I only say that becuase he doesn't use economics in his riff of Free Trade. He doesn't have to agree with me on points that are up for economic debate.

For instance, if he wrote in his article "Because when supply increases, ceteris paribus, price goes up" would it suddenly make it solid economics?

12/1/2006 1:08:42 PM

Has there ever been a time where you've refuted something with facts instead of your "I'm better than everyone else" schtick?

12/1/2006 1:10:48 PM

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/FreeTrade.html

Yes, once. Has there ever been a time that you added to debate using coherent logic?

12/1/2006 1:11:49 PM

such logic as what? "He's a fear monger" "he doesn't know what he is talking about"

Why don't you try typing something in your own words instead of just copy and pasting links.

12/1/2006 1:14:15 PM

I did. I explained the benefits of free trade in this thread. I thought if some guy from Princeton told you the same thing, you might pay attention.

What is the economic problem with free trade? Key word is ECONOMIC.

12/1/2006 1:15:22 PM

I'm waiting for you to understand that economics forgets about the person and sees them solely as monetary value. Sure, there isn't an economic problem with free trade, but there is a social problem with it.

But once again, you are limiting the debate to parameters that you want. Consider that Lou Dobbs was speaking both economically and socially.

[Edited on December 1, 2006 at 1:18 PM. Reason : .]

12/1/2006 1:17:52 PM

I have no problem with accepting Dobbs' editorial as a social commentary, but it most certainly did not come from economics.

So, let us discuss it on parameters you would prefer. What is the social problem with free trade?

12/1/2006 1:20:34 PM

It's exploitive and does not benefit the worker/producer. Its sole purpose is to support the corporations.

[Edited on December 1, 2006 at 1:28 PM. Reason : .]

12/1/2006 1:23:17 PM

Ok, before I respond to that I want to clarify it. It is exploitative to which workers, the one's that take the shitty job in some other country?

The same workers you say it does not benefit?

12/1/2006 1:25:59 PM

That's exactly what I'm saying. And since when is manufacturing a shitty job?

Free trade allows companies avoid labor standards in one country by producing it in another that has no such labor standards. See: China.

Just because someone is employed, does not mean that they aren't being exploited.

12/1/2006 1:29:52 PM

Ok, so we know what we're talking about then. I wasn't calling manufacturing a shitty job, I was calling sweatshop labor for bad pay a shitty job.

Here is an article that is fairly balanced on whether globalization helps the poor. It has counterpoints as well, which I'm sure you'll find to your liking.
http://sciam.com/print_version.cfm?articleID=0004B7FD-C4E6-1421-84E683414B7F0101

Quote :

"In poor Asian economies, such as Bangladesh, Vietnam and Cambodia, large numbers of women now have work in garment export factories. Their wages are low by world standards but much higher than they would earn in alternative occupations. Advocates who worry about exploitative sweatshops have to appreciate the relative improvement in these women's conditions and status. An Oxfam report in 2002 quoted Rahana Chaudhuri, a 23-year-old mother working in the garment industry in Bangladesh: This job is hard--and we are not treated fairly. The managers do not respect us women. But life is much harder for those working outside. Back in my village, I would have less money. Outside of the factories, people selling things in the street or carrying bricks on building sites earn less than we do. There are few other options. Of course, I want better conditions. But for me this job means that my children will have enough to eat and that their lives can improve. "

Quote :

"Another indication of this relative improvement can be gauged by what happens when such opportunities disappear. In 1993, anticipating a U.S. ban on imports of products made using child labor, the garment industry in Bangladesh dismissed an estimated 50,000 children. UNICEF and local aid groups investigated what happened to them. About 10,000 children went back to school, but the rest ended up in much inferior occupations, including stone breaking and child prostitution. That does not excuse the appalling working conditions in the sweatshops, let alone the cases of forced or unsafe labor, but advocates must recognize the severely limited existing opportunities for the poor and the possible unintended consequences of "fair trade" policies. "

Quote :

"Reduced protectionism. The major hurdle many poor countries face is not too much globalization but too little. It is hard for the poor of the world to climb out of poverty when rich countries (as well as the poor ones themselves) restrict imports and subsidize their own farmers and manufacturers. The annual loss to developing countries as a group from agricultural tariffs and subsidies in rich countries is estimated to be $45 billion; their annual loss from trade barriers on textile and clothing is estimated to be $24 billion. The toll exceeds rich countries' foreign aid to poor countries. Of course, the loss is not equally distributed among poor countries. Some would benefit more than others if these import restrictions and subsidies were lifted. "

It is clear from many studies that sweatshop jobs in corporations have been better both economically and physically than most other options available in the developing world.

If they are being exploited, wouldn't it be better for them to find a better opportunity elsewhere? Unfortunately there aren't any better opportunities for them. Thus, while you may think that them being employed is not a sign that they aren't being exploited, I'd say that it most likely is. And even if you can say that you can be exploited through your lack of better choice, wouldn't you also agree that being paid shitty wages is not necessarily a sign they ARE being exploited?

I mean, if the wage is good compared to their other options, why is that exploitative?

12/1/2006 1:35:28 PM

you are making me want to hit my head on the wall.

Quote :

"This job is hard--and we are not treated fairly. The managers do not respect us women. But life is much harder for those working outside. Back in my village, I would have less money. Outside of the factories, people selling things in the street or carrying bricks on building sites earn less than we do. There are few other options. Of course, I want better conditions. But for me this job means that my children will have enough to eat and that their lives can improve. ""

THis is the definition of exploitation. Furthermore, because there aren't any better options, the workers are more or less forced to continue to work there. Again, that is exploitation. Likewise, I cannot help but laugh at you because you are supporting child labor. The sweat shops are basically positioning themselves as the only game in town, thus they can do what they want. Now if there were labor standards, safety standards, and environmental standards, the quality of life in those towns would be far superior.

Just look at what happened in the United States when fair labor practices were put in place. Manufacturing towns flourished as the over all wealth and health of the community was protected.

12/1/2006 1:43:25 PM

With all due respect, the flourishing that you are talking about began before the institution of labor standards. In fact, they happened as a benefit of the flourishing. When people get wealthy enough, they will decide it is better to have their children in school rather than work, because they no longer need their work to help feed the family.

You can laugh at me all you want, because I do support child labor. When the society gets rich enough that children have better options, and their families don't starve to death because of it, then they will reduce the use of child labor. It happened the same way in this country many many years ago.

How is offering people a better choice exploitative? You say they set themselves up as the only game in town. Perhaps that was because there were NO OTHER games in town before. Short of hauling bricks, digging through garbage, or prostitution. I fail to see how it is exploitative if their other options are worse. Do you honestly think that factories will pay better wages if you mandate them to by law? They are far more likely to shut down and move to a place with more productive workers, or simply choose not to exist at all because their profit opportunity was driven down to a point of not even covering their opportunity cost of capital.

12/1/2006 2:01:57 PM

Quote :

"I do support child labor."

a quote for the ages

12/1/2006 2:03:37 PM

You can use it all you want. But you might want to put the rest of the parahraph in for context.

http://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/smokey.html

Check this economic editorial out.

[Edited on December 1, 2006 at 2:11 PM. Reason : .]

12/1/2006 2:08:32 PM

God bless his soul.

I admire this man so much.

12/1/2006 2:49:35 PM

i dont see how having kids work at 8 and them most likely die early in life is helping anyone and even if it is I refuse to accept it as a possible route to not having child labor.

im sorry bgmims but you are completely stripping the rights of the individual and placing the state, which would be the economy in this case, above them. This is breaking every bit of reason and morals that I have.


also...why dont the Jew praise the holocaust because its obviously what got them Israel. They should be happy abunch of them died to better the rest.

12/1/2006 4:24:40 PM

Quote :

"im sorry bgmims but you are completely stripping the rights of the individual and placing the state, which would be the economy in this case, above them. This is breaking every bit of reason and morals that I have."

So, in essence, in order to ensure they have rights, we need to enforce upon them restrictions on their rights? So it is in your morals to allow the child to starve to death, rather than to toil at a sweatshop and be able to eat?
(On a side note, did you read the Krugman piece? I think it does a good job showing the head-in-the-sand position of said morality as a cop-out)

I'm not sure I follow the reference between Jews and Israel. I mean, if you are asking how many of them would trade Israel to avoid the Holocaust, I'd be willing to say a lot. If you look back into your own family tree (or the children at work in foreign sweatshops) I'd think many of them would not trade the wages and betterment they received in order to avoid having worked long, tedious, dangerous hours.

12/1/2006 4:50:21 PM

false dilema

12/1/2006 4:54:11 PM

i would rather the child not die from lung cancer at 12 and not starve to death.

Any situation where the only choices are child labor or starving to death is not disired and imo completely removes an individuals right to life.

if this is a case there is a serious flaw in the government and economy and I dont approve of the government in question

12/1/2006 5:02:29 PM

Ok, well I guess their choices aren't always "starving to death" or "sweatshop"
But often those are the only choices.

And at any rate, when people (not children forced by their parents) take jobs in those sweatshops it does show that the benefit from their other choices doesn't add up to enough to continue doing it.

Now, forced labor is wrong. The slavery associated with prostitution and some jobs is certainly something that is ok to try to prevent through trade. But the voluntary exchange of labor for money would not happen if both parties weren't made better by it. I mean, if they had better choices, why would they take the job?

Quote :

"Any situation where the only choices are child labor or starving to death is not disired and imo completely removes an individuals right to life. "

What about jobs that don't pose hazards to the health of the child? Is it ok to do those jobs rather than starve?

[Edited on December 1, 2006 at 5:03 PM. Reason : .]

12/1/2006 5:02:58 PM

^ people do not accept jobs at sweatshops they are forced into it because there is no other option. This is completely objectable and is no way to build a healthy economy. Any government who practices this is an enemy to humanity and is in no way helping the people and should be removed.

also young children do not have the ability to make choices on their and by them working it is comparible to slave labor. Also if someone is so poor they have to make their children work how in the world are 100% of the jobs going to be devoid of hazards.

also I think the difference is that you take starvation as the only other option to child labor. This is like choosing between being stabbed or shot imo.

12/1/2006 5:11:10 PM

Quote :

" people do not accept jobs at sweatshops they are forced into it because there is no other option."

Well, what is the alternative? You say they have no other option, but my assertion that starvation is the other option is a false dilemma.

What does this have to do with governments? A government that stops sweatshop labor is only hurting its people in the long run.

12/1/2006 5:15:00 PM

Quote :

"A government that stops sweatshop labor is only hurting its people in the long run."

so did the US government's regulation of labor all those years ago hurt us?

12/1/2006 5:18:05 PM

^^ no the other option is a change in government which is whats obviously causing the lack of option to begin with. If government isnt helping its people than what is the point of government. If the people of a country have only two options....starve...or work in a sweatshop than the government of that country should be removed by its people. Anygovernment that only leaves these options for its people is worth nothing in the world community.

[Edited on December 1, 2006 at 5:23 PM. Reason : !!]

12/1/2006 5:19:58 PM

sar, yes, in a sense.

First, most sweatshop and child labor was already gone by the time we implemented a forcive stop of it. Those that were still working in it when we banned it were made worse off. Now, collectively the government stepped in with safety-net programs to boost those made worse off by it. So, they weren't necessarily worse off monetarily, but the entire country was made worse economically as a corollary.

Was that ok? Sure, we could afford to take care of those that would otherwise starve and we didn't mind giving up some economic gains in order to increase our "quality of life."

But is doesn't mean we should force other countries to skip the stage that was greatly helpful to our economy, and the root cause of our current success.

Quote :

"^^ all I have to say is that what you're proposing is completely wrong."

What is it that I'm "proposing"?

[Edited on December 1, 2006 at 5:23 PM. Reason : .]

Dental, maybe you misunderstand the power of the government. If all the people are poor, how is it going to pool the resources to stop the injustice? You first have to get wealth in the country before you can go about redistributing it.

[Edited on December 1, 2006 at 5:25 PM. Reason : .]

12/1/2006 5:23:26 PM

being poor does not mean you're starving.

being poor is not a bad thing. Most countries will in no way gain the wealth to become a world power. Changing from a farming country most likely ran by a king optaining a large amount of the wealth to a country with factories with a king or rulers optaining all of the wealth is not favorable. The outcome of this will most likely be the increase in wealth of a few and the continued poverty of the rest. When you start out as a dictatorship more wealth will not remove the dictatorship unless the people remove it.

[Edited on December 1, 2006 at 5:40 PM. Reason : 're]

12/1/2006 5:39:53 PM

Dental, you're right about that. If you have a corrupt government that perhaps runs the sweatshops (directly or indirectly) and robs the earnings from the people, then they will never be better off.

So, in that vein, corruption should be fought tooth and nail, and I agree with you on that point. But in a free (or somewhat free) economy whereby the pittances the people earn will be enough to get by and possibly save a little up for the future, then these wages are a good thing.

Also, on your insistence that being poor wasn't that bad: Why do you think consenting adults would take a shitty jobs? If things aren't bad, why would they bother?

12/1/2006 5:42:41 PM

i was refering to being in a country with little money isnt always bad. If you enjoy your life and do whatever on your rice field or potato farm then good for you. As long as you're free then I see no problem with being in a preceived state of poverty............for example bushmen.

also I would say a large portion of countries which are "free" and democracy based already have endured the industrial revolution. Those countries that havent are ruined by poor managment which will result in a cluster fuck which has in many central american countries or have extremly oppressive governments which steal the earnings and keep the people in poverty much like North Korea and the majority of Africa.

Just letting this shit fly and letting Nike making bank is wrong and should be stopped. We cant really invade every country though and the funny thing is Iraq wasnt doing any of this shit because of all the dame oil money.

haha lame.

12/1/2006 5:49:06 PM

Quote :

"i was refering to being in a country with little money isnt always bad. If you enjoy your life and do whatever on your rice field or potato farm then good for you. As long as you're free then I see no problem with being in a preceived state of poverty............for example bushmen."

Well if people are very happy in their state of self-sustinence, then they simply wouldn't take a job at the factory. They would only do it if they feel they would be made better off by it.

But I do concede the point that you need to make sure corrupt governments aren't a major obstacle. What you don't have to ensure is that the wage paid is at some arbitrarily defined level of "fair".

12/1/2006 6:01:40 PM

Quote :

"An area where you have zero training"

I have training in that subject. Just because I didn't major in it, doesn't mean I haven't trained in it.

Quote :

"You don't have the slightest clue about it"

More ad hominiem.

Quote :

"well, in this, however, you simply appeal to this "de facto disadvantage""

I've gone into more than that and you've yet to talk about anything more than the business degree that you got at an engineering school.

Quote :

"why the hell should we be upset about that?"

Because reduction of competition results in an ineffective market mechanism.

Quote :

"They're doing us a favor. Poor countries are willing to take our pollution-heavy, back-breaking labor so that we can focus on more productive uses of our time AND then they will sell us the same goods at lower prices than we were producign them ourselves."

Who's using social justification now?

Quote :

"The argument comes in whether protecting jobs trumps efficiency."

That's just what you think because you don't like to look at all the possible economic ramifications, and you won't consider any arguement agianst it because you so steadfastly believe that god himself said that international free trade was always econmically good.

What you're doing here is considering me wrong without even examining my arguement simply because you disagree with it so strongly. This is subjective, whether you like to consider it or not.

12/1/2006 6:07:34 PM

well in a free society the wage should fix itself once money is made and the business owners and ruling officals dont remove a large portion of the money from the working class. I agree with that.

but what completely free and democratic country has not already had an industrial revolution? Also are there any countries with enough resources to continue this wealth like the US has?

Look at Brazil. They have been through their "industrial revolution" and still huge numbers of its population live in a state of poverty that makes our worst ghetto look like Beverly Hills. How is this going to be fixed when there already is a huge amount of wealth in the country and its just distributed in a horrible fastion.



[Edited on December 1, 2006 at 6:10 PM. Reason : also, kris, it sucks when you do that quote shit and makes the thread dumb]

12/1/2006 6:08:56 PM

Well, Brazil is not through with its industrial revolution yet. You're right that there is still abject poverty while there is ridiculous wealth in other areas. I'd say Brazil is on the correct path, they just need more time. In fact, all of South America is a great example of where companies are going to find cheap labor, but not necessarily the terrible conditions that are connoted by enemies of globalization.

I'm not sure which countries have yet to go through their revolutions that are "free" but I know that we should encourage freedom with our policies, in order to help out in the industrialization process.

I'd say India and South Korea are good examples of where this process has worked very well. Others are sure to follow, if only we can keep the corruption down. That's Africa's main problem. The tribalism and cronyism completely chokes the system.

12/1/2006 6:56:39 PM

On what basis do you make the claim that Brazil is not yet finished with their Industrial Revolution?

Quote :

"I'd say India and South Korea are good examples of where this process has worked very well. Others are sure to follow, if only we can keep the corruption down. That's Africa's main problem. The tribalism and cronyism completely chokes the system."

India still suffers from rampant proverty and is subject to a caste system. Likewise you cannot make the argument that Africa is screwed because of rampant cronyism and tribalism and in the same breathe say india is a sucess story when those problems are happening in India just as much as they are in Africa.

12/1/2006 8:30:25 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newly_industrialized_countries

Quote :

"NICs are countries whose economies have not yet reached first world status but have, in a macroeconomic sense, outpaced their third world counterparts. Another characterization of NIC's is that of nations undergoing rapid economic growth (usually export-oriented). Incipient or ongoing industrialization is an important indicator of a NIC."

Quote :

"NICs usually share some other common features, including: Increased social freedoms and civil rights. A switch from agricultural to industrial economies, especially in the manufacturing sector. An increasingly "open" economy, allowing for free trade with its neighbours, such as that obtained by joining a trade bloc. "

BTW, Brazil and India are in that group. The only country in Africa in it is South Africa...

[Edited on December 1, 2006 at 8:42 PM. Reason : []

12/1/2006 8:42:40 PM

so are you going to answer my question?

12/1/2006 8:47:24 PM

I would say that Brazil is through with its industrialization. Their cities are extremely advanced and the populations in those cities have everything Americans have. I have a friend who lives in south Brazil and they're lives are very similar to ares. Yet they have huge areas of people living in extreme poverty. Its not like Africa were very few live rich lives, they have a large middle class.

They have had several dictators. Which proves my point.

12/1/2006 9:13:50 PM

What question? The one where you asked my basis and I gave a citation?

Also, India has the same problems as Africa with tribalism and cronyism? Give me a break.

12/1/2006 9:49:12 PM

Brazil is industrialized.

IM CALLIN IT OUT

12/2/2006 1:27:36 AM

^^have you heard of the caste system?

also, you said Brazil wasn't through their industrial revolution, but india was, but your proof refutes what you said. Likewise it doesn't answer my statements about poverty in India.

[Edited on December 2, 2006 at 2:06 AM. Reason : .\]

12/2/2006 2:06:28 AM

did you hear they still have the plague

THE PLAGUE

12/2/2006 2:09:41 AM

ping.

Microsoft is competing for my labor against all the other corporations operating in Raleigh. If Nike opens up a sweatshop in Bangladesh then it will be competing for the labor of the locals against all the other possible employers. How is forbidding Nike from employing workers in Bangladesh not similar to forbidding Microsoft from employing me?

It seems to me the reason for low wages is a lack of competition for employees, so how is throwing out competitors a solution? If I had my way, everyone would open a factory: Nike, Reebok, Guess, GAP, and every manufacturer in contact with Wal-Mart. Then the locals will have real alternatives. "If you want me to work for you, Nike, then you must offer better conditions than GAP." If, given this slew of alternatives, the locals still want to work on the farm then so be it.

And simply requiring by law high wages and good working conditions does not make it so. If Nike had to pay high wages wherever it went then it would not go anywhere, all the shoes would be made by robots in Japan, and instead of employing 3000 workers in Bangladesh to make the shoes by hand it would employ 30 Japanese technicians to fix the robots. Even if you force Nike to open the factory in Bangladesh they are still going to opt for robots, leaving 2970 people unemployed that would have otherwise had jobs.

12/2/2006 8:54:17 AM

i wish everything worked by a nice little model.

also we have already addressed this LoneSnark. How is the standard of living going to increase because of these factories if the government in which the factories are moving to is corrupt and oppressive. The money does not stay in the hands of the worker but instead goes to the hands of the corrupt officials. In your little perfect situation model everyone gets to choose where they work and no one gets exploited. Now if there comes a point when Bangladesh does morph into a first world country than I will applaud it but until then I call shenanigans

12/2/2006 9:21:17 AM

But Dental, how is the standard of living going to increase without the factories, even if the government stops being corrupt? They are poor because of corruption, regardless of the existance of the factories. So don't waste your time fighting Nike, go fight corruption in Bangladesh. If you win your battle against corruption then the factories will be there to breed higher living standards.

12/2/2006 11:10:35 AM

^I think a lot of people understand that Lone.

Understandably, they have trouble seeing a sweatshop job as a positive, and it makes them feel dirty. It takes a lot of effort to change that line of thinking because the negative consequences of taking those jobs away is less visible.

12/2/2006 11:33:13 AM

god damn, every thread seems to go bgmims vs nutsmacker

12/2/2006 11:47:56 AM

Yeah, his name ought to be nuthumper becuase he never gets off my nuts.

12/2/2006 12:09:01 PM

Quote :

"It seems to me the reason for low wages is a lack of competition for employees, so how is throwing out competitors a solution?"

It seems to me that the low wages are a result of marketpower, considering the level of monopsony created by opening a whole new group of laborers to the already small number of corporations that can afford to build and manage shops overseas.

Oh, yeah, no one actually likes to address real economic discussion on this besides beating off to how great they think it is.

12/2/2006 1:16:55 PM

Quote :

"But Dental, how is the standard of living going to increase without the factories, even if the government stops being corrupt? They are poor because of corruption, regardless of the existance of the factories. So don't waste your time fighting Nike, go fight corruption in Bangladesh. If you win your battle against corruption then the factories will be there to breed higher living standards."

Nike helps perpetuate the corruption because they can feed off it. Furthermore, in countries like Bangladesh, the workers are not from the local labor force, rather they are agrarian workers who are shipped into the factories and live at these factories. I wish people would actually see these corporations for what they are instead of viewing them as altruistic organizations.

Maybe if Nike actually provided a quality work environment with standards one would find in America I wouldn't have a problem, but as it stands, nike knows full well when they set up shop in these countries that they can get away with treating their employees like shit.

12/2/2006 2:16:38 PM

Quote :

"It seems to me that the low wages are a result of marketpower, considering the level of monopsony created by opening a whole new group of laborers to the already small number of corporations that can afford to build and manage shops overseas. Oh, yeah, no one actually likes to address real economic discussion on this besides beating off to how great they think it is. "

I'm perfectly willing to discuss the economics behind it, but I need you to explain what you're even talking about.

New job opportunites = monopsony? You said they got along fine before the corporations showed up, so how is adding 1 more job opportunity suddenly some kind of monopsony?

Quote :

"Nike helps perpetuate the corruption because they can feed off it. "

How would giving up part of their profits be better than keeping them all?
And who sees corporations as altruistic? None of us. We all see them as selfish enterprises. It just so happens that they help out to general populace through their selfishness. What's the big problem with workers moving to be near jobs? That's how we got cities in the first place. It wasn't as if there was a big bunch of people chilling out with no jobs in Detroit and then miraculously these jobs showed up.

[Edited on December 2, 2006 at 2:21 PM. Reason : .]

12/2/2006 2:19:38 PM