplus, and he gets $2 per hour of it. You might argue that the worker deserves more according to some personal justice criterion that I cannot even fathom. However, you can be assured that these workers would prefer an additional $2 per hour regardless of how much an equivalent worker earns in another country. And they would just tell you to !@#$ off if you tried to take it away from them. I do take the superior moral ground, because it is where I stand. I am not even a capitalist -- I lean very left, and I care about the plight of the people in the developing world much more than you. What you propose -- protectionism in the US -- helps some tens of thousands of people in the US, whereas it hurts billions in the developing world as well as millions of consumers in the US. If you want to argue for protectionism, stick to your usual arguments: how those poor people who lost their jobs in the US hurt so much, and how you would value American jobs over jobs of the people in the developing world. At least you would be logically consistent, if morally ambiguous. I will just ignore your unfortunate paragraph where you claim billions in the developing world should just starve to death and revolt instead of experiencing growth rates in living conditions with double digits. Are you high, Rozalia? Why should they starve and revolt and kill each other? It would make the situation worse. FFS. They can improve their lives without going through such things, if that is they are allowed to do so. Oh I don't doubt that if you look at the economy, the profits made, and so on that'd it all be rosy... however as I've said before, there is more to it all. Did I not also just tell you that their exploitation and suffering goes in hand with what occurs at home? Them being exploited there hurts us here so I care as far as that definitely. Uh... you are aware that workers in such areas being abused while earning little is something that goes on yes? How acceptable would be such things in the west? What about children? The cents they get worth it, it correct? Another benefit of globalisation? No, this is where I take issue with what you're saying. You say I'm the dishonest one who wants to appear a better person, but it is you who is doing that if you ask me. You talk of a method used by the wealthy to drain the most possible profit with the least cost attached, good business as you may call it, but a horrible thing regardless. If such countries all had an enforced minimum wage, protection of workers, and so on for example, then we could say it's all dandy. However it's not and full stop I'm never going to support something the enemies of the people use to further empower themselves so they can then more better oppress us. If cutting that off results in losses elsewhere so be it, I had nothing to do with it, their governments (if many can even be called that) are at fault if they can't plug a hole left by the corrupt company punished with protectionism. I simply did no business with them and left it to others be it local or other foreign to pick things up. However those who support globalisation know exactly what it's all about and have the blood and suffering of people on their hands because as I said they know full well of it, but hey lets excuse it by saying that in actuality they've brought love and treasure to them instead. Things could not be better, everything was done perfectly. Growth rates, that old classic. Sorry, it hasn't worked on me in a long time. Going along with how things are only greases the wheel and such people will only be free and on the right path when they fight back, be it democratically or militarily against the corporations and their political stooges. As for your shock at suffering, suffering is part of life and part of your country lifting itself up and becoming great to the point where we can halt the suffering. Suffering is also part of developing you at a personal level of course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordRahl2 Posted March 14, 2016 Share Posted March 14, 2016 I'm sorry whats strange if I were to use a left wing guy's work? I'd think it's quite clear I draw from both the right and left. I'll save us a lot of time as I know you're going to keep asking for more and nitpick whatever is given. Any points I have will not be related apparently, and any you have will be in spite of free trade not because of it apparently and so forth. Very smooth brush off. I was trying to get you to find stuff for yourself. So the "nitpick" is that manufacturing output in the US has gone up. (my source is FRED). So how then if real manufacturing output is going up are jobs going down? You're in support of a decent minimum wage for such workers? The foreign ones in other countries? I don't like them getting a bad wage no, mostly because it has the effect hurting our own workers. If after our protectionism they suffer my heart goes out to them but we got our own issues to fix. Like I said I've done them no wrong, I purposely don't want to exploit them. You on the other hand "give a shit" but thats just your dressing, you just want them to be exploited as hard as possible so your shiny toy can cost some bucks less. I support improvements to the human condition. Foreign and otherwise. If you feel that people not starving > people starving then free trade is for you. Simple as that. Quote -signature removed for rules violation- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rozalia Posted March 14, 2016 Share Posted March 14, 2016 Very smooth brush off. I was trying to get you to find stuff for yourself. So the "nitpick" is that manufacturing output in the US has gone up. (my source is FRED). So how then if real manufacturing output is going up are jobs going down? I support improvements to the human condition. Foreign and otherwise. If you feel that people not starving > people starving then free trade is for you. Simple as that. I don't need a tutorial. Thats cool. I can do them too though. If you support child labour and female workers being beaten for not doing enough work than free trade is for you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordRahl2 Posted March 14, 2016 Share Posted March 14, 2016 (edited) I think you might actually but that is because of, again, teachers who are out of date and an abysmal media. So how then if real manufacturing output is going up are jobs going down? If you must know I find child labor and Sinclare like working conditions to be terrible. People choose those things because the alternative is, ya know, starving to death. If I lived in a thatch roofed structure, slept on the floor, heated my water with wood, and went months out of the year eating under 1k calories (which is what 1.90$ USD a day gets you) then I would be happy if I could move into or build a brick structure with a tin roof, have electricity and gas, buy a mattress, and get myself up to 2k calories a day consistently. This has happened for Billions (yes with a B ) of people on earth. The causation is complex and includes to varying degrees: governance, reduction in global conflict, technology, etc. It is also due in very large part to free trade and globalization. That is a fact and it is undeniable. Do I like the working conditions in T-Shirt Blank factories in Bangladesh? No. Are they preferable to the alternative in the absence of free trade? Without a f-u-c-k-i-n-g doubt. And for the love of all things holy can we fix the "B" followed by a closed paren "smiley"? Edited March 14, 2016 by LordRahl2 1 Quote -signature removed for rules violation- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rozalia Posted March 14, 2016 Share Posted March 14, 2016 I think you might actually but that is because of, again, teachers who are out of date and an abysmal media. So how then if real manufacturing output is going up are jobs going down? If you must know I find child labor and Sinclare like working conditions to be terrible. People choose those things because the alternative is, ya know, starving to death. If I lived in a thatch roofed structure, slept on the floor, heated my water with wood, and went months out of the year eating under 1k calories (which is what 1.90$ USD a day gets you) then I would be happy if I could move into or build a brick structure with a tin roof, have electricity and gas, buy a mattress, and get myself up to 2k calories a day consistently. This has happened for Billions (yes with a B ) of people on earth. The causation is complex and includes to varying degrees: governance, reduction in global conflict, technology, etc. It is also due in very large part to free trade and globalization. That is a fact and it is undeniable. Do I like the working conditions in T-Shirt Blank factories in Bangladesh? No. Are they preferable to the alternative in the absence of free trade? Without a f-u-c-k-i-n-g doubt. And for the love of all things holy can we fix the "B" followed by a closed paren "smiley"? Cute. I'd you know, support them getting more money and not being treated like crap. Not all that big on other countries issues as I've said but if I had to it'd be that. However the corporate rulers have apparently determined they've given just enough and everyone should be thankful they could stretch that far. If they paid more then they'd go bankrupt, economies everywhere would collapse, and giant mutant rats would eat the bankers or something like that. What is it you don't understand exactly? I see the whole structure as being rotten and want it brought down. The alternative would be for them to actually pay and treat such workers well... but that'd bring down the whole structure anyway so it makes no difference to me if it's one way (protectionism) or another. It'd be like if in feudal times you argued that it was just dandy to live in a similar state to those people today. It could well be true... but that doesn't mean anything, I'm more than free to want it all to be better. However they can't make it better, not enough to be significant as it's based on exploitation at the end of the day. You can it's a great act of benevolence all you like, I've read your words and know your angle, but it's all exploitation to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordRahl2 Posted March 14, 2016 Share Posted March 14, 2016 Cute. I'd you know, support them getting more money and not being treated like crap. Not all that big on other countries issues as I've said but if I had to it'd be that. However the corporate rulers have apparently determined they've given just enough and everyone should be thankful they could stretch that far. If they paid more then they'd go bankrupt, economies everywhere would collapse, and giant mutant rats would eat the bankers or something like that. What is it you don't understand exactly? I see the whole structure as being rotten and want it brought down. The alternative would be for them to actually pay and treat such workers well... but that'd bring down the whole structure anyway so it makes no difference to me if it's one way (protectionism) or another. It'd be like if in feudal times you argued that it was just dandy to live in a similar state to those people today. It could well be true... but that doesn't mean anything, I'm more than free to want it all to be better. However they can't make it better, not enough to be significant as it's based on exploitation at the end of the day. You can it's a great act of benevolence all you like, I've read your words and know your angle, but it's all exploitation to me. Cute? ok. I would support that too. So I support policies that increase the rate of positive change and I support policies that further moves away from those conditions. And, thankfully, free trade and globalization does that too. Working conditions do improve as more development occurs. In a case study, the average wage for factory workers in China now exceeds that of those in Mexico. Working conditions are also improving. If the world were a better place then they would improve faster and everything would be perfect or something. Sadly we live in this world and incremental positive change is what we have. However, it is positive. And that is, basically by definition, positive. You may have read my words but your understanding of them is coloured by your ideology. Your ideology is formed based on an incomplete and/or wrong knowledge of factual realities in the world today. Improvements in the global fate of mankind are "good". They are not perfect - but we take what we can. ///////////// But now we are wandering off topic. If you want to discuss what happens when the "whole structure is brought down" then we should open another thread. I would be happy to chat about the wonderful things that happened when Rome fell or Great Britain lost primacy. But that is another topic entirely. Here we are discussing free trade vs protectionism. So how then if real manufacturing output is going up are jobs going down? Quote -signature removed for rules violation- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rozalia Posted March 14, 2016 Share Posted March 14, 2016 (edited) Cute? ok. I would support that too. So I support policies that increase the rate of positive change and I support policies that further moves away from those conditions. And, thankfully, free trade and globalization does that too. Working conditions do improve as more development occurs. In a case study, the average wage for factory workers in China now exceeds that of those in Mexico. Working conditions are also improving. If the world were a better place then they would improve faster and everything would be perfect or something. Sadly we live in this world and incremental positive change is what we have. However, it is positive. And that is, basically by definition, positive. You may have read my words but your understanding of them is coloured by your ideology. Your ideology is formed based on an incomplete and/or wrong knowledge of factual realities in the world today. Improvements in the global fate of mankind are "good". They are not perfect - but we take what we can. ///////////// But now we are wandering off topic. If you want to discuss what happens when the "whole structure is brought down" then we should open another thread. I would be happy to chat about the wonderful things that happened when Rome fell or Great Britain lost primacy. But that is another topic entirely. Here we are discussing free trade vs protectionism. So how then if real manufacturing output is going up are jobs going down? No, nothing incomplete about it and stating as such is just one of your little tricks to frame yourself as being correct on the matter while insulting me at the same time. My opposing on it all begins with immigration and continues with protectionism as I have certain beliefs in what a government should grant which globalisation does not allow due to how it works. Simple it can be said certainly, but incomplete it isn't. In regards to "good" I see the direction going towards that best possible state (to me) as being good, your type to me does not go towards it and does the usual tripe, the usual tripe that is the current order of things. It may benefit some foreigners yes (if we discount the exploitation which is perfectly fine apparently, child labour and beatings are fun and all that), but as a Nationalist the situation of my own is above all else so moot point. Heck I hate "incremental" change too big time so if you're not purposely hitting all the buttons you're really having a lucky run. Now as for your question you keep asking I already told you I'm not going to bite on it. I already know how you're going to discount everything as I've seen you do it to others while covertly sliding some barbs in here or there to work people up, all the while trying to hide behind some veil of civility. On my part I'll do the same but you'll just frame it as being wrong if I do it and slide some more barbs in there such as your last of me being uneducated. So I'll agree to disagree as otherwise we'll go forever. I support letting foreign people starve to death and you support foreign child labour and beating up foreign women. There, a nice summation of everything, does us both justice. Edited March 14, 2016 by Rozalia Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chapsie Posted March 14, 2016 Share Posted March 14, 2016 Ok guys, the more I read these arguments the more I see mini-personal attacks. I'd consider collecting yourselves and not ripping each others throats over a discussion that does not mean as much as the peace of the community, or your relationships as people. 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...
Andrezj Kolarov Posted March 14, 2016 Share Posted March 14, 2016 I don't think any country can have true political independence without having economic independence, that is that the vast majority of the products a country consumes are made within that country. If you don't have that then it's a recipe for the enemies of that nation to use trade as a tool to try and control it. Complete autarky, or as close as you can get to it, should be the goal of nations, the only alternate is slavery to foreign agendas and interests. Quote People's Republic of Velika: National Information Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kemal Ergenekon Posted March 14, 2016 Share Posted March 14, 2016 They can improve their lives without going through such things, if that is they are allowed to do so. Oh I don't doubt that if you look at the economy, the profits made, and so on that'd it all be rosy... however as I've said before, there is more to it all. Did I not also just tell you that their exploitation and suffering goes in hand with what occurs at home? Them being exploited there hurts us here so I care as far as that definitely. Uh... you are aware that workers in such areas being abused while earning little is something that goes on yes? How acceptable would be such things in the west? What about children? The cents they get worth it, it correct? Another benefit of globalisation? No, this is where I take issue with what you're saying. You say I'm the dishonest one who wants to appear a better person, but it is you who is doing that if you ask me. You talk of a method used by the wealthy to drain the most possible profit with the least cost attached, good business as you may call it, but a horrible thing regardless. If such countries all had an enforced minimum wage, protection of workers, and so on for example, then we could say it's all dandy. However it's not and full stop I'm never going to support something the enemies of the people use to further empower themselves so they can then more better oppress us. If cutting that off results in losses elsewhere so be it, I had nothing to do with it, their governments (if many can even be called that) are at fault if they can't plug a hole left by the corrupt company punished with protectionism. I simply did no business with them and left it to others be it local or other foreign to pick things up. However those who support globalisation know exactly what it's all about and have the blood and suffering of people on their hands because as I said they know full well of it, but hey lets excuse it by saying that in actuality they've brought love and treasure to them instead. Things could not be better, everything was done perfectly. Growth rates, that old classic. Sorry, it hasn't worked on me in a long time. Going along with how things are only greases the wheel and such people will only be free and on the right path when they fight back, be it democratically or militarily against the corporations and their political stooges. As for your shock at suffering, suffering is part of life and part of your country lifting itself up and becoming great to the point where we can halt the suffering. Suffering is also part of developing you at a personal level of course. This post of yours rather solidifies my belief that you are completely unfamiliar with the question at hand, and throwing around cheap words like "oppression," "exploitation" and "corruption" for the sake of rhetoric. Now, stop using those words and give me some factual statements. Define, in real terms, what you mean. Are these guys being paid low wages? Low compared to what? Do they have hard working conditions? Hard compared to what? Stop pussyfooting around the facts and acting as if they are as you claim. They are not. "Workers abroad are being exploited" is your main thesis. What is exploitation? Let's say there is a given job, cutting steel. Workers in the US want $20 to cut steel, because their next best alternative also earns them the same -- being a barista at Starbucks. Workers in China would cut the same steel for $10, because their next best alternative is worse -- let's say growing rice. The Chinese workers do the same job for less, because that's the value of their labor. There are few people willing to do low skill jobs in the US and lots of people willing to do low skill jobs in China. The wages across the two countries cannot equalize, because the workers in China cannot move to the US and do the same job for $20. Now, you are the owner of a company. Your business is to cut steel. Regardless of where you do the production, the price you are going to get for your product is fixed. Now, as a business owner: Do you produce in the US or in China? What wage would you pay to your workers? The answers are: China, and $10. WOW, WHAT AN EVIL BLOODSUCKING CORPORATION YOU ARE!!! Kidding, of course. Using factors of production that are cheapest is the definition of how you run a business. This does not only maximize your profits, but it also serves productive efficiency: Read Smith and Ricardo if you are unfamiliar with the concept. Given the prices, it's better for American workers to be baristas, and Chinese workers to cut steel. The fact that some people in the US would get paid more than the Chinese to cut the same steel does not mean that the Chinese are being exploited, or that the steel cutting company is corrupt. Everyone is doing what is in their best interests. "A method used by the wealthy to drain profits" "Enemies of the people" : Oh my god, do not go 100% Marxist on me. We both know you aren't Marxist by a long shot. Are you arguing for nationalization of all private enterprise? If not, you have to back up that cheap rhetoric by facts. Show us facts that this is a method used by the wealthy to drain the profits. Show us that the workers in China get no share of the surplus they produce. Show us why firms that want to maximize their profits are "enemies of the people." Give us tangible examples. Names and facts. I won't hold my breath. "Such people will only be free and on the right path when they fight back, be it democratically or militarily against the corporations and their political stooges." Are you going full Marxist again, or is that just your rhetoric speaking? What is the alternative to "corporations and their stooges?" Are you suggesting nationalization of all private enterprise? If this is the case, and if you support communism, then we can discuss how you believe "the corrupt people" will not exist in this socialist utopia. If this is not what you defend, describe us the alternative world with no "corporations and their stooges." How does it look like? Who owns the firms in that imagined world of yours? "As for your shock at suffering, suffering is part of life and part of your country lifting itself up and becoming great to the point where we can halt the suffering. Suffering is also part of developing you at a personal level of course." Starving to death is not suffering that makes you stronger. It is the very thing all human beings try to avoid. Your definitions of exploitation are completely non-sensical. If you give me an opportunity to better my life, I take it. I do not refuse it because some lucky guy overseas could earn more doing the same job. That guy over there is earning more because of how nation states govern themselves. Nothing I can do in China would ever change the fact that American low skill workers are overpaid just because of their citizenship. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rozalia Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 This post of yours rather solidifies my belief that you are completely unfamiliar with the question at hand, and throwing around cheap words like "oppression," "exploitation" and "corruption" for the sake of rhetoric. Now, stop using those words and give me some factual statements. Define, in real terms, what you mean. Are these guys being paid low wages? Low compared to what? Do they have hard working conditions? Hard compared to what? Stop pussyfooting around the facts and acting as if they are as you claim. They are not. "Workers abroad are being exploited" is your main thesis. What is exploitation? Let's say there is a given job, cutting steel. Workers in the US want $20 to cut steel, because their next best alternative also earns them the same -- being a barista at Starbucks. Workers in China would cut the same steel for $10, because their next best alternative is worse -- let's say growing rice. The Chinese workers do the same job for less, because that's the value of their labor. There are few people willing to do low skill jobs in the US and lots of people willing to do low skill jobs in China. The wages across the two countries cannot equalize, because the workers in China cannot move to the US and do the same job for $20. Now, you are the owner of a company. Your business is to cut steel. Regardless of where you do the production, the price you are going to get for your product is fixed. Now, as a business owner: Do you produce in the US or in China? What wage would you pay to your workers? The answers are: China, and $10. WOW, WHAT AN EVIL BLOODSUCKING CORPORATION YOU ARE!!! Kidding, of course. Using factors of production that are cheapest is the definition of how you run a business. This does not only maximize your profits, but it also serves productive efficiency: Read Smith and Ricardo if you are unfamiliar with the concept. Given the prices, it's better for American workers to be baristas, and Chinese workers to cut steel. The fact that some people in the US would get paid more than the Chinese to cut the same steel does not mean that the Chinese are being exploited, or that the steel cutting company is corrupt. Everyone is doing what is in their best interests. "A method used by the wealthy to drain profits" "Enemies of the people" : Oh my god, do not go 100% Marxist on me. We both know you aren't Marxist by a long shot. Are you arguing for nationalization of all private enterprise? If not, you have to back up that cheap rhetoric by facts. Show us facts that this is a method used by the wealthy to drain the profits. Show us that the workers in China get no share of the surplus they produce. Show us why firms that want to maximize their profits are "enemies of the people." Give us tangible examples. Names and facts. I won't hold my breath. "Such people will only be free and on the right path when they fight back, be it democratically or militarily against the corporations and their political stooges." Are you going full Marxist again, or is that just your rhetoric speaking? What is the alternative to "corporations and their stooges?" Are you suggesting nationalization of all private enterprise? If this is the case, and if you support communism, then we can discuss how you believe "the corrupt people" will not exist in this socialist utopia. If this is not what you defend, describe us the alternative world with no "corporations and their stooges." How does it look like? Who owns the firms in that imagined world of yours? "As for your shock at suffering, suffering is part of life and part of your country lifting itself up and becoming great to the point where we can halt the suffering. Suffering is also part of developing you at a personal level of course." Starving to death is not suffering that makes you stronger. It is the very thing all human beings try to avoid. Your definitions of exploitation are completely non-sensical. If you give me an opportunity to better my life, I take it. I do not refuse it because some lucky guy overseas could earn more doing the same job. That guy over there is earning more because of how nation states govern themselves. Nothing I can do in China would ever change the fact that American low skill workers are overpaid just because of their citizenship. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/06/bangladesh-garment-factories-child-labour-uk http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/bangladesh-clothing-workers-still-exploited-five-months-after-factory-fire-panorama-investigation-8833102.html That dandy? £2 for 19-hour days a healthy thing? Now for your 20 to 10 example... uh, protectionism can be used to make the steel they get in China more expensive to sell, or just outright ban it. Speaking on grounds where we ignore possible government action doing it for 10 is common sense in money terms yes, but throw in government action and it doesn't become so simple. I'd have to comb over each one, I'd not touch the arts for example but... a lot of private business needs nationalizing yes, a lot of it has no business being in private hands to begin with. As for "Marxist langauge" I see no reason why I can't. Talk like that is why people go to the right wing. Talking down to people who are suffering, "Actually you're really lucky mate so grin and bear it... by the way you should totally get a job that doesn't exist you lazy arsehole... oh and your benefits are going to get cut but we'll be giving more to those poor Indian fellows" does not a good argument make. As for decisions I'm not telling people not to take the "opportunity"... I'm talking about taking the "opportunity" away from them to begin with so it isn't a choice. Well dying is not suffering that makes you stronger no, you're dead after all, but it can strengthen others into action that puts down the ills that afflict them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kemal Ergenekon Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/06/bangladesh-garment-factories-child-labour-uk http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/bangladesh-clothing-workers-still-exploited-five-months-after-factory-fire-panorama-investigation-8833102.html That dandy? £2 for 19-hour days a healthy thing? Now for your 20 to 10 example... uh, protectionism can be used to make the steel they get in China more expensive to sell, or just outright ban it. Speaking on grounds where we ignore possible government action doing it for 10 is common sense in money terms yes, but throw in government action and it doesn't become so simple. I'd have to comb over each one, I'd not touch the arts for example but... a lot of private business needs nationalizing yes, a lot of it has no business being in private hands to begin with. As for "Marxist langauge" I see no reason why I can't. Talk like that is why people go to the right wing. Talking down to people who are suffering, "Actually you're really lucky mate so grin and bear it... by the way you should totally get a job that doesn't exist you lazy arsehole... oh and your benefits are going to get cut but we'll be giving more to those poor Indian fellows" does not a good argument make. As for decisions I'm not telling people not to take the "opportunity"... I'm talking about taking the "opportunity" away from them to begin with so it isn't a choice. Well dying is not suffering that makes you stronger no, you're dead after all, but it can strengthen others into action that puts down the ills that afflict them. You have linked two articles where the problem is child labor which is akin to slavery. Recall that all my arguments relied on the individuals *choosing* their jobs over the alternatives. If people are *coerced* as in the example you gave, that's a different issue. Slavery and labor coercion are separate problems, and how you deal with them is forcing those countries to adapt better laws or face embargoes. Just because some developing countries are using slave labor, you cannot just shut your trade with the whole world; it would be plain stupid, and hurt countries on both sides. Your answer to my example again shows your lack of understanding. I asked you where the exploitation was, and you are telling me you can increase the cost of steel and make the goods people consume more expensive. I didn't ask you that pal. I asked you how that was "exploitation," because you claim it to be so. I am still waiting for an answer. So you want to nationalize industries to stop "exploitation" by "enemies of the people." Pray tell, when the government takes over the place of the capitalists who owned the companies earlier, what will make them act any differently? If they buy steel from the US instead of China, the surplus they generate will be lower. If these people are really extremely patriotic people who are not corrupt, they might even share that surplus with the rest of the society -- but they destroyed some value to get it. But what will most likely happen is that the people who manage them will be at least as corrupt as the previous owners who you called "enemies of the people." It is a well-known story that corruption is extremely commonplace in government-owned firms, where they buy inputs at higher than normal prices, sell their products for cheap to other pals, and hire tons of workers who do very little work, just so that their friends and relatives can have a cushy job. So pray tell, why will these nationalized firms be more efficient? How will nationalization help reduce the losses from protectionism? Your second last paragraph is an answer to your last line: "Well dying is not suffering that makes you stronger no, you're dead after all, but it can strengthen others into action that puts down the ills that afflict them. " "Talking down to people who are suffering, "Actually you're really lucky mate so grin and bear it... by the way you should totally get a job that doesn't exist you lazy arsehole... oh and your benefits are going to get cut but we'll be giving more to those poor Indian fellows" does not a good argument make. As for decisions I'm not telling people not to take the "opportunity"... I'm talking about taking the "opportunity" away from them to begin with so it isn't a choice. " Almighty Rozalia thinks that people in the developing world should "stand up to the Man" and get slaughtered. OK, boss, sure. Mind you, the last time people did that in the USSR, everyone declared war on them to keep the peasants in their place. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beatrix Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 Sorry Rozalia, Kemal is right here. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rozalia Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 (edited) You have linked two articles where the problem is child labor which is akin to slavery. Recall that all my arguments relied on the individuals *choosing* their jobs over the alternatives. If people are *coerced* as in the example you gave, that's a different issue. Slavery and labor coercion are separate problems, and how you deal with them is forcing those countries to adapt better laws or face embargoes. Just because some developing countries are using slave labor, you cannot just shut your trade with the whole world; it would be plain stupid, and hurt countries on both sides. Your answer to my example again shows your lack of understanding. I asked you where the exploitation was, and you are telling me you can increase the cost of steel and make the goods people consume more expensive. I didn't ask you that pal. I asked you how that was "exploitation," because you claim it to be so. I am still waiting for an answer. So you want to nationalize industries to stop "exploitation" by "enemies of the people." Pray tell, when the government takes over the place of the capitalists who owned the companies earlier, what will make them act any differently? If they buy steel from the US instead of China, the surplus they generate will be lower. If these people are really extremely patriotic people who are not corrupt, they might even share that surplus with the rest of the society -- but they destroyed some value to get it. But what will most likely happen is that the people who manage them will be at least as corrupt as the previous owners who you called "enemies of the people." It is a well-known story that corruption is extremely commonplace in government-owned firms, where they buy inputs at higher than normal prices, sell their products for cheap to other pals, and hire tons of workers who do very little work, just so that their friends and relatives can have a cushy job. So pray tell, why will these nationalized firms be more efficient? How will nationalization help reduce the losses from protectionism? Your second last paragraph is an answer to your last line: "Well dying is not suffering that makes you stronger no, you're dead after all, but it can strengthen others into action that puts down the ills that afflict them. " "Talking down to people who are suffering, "Actually you're really lucky mate so grin and bear it... by the way you should totally get a job that doesn't exist you lazy arsehole... oh and your benefits are going to get cut but we'll be giving more to those poor Indian fellows" does not a good argument make. As for decisions I'm not telling people not to take the "opportunity"... I'm talking about taking the "opportunity" away from them to begin with so it isn't a choice. " Almighty Rozalia thinks that people in the developing world should "stand up to the Man" and get slaughtered. OK, boss, sure. Mind you, the last time people did that in the USSR, everyone declared war on them to keep the peasants in their place. It's not just children. You make a distinction to defend yourself but it's quite clear that your distinction applies to all forms of exploitation outside those you can't in anyway defend (i.e Child Labour). You argue firstly they're paid as much as their worth, and second that they "chose" their jobs but had they not they'd starve to death as the system is stacked up in such a way that they are exploited and that it is the best they have available. Outside of course moving country (which you support) and then hurting us over here instead of over there when they work in the factories. They are exploiting less well off people to get a significantly cheaper worker. What I told you was a method to make it more expensive so they no longer have a reason to, or failing that stopping them from doing it to begin with which addresses the issue. Now yes I can hear you already saying, "well what about if it was a western country or whatever" and my answer would be the same. I'm isolationist like that. Oh my, haven't heard "all government is corrupt" before... yes, instead lets give it all up to the white as snow corporations for they have our best interests at heart. Anyway, the state oversees operations and keeps things running with the goal being service for the well being of the citizenry rather then simple profit. Also acts as protection for local workers who are put above foreign workers which governments have for years been importing. How well run they are is based on... how well run it is. This meme of sorts that private business is simply just better at running something is nonsense. I am not almighty, though it would be grand certainly. I believe in Nationalism and standing on your own two feet at a national level so of course I'd support foreign countries rising up and to stop being in some cases little more than foreigner's factories. It means I'm more isolationist too also yes which is the big no no these days. Saying businesses will make more money if they exploit cheaper workers overseas and/or we import truckloads of foreigners to do jobs here on the cheap may well be true, but it doesn't matter to me and arguing off that is pointless. Though I do think we're done here. The constant talk of exploitation makes me out to be in opposing of it simply on exploitation grounds which isn't true. I'm a nationalist, isolationist, among other things which means I care about my own above all else. That is the primary reason, the talk of exploitation just comes about because while yes if we exploited cheaper workers elsewhere it equals more moolah for the companies, that hurts our own (be it directly or indirectly) so I oppose it. The weakening of governments and empowerment of companies is again something against my world view so reining them in is something I'd like, the fact that corporations do a lot of abuse with their drive for profit is secondary. Edited March 15, 2016 by Rozalia Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kemal Ergenekon Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 It's not just children. You make a distinction to defend yourself but it's quite clear that your distinction applies to all forms of exploitation outside those you can't in anyway defend (i.e Child Labour). You argue firstly they're paid as much as their worth, and second that they "chose" their jobs but had they not they'd starve to death as the system is stacked up in such a way that they are exploited and that it is the best they have available. Outside of course moving country (which you support) and then hurting us over here instead of over there when they work in the factories. They are exploiting less well off people to get a significantly cheaper worker. What I told you was a method to make it more expensive so they no longer have a reason to, or failing that stopping them from doing it to begin with which addresses the issue. Now yes I can hear you already saying, "well what about if it was a western country or whatever" and my answer would be the same. I'm isolationist like that. Oh my, haven't heard "all government is corrupt" before... yes, instead lets give it all up to the white as snow corporations for they have our best interests at heart. Anyway, the state oversees operations and keeps things running with the goal being service for the well being of the citizenry rather then simple profit. Also acts as protection for local workers who are put above foreign workers which governments have for years been importing. How well run they are is based on... how well run it is. This meme of sorts that private business is simply just better at running something is nonsense. I am not almighty, though it would be grand certainly. I believe in Nationalism and standing on your own two feet at a national level so of course I'd support foreign countries rising up and to stop being in some cases little more than foreigner's factories. It means I'm more isolationist too also yes which is the big no no these days. Saying businesses will make more money if they exploit cheaper workers overseas and/or we import truckloads of foreigners to do jobs here on the cheap may well be true, but it doesn't matter to me and arguing off that is pointless. Though I do think we're done here. The constant talk of exploitation makes me out to be in opposing of it simply on exploitation grounds which isn't true. I'm a nationalist, isolationist, among other things which means I care about my own above all else. That is the primary reason, the talk of exploitation just comes about because while yes if we exploited cheaper workers elsewhere it equals more moolah for the companies, that hurts our own (be it directly or indirectly) so I oppose it. The weakening of governments and empowerment of companies is again something against my world view so reining them in is something I'd like, the fact that corporations do a lot of abuse with their drive for profit is secondary. You are right: we are done here, because you just cannot admit that your "exploitation" argument has no merit. It is not the workers in the developing world getting underpaid -- it's the low skill workers in the developed world who want to be overpaid, because their outside options are higher, because they can work in the non-tradeable services sector for higher wages, or benefit from unemployment insurance and welfare that is not available in the developing countries. It is only natural that the manufacturing jobs go to the developing world. And it is not obvious at all that this is bad for the US: You would want to employ your population in easier jobs than manufacturing in the long run anyway. If the Chinese workers were being underpaid, then another corporation would move there and offer them higher wages. Hence, the Chinese workers are being paid more or less their marginal product. The same story is true in any developing country without slavery. Talking of slavery, the only examples I can think of are fringe cases like Uzbekistan. The overwhelming majority of the imports from the developing world have nothing to do with slavery and labor coercion, and if that is your worry, there can be specific embargoes. But of course this is not your concern. You admitted your true preferences in your final post: "I'm a nationalist, isolationist, among other things which means I care about my own above all else." If you care about American workers much more than people in the developing world, and in the US care more about workers than capitalists and consumers, then you are set. Your support of protectionism can be rationalized with those preferences. So since you admitted your preferences, please drop the false exploitation argument and just stick to your values. Since I am a left-leaning person, I value the people in the developing world as much as Americans, so I would support free trade without any hesitation any day. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rozalia Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 You are right: we are done here, because you just cannot admit that your "exploitation" argument has no merit. It is not the workers in the developing world getting underpaid -- it's the low skill workers in the developed world who want to be overpaid, because their outside options are higher, because they can work in the non-tradeable services sector for higher wages, or benefit from unemployment insurance and welfare that is not available in the developing countries. It is only natural that the manufacturing jobs go to the developing world. And it is not obvious at all that this is bad for the US: You would want to employ your population in easier jobs than manufacturing in the long run anyway. If the Chinese workers were being underpaid, then another corporation would move there and offer them higher wages. Hence, the Chinese workers are being paid more or less their marginal product. The same story is true in any developing country without slavery. Talking of slavery, the only examples I can think of are fringe cases like Uzbekistan. The overwhelming majority of the imports from the developing world have nothing to do with slavery and labor coercion, and if that is your worry, there can be specific embargoes. But of course this is not your concern. You admitted your true preferences in your final post: "I'm a nationalist, isolationist, among other things which means I care about my own above all else." If you care about American workers much more than people in the developing world, and in the US care more about workers than capitalists and consumers, then you are set. Your support of protectionism can be rationalized with those preferences. So since you admitted your preferences, please drop the false exploitation argument and just stick to your values. Since I am a left-leaning person, I value the people in the developing world as much as Americans, so I would support free trade without any hesitation any day. It's no admittance unless you really are not aware of my views, no shocker considering I'm very open with what my #1 care is. Ultimately like I said they are exploited to undercut us, which by definition is exploitation. Perhaps not in the manner you'd like to make it out due to you wanting a "gotcha", but it is exploitation on what I'm going off. Like I've told you, someone else having it worse does not mean you have to grin and bear it. No, you support free trade that feeds the rich with the hope that "some" of it will drip down, and foreigners are just there to be exploited though it'll be done benevolently by those real honest chaps the Corporations. I admit I support taking that away from them which will lead to a degradation of their life, if they will win a better life afterwards I don't know and ultimately I don't care as it stops being my business when the harm they're doing to us stops. However I do not wish to do things to take advantage of them, to treat them as lesser beings, to disrespect them, something which to me is exactly what you're doing though obviously you'd disagree which is fine. We see the world differently so it is to be expected. So I gather by that you're the so called "centre left" considering you're merely "leaning"? Not surprising if so, near indistinguishable from their "opponents" outside fighting some meager social issues and dressing the economic stuff to sound a bit nicer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kemal Ergenekon Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 It's no admittance unless you really are not aware of my views, no shocker considering I'm very open with what my #1 care is. Ultimately like I said they are exploited to undercut us, which by definition is exploitation. Perhaps not in the manner you'd like to make it out due to you wanting a "gotcha", but it is exploitation on what I'm going off. Like I've told you, someone else having it worse does not mean you have to grin and bear it. No, you support free trade that feeds the rich with the hope that "some" of it will drip down, and foreigners are just there to be exploited though it'll be done benevolently by those real honest chaps the Corporations. I admit I support taking that away from them which will lead to a degradation of their life, if they will win a better life afterwards I don't know and ultimately I don't care as it stops being my business when the harm they're doing to us stops. However I do not wish to do things to take advantage of them, to treat them as lesser beings, to disrespect them, something which to me is exactly what you're doing though obviously you'd disagree which is fine. We see the world differently so it is to be expected. So I gather by that you're the so called "centre left" considering you're merely "leaning"? Not surprising if so, near indistinguishable from their "opponents" outside fighting some meager social issues and dressing the economic stuff to sound a bit nicer. You still cannot admit that you are wrong, but I guess I will have to accept your inability to admit it as is. A shame really. No, I do not support free trade that feeds the rich with the hope that some of it will drip down. I know for a fact that free trade improved the lives of billions in the developing world. Would their lives be even better if the corporations also distributed their profits to them? Of course they would be. But that's not the world that we live in. If we wanted to do that, it would be through taxing the profits of the rich and redistributing them to their workers; not through protectionism. And since we know you don't care about redistribution to the people in the developing world per se, your line of argumentation dies here. Actually, those "evil corporations" "exploiting" the people in the developing world take their profits and spend it in the US; so the wages of the American people in the service sector go up. Also, the cheap manufacturing out in the developing world supports high skill managerial and research and development jobs here in the United States. The production might happen in Taiwan or wherever, but all of that stuff is designed in the US. I am a leftist that believes the markets work if you prevent people from exploiting them, and if you make it as meritocratic as possible. I would support close to 100% estate taxes as well as very high wealth taxes for the top 1%, and redistribute it to the rest of the people according to merit. Markets aren't the problem; neither is free trade. The problem is how wealth is obtained and transferred. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rozalia Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 You still cannot admit that you are wrong, but I guess I will have to accept your inability to admit it as is. A shame really. No, I do not support free trade that feeds the rich with the hope that some of it will drip down. I know for a fact that free trade improved the lives of billions in the developing world. Would their lives be even better if the corporations also distributed their profits to them? Of course they would be. But that's not the world that we live in. If we wanted to do that, it would be through taxing the profits of the rich and redistributing them to their workers; not through protectionism. And since we know you don't care about redistribution to the people in the developing world per se, your line of argumentation dies here. Actually, those "evil corporations" "exploiting" the people in the developing world take their profits and spend it in the US; so the wages of the American people in the service sector go up. Also, the cheap manufacturing out in the developing world supports high skill managerial and research and development jobs here in the United States. The production might happen in Taiwan or wherever, but all of that stuff is designed in the US. I am a leftist that believes the markets work if you prevent people from exploiting them, and if you make it as meritocratic as possible. I would support close to 100% estate taxes as well as very high wealth taxes for the top 1%, and redistribute it to the rest of the people according to merit. Markets aren't the problem; neither is free trade. The problem is how wealth is obtained and transferred. Again you keep trying to mark down victories on things that I've said and you've acknowledged don't matter. Their exploitation has an effect on our own, hence I care as far as that goes. Going on constantly about how "you won't admit you're wrong" when I have already told you how I defined it, why I define it as such, and you have acknowledged I have defined it in such a manner is most odd. The same service sector that is going overseas too? Thats a winner you got there indeed. Yes, the rich all invest all their money. Banks are always running on money shortages considering the large amounts of money the rich folk are emptying out of their accounts to invest in the country. And how do you want this change exactly, gradual is it? With compromises too? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spite Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 Man works in rural china on his family farm. He is the youngest of three brothers and won't inherit the farm when his father dies. He doesn't earn any money but he gets enough food to survive and his mother and sisters make clothes for trade. He hears that a factory has opened nearby manufacturing latex products, gloves etc. He moves into a small room which he shares with two other men in a nearby city and gets a job at the factory. Now he earns a wage, and he sends a little home to his family. His parents save the money and his eldest nephew goes to school. He works there for a while, and then another factory opens, this one produces cheap socks. With competition, the wage for an experienced factory worker goes up. After a little hesitation, the man moves to the new factory and becomes a shift manager. Some time later, he uses the money he saved to buy a small apartment in the city. He meets his partner, a young woman working the night shift at his factory, and they get married. Around a year later they have their child, a son. Due to having two wages, the couple can afford to send their son to school. Rising industrialisation gradually increases both their wages, and they buy a TV, furniture, and a computer. The child grows up with access to these things and to books. Although his parents are both factory workers, they have hopes that he will go further. He graduates from school aged 18 and gets a place at a local technical college. His parents can afford to help pay for his tuition and living costs from their savings. He graduates with a qualification in technical engineering. He is hired by a large multinational phone manufacturer to oversee the installation of new machinery in their factories. Some twenty years later, he and his new wife wave goodbye to their daughter as she boards the plane to study economics in America. Or alternatively, they all live on a dirt farm and eat corn and Wear rags. This is a pattern which is repeating itself across the globe on a daily basis. You can't compare wages to what we get paid. You can only compare them to what they would otherwise get paid if those jobs did not exist. Up-skilling is the path to economic growth and corporations are the major driver of probing those sort of opportunities. 3 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...
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.