NationStates Jolt Archive

I refuse to contribute to the suffering of other living things.
I refuse to contribute to the destruction of the environment.
I refuse to support those who kill.
I refuse to judge my worth by my material belongings.
I refuse to be a target market.
I refuse to think that it’s okay.

I will not buy anything made from animals.
I will not buy anything made in sweatshops.
I will not watch Channel Seven, Channel Nine, Channel Ten, or buy any forms of media published by these companies.
I will not put money in my ING DIRECT account
I will not look at advertisements with anything but disdain.
I will not buy anything made from materials with questionable origin
I will not buy anything from:
–AOL Time Warner
–Altria
–General Motors
–Ford
–Woolworths
–Microsoft
–any fast food chain
–any big clothes brand
I will do everything in my power to reduce my footprint on this Earth.
I will not deny myself pleasures.
I will not live in a wooden hut.
I will keep in touch with technology.
I will be successful in my life.
I will do what I WANT to do, not what multinational corporations want me to do.

Personal success, freedom, happiness and self-worth come from knowing you are an independently thinking person. Why do you think all these companies are advertising their products as making you an individual, allowing you to express ‘your’ style. Do you really believe that if you buy that shirt with a rip down it and messy writing all over it you are standing up for something? That you are being yourself? You’re not, you’re giving your money to a corporation that exploits, tortures and kills people, animals and the environment. Most of all, you look and act like everyone else your age, you are not independent, you are a sheep.
——————
Milk is not good for you; the dairy industry is not a charity organization. Do you really think they pour all that money into advertising dairy products because they want to improve the health status of the population?
Illegal drugs are not automatically worse than legal ones. Taking an illegal drug will not automatically transform you into “one of those” – and just because you just turned 18 doesn’t mean drinking and smoking yourself blue in the face will not harm you.
If it breaks, don't buy a new one. If a product breaks before it reaches it’s fifth birthday it is made from a corporation that is ripping you, and the environment, off something chronic. Replace it with a similar product that you can rely on lasting.
—————

DO SOMETHING! Don’t be lazy! Think for yourself. You CAN do it. You do have your own style, your own taste, your own values, your own thoughts and your own control over yourself. Don't accept what fat, ugly executives of big corporations tell you what your style, your tastes, your values and your thoughts are. You’re beautiful, and eating McDonalds, smoking Philip Morris cigarettes and wearing Billabong clothes are only going to corrupt that. REFUSE!



(I'm Australian, so some of this will be country-specific and therefore alien to others - but with globalisation it shouldn't be that different.)

Won't watch Seven, Nine or Ten. Ha, Your stuck with all those aboriginal documentaries on the ABC then. And do you have to advertise that you're an Australian after that big rant, It may embarrass some of us.

Won't watch Seven, Nine or Ten. Ha, Your stuck with all those aboriginal documentaries on the ABC then. And do you have to advertise that you're an Australian after that big rant, It may embarrass some of us.

Or you could just not watch TV.

...and hmm, certain political beliefs are embarrassing because perhaps they do not conform with the majority? I think you need to think about that one.

Or you could just not watch TV.

...and hmm, certain political beliefs are embarrassing because perhaps they do not conform with the majority? I think you need to think about that one.

What fun is that?

Or you could just not watch TV.

...and hmm, certain political beliefs are embarrassing because perhaps they do not conform with the majority? I think you need to think about that one.

Just curious, what gender are you?

What fun is that?

Oh, I see, TV is the only medium of entertainment available to us, isn't it? :p :)

Just curious, what gender are you?

I'm male - if you're wondering about the "uber spamgirl" thing, it's a jolt tag.

It's quite impossible to keep in touch with technology without giving money to companies you don't like.
It's also not doing everything you can to reduce your footprint.

Being too black and white won't help anyone. Otherwise a nice starter.

I refuse to take seriously personal manifestos posted in a forum.

Oh, I see, TV is the only medium of entertainment available to us, isn't it? :p :)



I'm male.

It does provide a great amount of entertainment. You'd get sick of the net or a games console pretty quickly.

Yes, I just saw your picture. The one of you with a bowl on you head, wielding a Jack Daniels bottle.

So, your in Melbourne. When I went to melbourne I hated it. Too many people. And the streets in adelaide aren't inscribed with profane comments about my mother.

It does provide a great amount of entertainment. You'd get sick of the net or a games console pretty quickly.

Read? Music? Go out?

I prefer to involve my brain in my leisure somehow.

Yes, I just saw your picture. The one of you with a bowl on you head, wielding a Jack Daniels bottle.

So, your in Melbourne. When I went to melbourne I hated it. Too many people. And the streets in adelaide aren't inscribed with profane comments about my mother.

I was born in Adelaide. I could never go back. It feels too small, and I have an unexplained fear of mullets.

I will not buy anything made in sweatshops.
Why not buy things from sweatshops? Surely workers in Indonesia and Vietnam need you to support their work more than richer workers in Europe or American do? Japan used to be full of sweatshops, now it's not. Surely it's best to get countries through the sweatshop phase as quickly as possible instead of stretching out the amount of time they have to spend in poverty by reducing demand for their products and switching demand to rich countries instead?

Why not buy things from sweatshops? Surely workers in Indonesia and Vietnam need you to support their work more than richer workers in Europe or American do? Japan used to be full of sweatshops, now it's not. Surely it's best to get countries through the sweatshop phase as quickly as possible instead of stretching out the amount of time they have to spend in poverty by reducing demand for their products and switching demand to rich countries instead?
Why not buy things made in Indonesian factories which are not sweatshops? Why not demand that your mobile phone producers pay at least the legal minimum wage?

Why not buy things made in Indonesian factories which are not sweatshops? Why not demand that your mobile phone producers pay at least the legal minimum wage?
Huh?

Why not buy things from sweatshops? Surely workers in Indonesia and Vietnam need you to support their work more than richer workers in Europe or American do? Japan used to be full of sweatshops, now it's not. Surely it's best to get countries through the sweatshop phase as quickly as possible instead of stretching out the amount of time they have to spend in poverty by reducing demand for their products and switching demand to rich countries instead?

It's my theory that Japan developed from that stage in part because it's reindustrialisation was necessary to provide support for the war in Korea, as a Eastern-asian buffer against communism. Its development was in the best interest of the USA. You'll carefully note that all of the newly-industrialised nations of the late 20th century have been strategically important to US interests.

What incentive is there to develop modern third-world nations past the sweatshop phase of development, though? None, because in our present system we need someone to make the cheap shirts. Furthermore, how much profit per item actually goes back to the workers, particularly when you're paying at least $30 for one of these shirts?

Buying sweatshop clothing is encouraging companies to exploit workers. Pressure needs to be put on them so that they realise it's in their best interest to improve the working conditions and pay-rates of sweatshop labour. (not to mention eliminating child-workers)

Read? Music? Go out?

I prefer to involve my brain in my leisure somehow.



I was born in Adelaide. I could never go back. It feels too small, and I have an unexplained fear of mullets.

I suppose. I don't watch very much television. But it's the principal of the matter. No one should choose ABC over Ten.

I can never go back to Melbourne. I have an unexplained fear of people. Adelaide's just perfect (short of a secluded siberian forrest).

I can never go back to Melbourne. I have an unexplained fear of people. Adelaide's just perfect (short of a secluded siberian forrest).

Why not Hobart? :p

Why not Hobart? :p

I've been told that all people from Hobart are homosexual. That sorta put me off.

I've been told that all people from Hobart are homosexual. That sorta put me off.

No, that's Sydney. :p

In Hobart, they have two heads.

Huh?
You think that every single factory in Indonesia/Vietnam etc is a sweatshop?
The fact that a factory is located to South East Asia does not mean that we should pay them next to nothing. We can afford to pay them the minimum wage. We are purposefully keeping them behind so that we'll have cheap labour in the future too.

No, that's Sydney. :p

In Hobart, they have two heads.

Wait a minute. I thought Sydney was the city were they wear hats on their feet.

Wait a minute. I thought Sydney was the city were they wear hats on their feet.

It's both. Remember, they have the Mardi Gras there.

ABC (http://www.abc.net.au) and SBS (http://www.sbs.com.au) have really quality programming. Unless you consider game shows, decade-old American sitcoms repeated ad naseum, propaganda "news" shows and Big Brother good watching, it's not that hard to just delete them off your channel listing and never look back.
As far as radio goes, ABC's radio stations are pretty crap, unless you are into 702 (http://www.abc.net.au/sydney/). As far as good quality music by talented people goes, you can't go past FBi (http://www.fbi.org.au).
It's not impossible, or even that hard to give up all the commercial, generic shit I listed before. You just need to see past pretty shininess and discover your own personality.

Buying sweatshop clothing is encouraging companies to exploit workers. Pressure needs to be put on them so that they realise it's in their best interest to improve the working conditions and pay-rates of sweatshop labour. (not to mention eliminating child-workers)
Buying anything encourages companies to exploit any workers. Every company has an incentive to pay their workers as little as possible. It doesn't matter if that worker is making $20 an hour or $20 a week.

But what makes is possible for me to get $20 an hour or more rather than $2? Is it because pressure is put on companies where I live to pay a decent wage? Well it's not pressure from people in other countries and it's not pressure from people only buying products from companies that pay good wages. The reason I can get $20 an hour is that if anyone tries to pay me less, I can get a job with another company that will pay me $20 an hour.

Unfortunately, a textile worker in Indonesia doesn't have the choice of a $20 an hour job. You will find that people generally work in sweatshops because it's the best job they could get. Now if another texile company opens up and offers 10% higher wages for textile workers, then he has an option. The more stuff you buy from poor countries, the more likely more factories will be built that will push up wages.

When you look at the histories of all first world countries, you will see that it took time for them to get rich. I think it would be best if we helped them get rich as fast as possible. Not buying products from developing countries will almost surely have the opposite effect.

Now I think that it would be good to lend people in developing countries more of a hand than just buying their products. I also think foreign aid is a good idea.

As far as radio goes, ABC's radio stations are pretty crap,

Triple J is better than most, at least.

It [TV] does provide a great amount of entertainment. You'd get sick of the net or a games console pretty quickly.

I have not seen a running TV in 2005 yet. And I mean "seen" - not a glimpse of one.

I have yet to get sick of the net, unfortunately. I spend an average of sixty hours weekly gazing at a PC screen...

And do you have to advertise that you're an Australian after that big rant, It may embarrass some of us.[/QUOTE]

Not me mate. In fact if you dont mind i might "borrow" the whole quote and pass it round.

ABC (http://www.abc.net.au) and SBS (http://www.sbs.com.au) have really quality programming. Unless you consider game shows, decade-old American sitcoms repeated ad naseum, propaganda "news" shows and Big Brother good watching, it's not that hard to just delete them off your channel listing and never look back.
As far as radio goes, ABC's radio stations are pretty crap, unless you are into 702 (http://www.abc.net.au/sydney/). As far as good quality music by talented people goes, you can't go past FBi (http://www.fbi.org.au).
It's not impossible, or even that hard to give up all the commercial, generic shit I listed before. You just need to see past pretty shininess and discover your own personality.

Quality programming? All SBS is is a bunch of Sex and Soccer, all ABC is is a bunch of Aboriginal sympathy documentaries.

And do you have to advertise that you're an Australian after that big rant, It may embarrass some of us.

Not me mate. In fact if you dont mind i might "borrow" the whole quote and pass it round.[/QUOTE]

'Mate'? Damn I hate that stereotype. Just so the rest of you foreigners know, not all Australians use 'Mate' after every sentence.

<snip> rant </snip>My MP3 Player has no brand-name. Thus I am a soldier of the grand rebellion. Woo. Fight the power ... :rolleyes:

It's both. Remember, they have the Mardi Gras there.

Oh, yeah. So what's Perth then?

Triple J is better than most, at least.
FBi is like Triple J, just without the annoying crap.
It's hard to put your finger on, and sometimes a switch over to JJJ, but I'll never go all the way back.
It's ad free, plays music of a whole range of genres and does stuff like JJJ in those kind of ways... but it is focused on Sydney bands and events, and doesn't have annoying unfunny comedian hosts in the morning.

And do you have to advertise that you're an Australian after that big rant, It may embarrass some of us.[/QUOTE]

Not me mate. In fact if you dont mind i might "borrow" the whole quote and pass it round.

Buying anything encourages companies to exploit any workers. Every company has an incentive to pay their workers as little as possible. It doesn't matter if that worker is making $20 an hour or $20 a week.

This much is true.

But what makes is possible for me to get $20 an hour or more rather than $2? Is it because pressure is put on companies where I live to pay a decent wage? Well it's not pressure from people in other countries and it's not pressure from people only buying products from companies that pay good wages. The reason I can get $20 an hour is that if anyone tries to pay me less, I can get a job with another company that will pay me $20 an hour.

The reason we're getting wages like that is because historically, there *has* been pressure put on companies to increase wages. No, it hasn't come from outside, but from a little concept called the Labour Union. Unfortunately, most developing countries are very undemocratic, and labour unions are suppressed. Therefore, the most logical choice is to put pressure on the western corporations at their home and consumer source. If people won't buy the products produced by sweatshop labour, there is no incentive for them to continue exploiting these people. Therefore, they will make the decision to improve their working conditions.

Unfortunately, a textile worker in Indonesia doesn't have the choice of a $20 an hour job. You will find that people generally work in sweatshops because it's the best job they could get. Now if another texile company opens up and offers 10% higher wages for textile workers, then he has an option. The more stuff you buy from poor countries, the more likely more factories will be built that will push up wages.

Hmmm, not really. These industries in themselves aren't putting much wealth into the country, in contrast to how western societies developed. The key difference is that the profit from these industries is leaving the developing country and more than likely being invested in the home country of the corporation. So besides what meager amount travels into the pockets of the workers themselves, not a whole lot of good is being done for the country. Particularly with the textile industry. If the corporation pulled out and left all their textile factories behind, they wouldn't be much good for the nation.


Now I think that it would be good to lend people in developing countries more of a hand than just buying their products. I also think foreign aid is a good idea.

In some ways. As long as it's not tied to any sort of committment.

FBi is like Triple J, just without the annoying crap.
It's hard to put your finger on, and sometimes a switch over to JJJ, but I'll never go all the way back.
It's ad free, plays music of a whole range of genres and does stuff like JJJ in those kind of ways... but it is focused on Sydney bands and events, and doesn't have annoying unfunny comedian hosts in the morning.

Hm. I usually listen to Triple J late at night anyway though, where they play less mainstream stuff and have 3 hours of uninterrupted music. :)

Oh, yeah. So what's Perth then?

Perth is simply awesome. I used to live there too.

Quality programming? All SBS is is a bunch of Sex and Soccer, all ABC is is a bunch of Aboriginal sympathy documentaries.

Wow. You're homophobic, racist and generally uncultured and ignorant.
Great representative of Adelaide you are.

You think that every single factory in Indonesia/Vietnam etc is a sweatshop?

Pretty much. I can't think of too many factories in Vietnam or Indonesia that I'd like to work in. Except maybe that one factory in Vietnam where they make sweets on wooden tables under the trees. But even in the high tech places there are often long hours of work under difficult conditions. Even if people aren't sweating it's usually still pretty hard work.

The fact that a factory is located to South East Asia does not mean that we should pay them next to nothing. We can afford to pay them the minimum wage. We are purposefully keeping them behind so that we'll have cheap labour in the future too

We can afford to pay them more, but you must remember that American and European workers are much more skilled and better educated than Indonesians or Vietminese. The only advantage many developing countries have is cheap labour. If you take away the advantage of cheap labour there will be no incentive to build factories there and so the people will miss out on jobs.

As for purposefully keeping them behind so that we'll have cheap labour in the future, that might be what you do, but it's not what I do. It's very difficult to keep people in developing countries behind because they are just as smart as people in developing countries. My Grandfather built a factory in his backyard. His sons worked in it and he hired some workmen. He used to make quilts and repair furniture. He used to put pictures of Donald Duck on the quilts untill Disney caught up with him. By using his brains and learning skills, he got ahead. Yes, there are problems and terrible conditions in developing nations, but not buying products from these nations will keep people stuck in these terrible conditions longer.

It's obvious that you care about the plight of people in developing nations, but the best way to help them is to buy their products and to give more aid to help with health and education and women's rights.

If people won't buy the products produced by sweatshop labour, there is no incentive for them to continue exploiting these people. Therefore, they will make the decision to improve their working conditions.

Or build the factory in the U.S. instead. Or substitute automation instead of workers. Or decide it's not profitable and build no factory at all. You put too much faith in the goodwill of companies.
These industries in themselves aren't putting much wealth into the country,
What about the factory and the training they give to the workers? That's a lot better than nothing.

The key difference is that the profit from these industries is leaving the developing country and more than likely being invested in the home country of the corporation.
Without profit, no one will build a factory in the first place. As for where it will be invested, it will be invested where ever the company thinks it can make the most money. Maybe it will build another factory in a developing country, who knows? But you must remember that any Vietnam Dong leaving the country have to be spent on products from Vietnam. Trying walking into a store in America and putting your Dong on the counter and see what happens. Money can't disappear. The company isn't about to burn it. Dong only have value because they can buy Vietminese products. They will return to Vietnam.

If the corporation pulled out and left all their textile factories behind, they wouldn't be much good for the nation.

Couldn't people work in them and make textiles? And then sell the textiles to buy food and medicine and send their kids to school? And then the kids can grow up and be doctors and engineers and economists etc.

Pretty much. I can't think of too many factories in Vietnam or Indonesia that I'd like to work in. Except maybe that one factory in Vietnam where they make sweets on wooden tables under the trees. But even in the high tech places there are often long hours of work under difficult conditions. Even if people aren't sweating it's usually still pretty hard work.

I agree that most of them are. But there also factories which pay the minimum wage, don't force their labour to work overtime without pay etc. Of course their wage is small compared to ours, but that's not the case. They (the few) are working in conditions which are tolerable around there.


We can afford to pay them more, but you must remember that American and European workers are much more skilled and better educated than Indonesians or Vietminese. The only advantage many developing countries have is cheap labour. If you take away the advantage of cheap labour there will be no incentive to build factories there and so the people will miss out on jobs.
Even if the companies would pay minimum wages and provide proper working enviroments those countries would have the advantage of cheap labour. The question is HOW cheap. There is absolutely no reason to pay them as little as most companies do. You know that child labour is a huge problem around there. Companies hire kids because they can pay less to them than to adults. Often the parents are unemployed because their children do the work they should be doing.


As for purposefully keeping them behind so that we'll have cheap labour in the future, that might be what you do, but it's not what I do. It's very difficult to keep people in developing countries behind because they are just as smart as people in developing countries.
But not as educated as you said yourself. Education is the key to help these countries to develop.

Yes, there are problems and terrible conditions in developing nations, but not buying products from these nations will keep people stuck in these terrible conditions longer.
Again, I have not said that you shouldn't buy products from these countries. I said you shouldn't buy products from companies which pay less than the law obliges. Companies can have factories in Indonesia and still be ethical.

It's obvious that you care about the plight of people in developing nations, but the best way to help them is to buy their products and to give more aid to help with health and education and women's rights.
Buy THEIR products is fantastic idea. That would really help the local economy. Buying Nikes made in Indonesia will not help them. That will maintain the current intolerable situation. Education and especially women's education is the answer IMO. And that's why that's the target where I give my donations.

I said you shouldn't buy products from companies which pay less than the law obliges.
So when you say minimum wage, you mean mimimum wages set in the developing country in question? Well that's not a lousy idea. I have heard people say they should get the same minimum wage as in the U.S. That would put a lot of people out of a job in a hurry.

The goodwill of companies.
That is what I am getting at. Rejecting and refusing to support corporations who exploit and kill.

You're completely batty if you think buying Adidas clothes made in Vietnam is supporting the Vietnamese people and the Vietnamese economy.

So when you say minimum wage, you mean mimimum wages set in the developing country in question? Well that's not a lousy idea. I have heard people say they should get the same minimum wage as in the U.S. That would put a lot of people out of a job in a hurry.
That makes no sense what so ever. Actually that would be one of the stupidest ideas I've ever heard. So yes, I do mean the minimum wage in that country.

You're completely batty if you think buying Adidas clothes made in Vietnam is supporting the Vietnamese people and the Vietnamese economy. Now correct me if I'm wrong here, but I assume that Vietminese people have a choice about whether or not they want to work in an Adidas factory. That choice may be to scavenge through rubbish tips, but it's a choice none the less. If these people choose to work in the Adidas factory, then surely they would only do so if they were better off working there than their alternatives? So the presence of the factory is a benefit, even if working there sucks, it must suck less than their other choices.

If people in Vietnam are forced to work in Adidas factories agaisnt their will, then we should bring those who instigate it before the international crimes court and charge them with slavery.


Buy the way, I wouldn't buy Adidas clothing to help the Vietminese people. If I wanted to help the Vietminese people I would buy the cheapest item that suited me and give the difference in price to the World Health Organization, or similar.

Or build the factory in the U.S. instead. Or substitute automation instead of workers. Or decide it's not profitable and build no factory at all.

I doubt it. A worker needs to be paid around $6-8 USD an hour minimum in a developed country (The figure may not be wholly accurate, but in contrast with less than $1 for a developing nation...), and land and maintenance costs are far greater. They'll compromise. When they sell products for $30 or more, there's still a profit involved there.

You put too much faith in the goodwill of companies.

I must say, nobody has ever said that about me before :p

What about the factory and the training they give to the workers? That's a lot better than nothing.

That's what I mean, though. The factory is export oriented, and it doesn't take a lot of technology to run a textile business. Without the corporation, it benefits nothing...how can a single backwater factory, in say, Kenya, market it's goods overseas? It doesn't contribute to the infrastructure of the nation as, for example, a steel mill would. As for training, well, again, it's industry specific. They're trained on how to use textile machinery, and nothing else.

Without profit, no one will build a factory in the first place. As for where it will be invested, it will be invested where ever the company thinks it can make the most money. Maybe it will build another factory in a developing country, who knows? But you must remember that any Vietnam Dong leaving the country have to be spent on products from Vietnam. Trying walking into a store in America and putting your Dong on the counter and see what happens. Money can't disappear. The company isn't about to burn it. Dong only have value because they can buy Vietminese products. They will return to Vietnam.

You misunderstand. If the goods, lets say clothing, are exported in crates to america, they have an implied value- there is no real money involved. Beyond export and import licences, the company doesn't have to pay in the local currency. Once the goods arrive in America (or other nation), they will be sold to retailers in US dollars (or local currency). Perhaps the eventual profit will be used to build another textile mill or light industry in a developing nation...but it's always going to come back to the profit from the labour of sweatshop workers being in the hands of a foreign power.

I doubt it. A worker needs to be paid around $6-8 USD an hour minimum in a developed country (The figure may not be wholly accurate, but in contrast with less than $1 for a developing nation...), and land and maintenance costs are far greater. They'll compromise. When they sell products for $30 or more, there's still a profit involved there.

If that was true, then a lot more businesses would move overseas. And I don't buy $30 stuff. A t-shirt might cost the company $1 to make and then they sell if for $30 so it sounds like a lot of profit is being made. But why do people buy the name brand T-shirt for $30 instead of the no name brand that costs $5 and has a more realistic amount of profit built into it. Because people like paying an extra $25 dollars for the brand. Why do people spend an extra $25 dollars for the brand? Probably because they spend millions of dollars on advertising in rich countries, and they are competeing with other brands that are also spending millions of dollars on advertising. Because of competition, they aren't making a huge profit on that $30 T-shirt. They are just hyping it up because there is a market for brand clothes. Now personally I think it's pretty silly to spend extra money just for a brand, but many people don't and I have no control over their tastes. If I could I'd get everybody to buy no brand clothes and use the money saved to wipe out malaria. But unfortunately I can't do that. If you want to shame a rich company into improving conditions for its workers, go right ahead, but be careful. There are a lot of people who think it is a bad thing to buy any goods from developing countries. It's hard to say that Nike is doing terrible things in developing countires without giving all shoes from developing countries a bad association in people's minds.

The factory is export oriented, and it doesn't take a lot of technology to run a textile business. Without the corporation, it benefits nothing...how can a single backwater factory, in say, Kenya, market it's goods overseas? It doesn't contribute to the infrastructure of the nation as, for example, a steel mill would. As for training, well, again, it's industry specific. They're trained on how to use textile machinery, and nothing else.

I don't get this. My Grandad built a factory in his backyard. He made textiles. He made money from making textiles. He employed people. People bought the stuff he made. If they didn't like it, they wouldn't buy it. I don't give a stuff about infrastructure. I care about the benefits it gave my familly, the employees and the customers. They didn't care about infrastructure. And as for the training being industry specific, he kept doing it until he retired and then other people took it over. It's not as if people are suddenly going to decide they're not going to need clothes or anything.

Or you could just not watch TV.

Wiser words have never been spoken.

You misunderstand. If the goods, lets say clothing, are exported in crates to america, they have an implied value- there is no real money involved. Beyond export and import licences, the company doesn't have to pay in the local currency. To get people to work in it's factory, they have to pay them money. They're the people I care about. If some corrupt official is making money off export licences, that's unfortunate. If some CEO gets paid ten million dollars a year and spends it on rent boys and cocaine, well that's tacky, but, if building those factorys gives the workers a better life, then it's worthwile. I recommend getting rid of the corrupt official. I recommend paying CEOs what they're actually worth, but those are seperate issues. If those factories help some of the poorest people in the world, then they're worth it.

If that was true, then a lot more businesses would move overseas.

Only the top tier of businesses have the capability to export industry and run it as part of their company from the other side of the world. You won't find a local company building a factory in a third-world country, because it's unfeasible for them. You will however find Nike, Microsoft, General Motors, IBM, etc. doing so.

If you want to shame a rich company into improving conditions for its workers, go right ahead, but be careful. There are a lot of people who think it is a bad thing to buy any goods from developing countries. It's hard to say that Nike is doing terrible things in developing countires without giving all shoes from developing countries a bad association in people's minds.

True enough. I personally believe that these developing countries should focus on secondary goods such as steel and the like rather than consumer goods, though.

I don't get this. My Grandad built a factory in his backyard. He made textiles. He made money from making textiles. He employed people. People bought the stuff he made. If they didn't like it, they wouldn't buy it. I don't give a stuff about infrastructure. I care about the benefits it gave my familly, the employees and the customers. They didn't care about infrastructure. And as for the training being industry specific, he kept doing it until he retired and then other people took it over. It's not as if people are suddenly going to decide they're not going to need clothes or anything.

Yeah, fair enough, but this example is in a developed country. In developing nations, people often routinely make their clothes at home, because it's far cheaper. There is no real market for mass produced clothing in the third world. At least, not at overly profitable rates. Infrastructure to develop the wealth to give the nation a marketplace for consumer goods is what would be required, under our present international economy. If most of the people aren't earning money, how are they going to purchase and benefit from the production of those goods?

I guess this site could interested someone
http://multinationalmonitor.org

They list 10 worst corporations every year. In 2004 results can be found here:
http://multinationalmonitor.org/mm2004/122004/mokhiber.html

Interesting read.

To get people to work in it's factory, they have to pay them money. They're the people I care about. If some corrupt official is making money off export licences, that's unfortunate. If some CEO gets paid ten million dollars a year and spends it on rent boys and cocaine, well that's tacky, but, if building those factorys gives the workers a better life, then it's worthwile. I recommend getting rid of the corrupt official. I recommend paying CEOs what they're actually worth, but those are seperate issues. If those factories help some of the poorest people in the world, then they're worth it.

Corrupt official? No, export licences as far as i'm aware are a routine practice. If you're exporting several thousands of dollars of goods to a foreign country, you need the permission of the government to do that. It's a tax, really.

And yet, what i'm arguing is that the poor rates that these workers are being paid isn't generating much wealth at all; if anything they're being held back. Just because something is better than nothing doesn't make it good, and nor will it ever be so.

Just because something is better than nothing doesn't make it good, and nor will it ever be so.

?????????? If you have some money, then you'd better send it to me. Just because some money is better than no money doesn't make it good and nor will it ever be so.

Something is better than nothing, especially if you are so poor that it means the difference between life and death. And then, once you have a little something you go on to get a little something more, and then a little something more. Then maybe something bad happens, you get sick, but because you do have a job you are able to afford some medicine, even though it costs a weeks wages. Then you struggle a little more to make things a little bit better. It's far, far, from perfect, but it's the best that most people can do.

the first guy says that he doesnt drink milk? that is crazy because it is cheap and very very nutritous

also how in the world can you keep in touch with technology and stay away from microsoft?

You must run a very boring life mr. protest :mp5:

i am all for boycotts but you are reduculous

?????????? If you have some money, then you'd better send it to me. Just because some money is better than no money doesn't make it good and nor will it ever be so.

Something is better than nothing, especially if you are so poor that it means the difference between life and death. And then, once you have a little something you go on to get a little something more, and then a little something more. Then maybe something bad happens, you get sick, but because you do have a job you are able to afford some medicine, even though it costs a weeks wages. Then you struggle a little more to make things a little bit better. It's far, far, from perfect, but it's the best that most people can do.

Something is better than nothing, but that doesn't make the "something" inherently good. That was my point. The situation is unfair and it could be drastically improved. The present structure of the system isn't really taking these countries anywhere.

Yeah, fair enough, but this example is in a developed country. My grandparents allowed one child to finish school. My father and his brothers had to work 6 days a week in an abitoir from the age of 14. Sound like a developed country to you?

There is no real market for mass produced clothing in the third world. At least, not at overly profitable rates.
On TV I see a lot of people in developing countries wearing mass produced clothing. It must be profitable for someone to supply it.

And if you want to sell your products overseas, then you say, "Hey, you, trading company! You know those t-shirts you buy from China for $1? We'll sell you the same thing for 95 cents." Because the trading company wants to make extra profit, they will then buy them off you. If the cost of labour is lower than that in China (which has been steadilly increasing) then there is no real reason why you can't make them cheaper.

China seems to have done well enough with light manufacturing such as textiles. They have shown the fastest growth rates of any country ever. Why can't other countries copy China?

the first guy says that he doesnt drink milk? that is crazy because it is cheap and very very nutritous

Most Asian people do not drink milk. If you think about it, drinking the processed sweat of a cow is pretty disgusting.

also how in the world can you keep in touch with technology and stay away from microsoft?

Haha, that actually makes me laugh. Corporate monopolies are great, aren't they?

There are actually free alternatives out there, like Linux.

the first guy says that he doesnt drink milk? that is crazy because it is cheap and very very nutritous

Ever wonder why it's cheap? Workers are exploited in bottling plants. They're paid ridiculously low wages and don't get many benefits. Just like Wal-Mart employees.

also how in the world can you keep in touch with technology and stay away from microsoft?

This is the problem. It's become almost necessary to buy Microsoft products to "keep in touch" with technology, because they have a monopoly.

You must run a very boring life mr. protest :mp5:

Run out of things to say, have we?

i am all for boycotts but you are reduculous

You're one to talk.

The situation is unfair and it could be drastically improved. The present structure of the system isn't really taking these countries anywhere.

Yes the situation is drastically unfair. But South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Hong Kong, all became rich, or rich compared to many other countries, by making cheap stuff for export. China is becoming rich by following the same method. Doesn't it make sense for other countries to copy their success?

And yes, it would be better if George Bush gave 100 billion dollars a year to wipe out poverty in the world, but I don't think he is going to do that. And I don't think other nations will do that either. So perhaps the best we can do is allow nations to work their way out of poverty. Making shoes etc. has been shown to be a way to do that. If you have better ideas, tell us.

My grandparents allowed one child to finish school. My father and his brothers had to work 6 days a week in an abitoir from the age of 14. Sound like a developed country to you?

Yep. Sounds like your typical late-19th/early-20th century exploitative industrial capitalist society. Yet don't forget, all of them got some schooling, and all of them were working for more pay than anyone in Africa or Asia. Of course, development is an ongoing process.

On TV I see a lot of people in developing countries wearing mass produced clothing. It must be profitable for someone to supply it.

In the cities, perhaps. Developing nations do have middle classes. I'm not saying there is no market at all for these goods, just a drastically limited one.

And if you want to sell your products overseas, then you say, "Hey, you, trading company! You know those t-shirts you buy from China for $1? We'll sell you the same thing for 95 cents." Because the trading company wants to make extra profit, they will then buy them off you. If the cost of labour is lower than that in China (which has been steadilly increasing) then there is no real reason why you can't make them cheaper.

Perhaps. But it depends on the access to such "trading companies". When under the control of multi-national corporations, the purchases are often taken care of by the controlling corporation through internal sales. When a backwater factory in a poverty-ridden country has to look overseas for a purchaser for it's goods, you must admit it will be an uphill battle.

China seems to have done well enough with light manufacturing such as textiles. They have shown the fastest growth rates of any country ever. Why can't other countries copy China?

Actually, China's high growth is due to the development of heavy industries in the manufacturing fields- look at how their oil requirement and greenhouse gas emissions are rising. That isn't due to low scale textile industries. They do have them, of course, but there is more to it than that. They're developing an economic infrastructure, which seperates them from the rest of the developing world. South Korea did the same thing.

Actually, China's high growth is due to the development of heavy industries in the manufacturing fields- look at how their oil requirement and greenhouse gas emissions are rising. That isn't due to low scale textile industries. They do have them, of course, but there is more to it than that. They're developing an economic infrastructure, which seperates them from the rest of the developing world. South Korea did the same thing.

Precisely. Notice how factories have been popping up throughout Beijing. They're not even regulated, as far as I know. So, these Beijing factories can produce extremely cheap goods and sell them to the American market for huge profits, all while the workers get barely anything out of it.

---Get on MSN, man. I've got what you were asking for yesterday.

Yes the situation is drastically unfair. But South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Hong Kong, all became rich, or rich compared to many other countries, by making cheap stuff for export. China is becoming rich by following the same method. Doesn't it make sense for other countries to copy their success?

But all of these nations shifted beyond consumer goods to achieving an industrial infrastructure.

Notably, Japan. Japan didn't actually become rich by making cheap stuff for export. On a world level, Japan was an industrial country by the 1900's, until WW2 obliterated the nation. How did they do it? They built infrastructure, not consumer goods. That's what the modern developing nations need to do, whether it's under state control or by private means.

And yes, it would be better if George Bush gave 100 billion dollars a year to wipe out poverty in the world, but I don't think he is going to do that. And I don't think other nations will do that either. So perhaps the best we can do is allow nations to work their way out of poverty. Making shoes etc. has been shown to be a way to do that. If you have better ideas, tell us.

I've argued that they're not a way to do that. The railroads, steel, refined oil, lumber (not uncut logs), smelting industries, etc. are what these nations need before they make the transition to a consumer goods and services oriented economy. Working for appaling conditions making shoes in a sweatshop isn't helping anyone besides the owners in foreign countries.

I wish you the best fo luck, but the difficulty may be un-fucking-believable. Perhaps you should be more specific then gradually move into the general.

Only a couple of quibbles - mostly because they are self-contradictory... and mutually exclusive in any practicible sense... (the rest are a doable personal choice...)

I refuse to contribute to the destruction of the environment.
I will not live in a wooden hut.
I will not buy anything made from animals.
I will not buy anything made in sweatshops.
I will not buy anything made from materials with questionable origin
I will do everything in my power to reduce my footprint on this Earth.
I will not deny myself pleasures.


To do the above, your idea of pleasure would have to be one of living a self-sufficient, subsistance, nudist, vegan, non-mechanized/powered, agrarian lifestyle in a MUD hut (or cave) while waiting for the first otherwise-treatable illness to kill you.

The rest of the ongoing discussion about the politics & economics of "sweatshops" is interesting, but IMO this manefisto needs to get past its logical inconsistancies first.

I refuse to contribute to the suffering of other living things.
I refuse to contribute to the destruction of the environment.
I refuse to support those who kill.
I refuse to judge my worth by my material belongings.
I refuse to be a target market.
I refuse to think that it’s okay.

I will not buy anything made from animals.
I will not buy anything made in sweatshops.
I will not watch Channel Seven, Channel Nine, Channel Ten, or buy any forms of media published by these companies.
I will not put money in my ING DIRECT account
I will not look at advertisements with anything but disdain.
I will not buy anything made from materials with questionable origin
I will not buy anything from:
–AOL Time Warner
–Altria
–General Motors
–Ford
–Woolworths
–Microsoft
–any fast food chain
–any big clothes brand
I will do everything in my power to reduce my footprint on this Earth.
I will not deny myself pleasures.
I will not live in a wooden hut.
I will keep in touch with technology.
I will be successful in my life.
I will do what I WANT to do, not what multinational corporations want me to do.

Personal success, freedom, happiness and self-worth come from knowing you are an independently thinking person. Why do you think all these companies are advertising their products as making you an individual, allowing you to express ‘your’ style. Do you really believe that if you buy that shirt with a rip down it and messy writing all over it you are standing up for something? That you are being yourself? You’re not, you’re giving your money to a corporation that exploits, tortures and kills people, animals and the environment. Most of all, you look and act like everyone else your age, you are not independent, you are a sheep.
——————
Milk is not good for you; the dairy industry is not a charity organization. Do you really think they pour all that money into advertising dairy products because they want to improve the health status of the population?
Illegal drugs are not automatically worse than legal ones. Taking an illegal drug will not automatically transform you into “one of those” – and just because you just turned 18 doesn’t mean drinking and smoking yourself blue in the face will not harm you.
If it breaks, don't buy a new one. If a product breaks before it reaches it’s fifth birthday it is made from a corporation that is ripping you, and the environment, off something chronic. Replace it with a similar product that you can rely on lasting.
—————

DO SOMETHING! Don’t be lazy! Think for yourself. You CAN do it. You do have your own style, your own taste, your own values, your own thoughts and your own control over yourself. Don't accept what fat, ugly executives of big corporations tell you what your style, your tastes, your values and your thoughts are. You’re beautiful, and eating McDonalds, smoking Philip Morris cigarettes and wearing Billabong clothes are only going to corrupt that. REFUSE!



(I'm Australian, so some of this will be country-specific and therefore alien to others - but with globalisation it shouldn't be that different.)

I had no idea that one of my own fellow Australians could be that radical. Come on, fella, do you really despise the dairy industry that much? What about all those poor honest farmers trying to make a living. Fair go, mate! Relax a little.

I had no idea that one of my own fellow Australians could be that radical. Come on, fella, do you really despise the dairy industry that much? What about all those poor honest farmers trying to make a living. Fair go, mate! Relax a little.

Maybe he's a vegan? Ah, that's right, true Aussies never are, are they ;)

You're not giving up beer are you? :confused:

China's high growth is due to the development of heavy industries Really? I know they're fond of concrete, but I thought their heavy industries were the most inefficent, employing millions of surplus workers. Indeed the whole point of China's strangely low currency and strangely high production of concrete seems to be to prevent the surplus millions in these industries becoming unemployed and disrupting social harmony.

I've bought many products of light manufacturing from China, but I've never bought any concrete from them.

When a backwater factory in a poverty-ridden country has to look overseas for a purchaser for it's goods, you must admit it will be an uphill battle. You make money by selling goods people want. If people don't want your goods, don't make them. People seem to have wanted Japan's cheap goods, Taiwan's cheap goods, South Korea's cheap goods. I know, I've bought a few of them over the years. Whatever they did, copy. One thing they did was educate their people. Here is something that aid can really help with.

Maybe he's a vegan? Ah, that's right, true Aussies never are, are they ;)

I'm trying to remember if I ever met an Aussie vegan.......ah.....nope, can't say I have....no, wait, there was one once. She was a nice enough girl, in her own way, but I can't say she was your average Aussie.
I have never really understood the vegan rational. Vegetarian, yes, but vegan? Why?

You're not giving up beer are you? :confused:

Exaclty, what about all those farms growing hops to make the beer? They had to cut down virgin forest to make room for those farms, particularly in Victoria (down south).

I refuse to contribute to the suffering of other living things.
I refuse to contribute to the destruction of the environment.
I refuse to support those who kill.
I refuse to judge my worth by my material belongings.
I refuse to be a target market.
I refuse to think that it’s okay.

I will not buy anything made from animals.
I will not buy anything made in sweatshops.
I will not watch Channel Seven, Channel Nine, Channel Ten, or buy any forms of media published by these companies.
I will not put money in my ING DIRECT account
I will not look at advertisements with anything but disdain.
I will not buy anything made from materials with questionable origin
I will not buy anything from:
–AOL Time Warner
–Altria
–General Motors
–Ford
–Woolworths
–Microsoft
–any fast food chain
–any big clothes brand
I will do everything in my power to reduce my footprint on this Earth.
I will not deny myself pleasures.
I will not live in a wooden hut.
I will keep in touch with technology.
I will be successful in my life.
I will do what I WANT to do, not what multinational corporations want me to do.

Personal success, freedom, happiness and self-worth come from knowing you are an independently thinking person. Why do you think all these companies are advertising their products as making you an individual, allowing you to express ‘your’ style. Do you really believe that if you buy that shirt with a rip down it and messy writing all over it you are standing up for something? That you are being yourself? You’re not, you’re giving your money to a corporation that exploits, tortures and kills people, animals and the environment. Most of all, you look and act like everyone else your age, you are not independent, you are a sheep.
——————
Milk is not good for you; the dairy industry is not a charity organization. Do you really think they pour all that money into advertising dairy products because they want to improve the health status of the population?
Illegal drugs are not automatically worse than legal ones. Taking an illegal drug will not automatically transform you into “one of those” – and just because you just turned 18 doesn’t mean drinking and smoking yourself blue in the face will not harm you.
If it breaks, don't buy a new one. If a product breaks before it reaches it’s fifth birthday it is made from a corporation that is ripping you, and the environment, off something chronic. Replace it with a similar product that you can rely on lasting.
—————

DO SOMETHING! Don’t be lazy! Think for yourself. You CAN do it. You do have your own style, your own taste, your own values, your own thoughts and your own control over yourself. Don't accept what fat, ugly executives of big corporations tell you what your style, your tastes, your values and your thoughts are. You’re beautiful, and eating McDonalds, smoking Philip Morris cigarettes and wearing Billabong clothes are only going to corrupt that. REFUSE!



(I'm Australian, so some of this will be country-specific and therefore alien to others - but with globalisation it shouldn't be that different.)

I refuse to refuse.
I refuse to base my life on what I will not do.
I refuse to believe that if I do everything you have suggested I will somehow be a better person than my next door neighbor who just drove to his mailbox while puffing on a Wiston and eating a sausage Mcmuffin.

But go ahead and do so if you wish, I refuse to stop you or anybody else who wants to.

Exaclty, what about all those farms growing hops to make the beer? They had to cut down virgin forest to make room for those farms, particularly in Victoria (down south).
And he's Australian for Allah's sake, they need beer more than we Americans do!

I suppose. I don't watch very much television. But it's the principal of the matter. No one should choose ABC over Ten.

I can never go back to Melbourne. I have an unexplained fear of people. Adelaide's just perfect (short of a secluded siberian forrest).

Bwahahahah....

Whatever you do, don't come to Sydney, then.

If you are a man or woman in a developing country, then I recomend you get whatever job seems the best to you. Maybe it will be building infrastructure, maybe it will be in a steel mill, maybe it will be making shoes for export. You should do whatever makes your life better. Maybe you can make the most money working in a shoe factory. Maybe you can make more money building roads. If you're big and strong and hate being couped up indoors, maybe road building is for you. If you would rather work indoors, maybe you'd prefere a factory job. The more choices you have, the better your life. People who think they can improve their lives by making shoes should be free to do so. Consumers in rich countries shouldn't think they are doing people in poor countries a favour by not buying the shoes. They wouldn't be working in the shoe factory unless it was the best choice for them.

Really? I know they're fond of concrete, but I thought their heavy industries were the most inefficent, employing millions of surplus workers. Indeed the whole point of China's strangely low currency and strangely high production of concrete seems to be to prevent the surplus millions in these industries becoming unemployed and disrupting social harmony.

I've bought many products of light manufacturing from China, but I've never bought any concrete from them.

Go have a look next time you buy a TV and see where it's made. A lot are made in China. Then think about the resources that went in the production of that - glass, plastic, electronics. In other words, heavy industry.

You make money by selling goods people want. If people don't want your goods, don't make them. People seem to have wanted Japan's cheap goods, Taiwan's cheap goods, South Korea's cheap goods. I know, I've bought a few of them over the years. Whatever they did, copy. One thing they did was educate their people. Here is something that aid can really help with.

Again, these "cheap goods" are mostly electronics and the like, no? I'm not saying that their textile industry and exports are non-existent, but that's really what these countries are known for. To have an electronics industry, you really need a quite good industrial infrastructure first. That's how these countries developed- they got the infrastructure before making consumer goods.

If you are a man or woman in a developing country...

...and you are reading this, you are probably a member of the wealthy bourgeoisie with access to the internet.

And he's Australian for Allah's sake, they need beer more than we Americans do!

Did you say Allah? never heard that one before. Does that make you Muslim? I thought Muslims don't drink beer?

Did you say Allah? never heard that one before. Does that make you Muslim? I thought Muslims don't drink beer?
I'm not, I just didn't feel like saying for god's sake.

If that was true, then a lot more businesses would move overseas.
Just few ideas why not.

1. Wages are a minor part of the costs of running a business. In a blue collar industry it's normally something between 6-10% of the costs.
2. The companies have invested on existing factories. They would be throwing money in to trashcan if they would just close a factory which is still profitable. But if it isn't profitable enough they may not invest in it anymore. The next factory will be build in a cheaper country.
3. The transportation of goods can be more expensive than the production of the goods.

edit: by the way, haven't you noticed that every western country is losing thousands of jobs to cheap labour countries?

I'm not, I just didn't feel like saying for god's sake.
fair enough. I meant no offense anyway.
But if you are a typical American (whatever that is) you people are definitely become more......international

Just few ideas why not.

1. Wages are a minor part of the costs of running a business. In a blue collar industry it's normally something between 6-10% of the costs.
In the US wages and benefits are the MAJOR cost of running a business - Blue Collar or not.
2. The companies have invested on existing factories. They would be throwing money in to trashcan if they would just close a factory which is still profitable. But if it isn't profitable enough they may not invest in it anymore. The next factory will be build in a cheaper country.Which is cheaper because of labor/benefits/regulation costs...
3. The transportation of goods can be more expensive than the production of the goods.Not on Container Ships. If that was the case, there would be no importation of automobiles - which are large, heavy and cost more per m^3 than almost anything.

edit: by the way, haven't you noticed that every western country is losing thousands of jobs to cheap labour countries?
Which is why I am puzzled by your first 3 comments...

by the way, haven't you noticed that every western country is losing thousands of jobs to cheap labour countries?

I haven't noticed this. My government keeps boasting about how unemployment is the lowest its been for decades. Of course, jobs have been lost in some industries and gained in others.

Kanabia, I've forgotten what we're talking about.

I think that buying goods from developing countries is good because it can provide people there with jobs that may be better than other alternatives they have.

Do you think people shouldn't buy goods from developing countries?

Back to the origional post...... In your staunch unyeilding stance to be an individual you just joined the ranks of thousands of non-comformists worldwide. Unless you are on the cutting edge of something-politics, religion, technology- it is doubtful that you will accomplish anything origional. What you're saying is nothing I haven't heard before. Non-conformists these days, because there are so many of you, now equal conformists. You should have kept your ideas to yourself. Now lots of people are just like you and you are no longer individual.

Oh, and I'm sorry to say, you are now, without a doubt, a "Target Market".

I refuse to contribute to the suffering of other living things.


Well, this diatribe of naievity really could take all day to dissect into absurdidty, so I'll just concentrate on the first line.

In saying this you claim to refuse to contribute. That means that you won't kick a bum laying in the sidewalk. But would you do something pro-active to assist the bum?

What about a stray dog? Would you provide it food to live out a mangy existance or deliver it to the humane society for death? Or would you do nothing, which, in effect, IS contributing to it's suffering.

If that is true, then unless you take action for every stray dog now, you are disregarding your own rhetoric.

Unless, of course, rhetoric is only as far as you're willing to take things.

I'm going to ignore all the shit about dairy... It's marvelous what decades of that kind of marketing can do, isn't it?
I'm in the process of becoming vegan, been vegetarian for a few years.
I hate beer.
I hate all these ideologies of what people think Australia is - most such people are Australian themselves. Get a fucking identity for yourself, not off a VB ad.

There are a certain type of people that are quite prominent on this forum. These people who think themselves realists. They respond to pretty much every thread with "pfft, society is fine, how do you expect to live any different to all the rest of us"
To tell you the truth, they usually work on me. They seem so level-headed and realistic, aiming to shoot down your theories and thoughts with a few words. But in response to this thread I see you more clearly. You're complete tools. It is not hard to change the way you live to make things better for the world and usually yourself as well. It doesn't mean giving up everything and living in a mud puddle, hence my last few "I will not live in a wooden shed/I will keep in touch with technology".
What I said was not meant as a rule book for myself so I can be the perfect person, and if everyone else followed it society would be perfect. That is so not the case here. It's just that I'm sick of whinging at the world, whinging at the problems, but being a part of it myself.
Most people don't like what's going on if they know what is going on, but feel powerless. I'm saying I (and you) are not powerless, but do have the ability to make things better.
My main message is think for yourself. Be your own person.

I am a 17 year old male Sydneysider, I like having nice clothes to wear, eating good food, having nice things, and I have heaps of electronics and shit, because I'm really into it all. I can have all this, I can be satisfied in my life, without (here it goes again...) supporting the killing and torture of other people, animals and the Earth. Yes, my actions will have an impact on the Earth, but my aim is to know where I am doing this and make a personal stand against it by avoiding it in my day-to-day life. Thinking for myself and having my own interests, taste and style helps this, because it's only hard to avoid everything I listed before if you buy into all the false glamour and shit every time you see a shiny advertisement.

In the US wages and benefits are the MAJOR cost of running a business - Blue Collar or not.
I know that they vary a lot. In a metal factory it's less than in a cloth factory. In IT company it's extremely high. Can you give me some source where I could see the costs in US?

Which is cheaper because of labor/benefits/regulation costs...
Of course they save every penny they can. But as far as the factory is profitable, it's waste of money to shut it down.

Not on Container Ships. If that was the case, there would be no importation of automobiles - which are large, heavy and cost more per m^3 than almost anything.

It depenps of the products. Cars are quite expensive to make, it's not a surprise that transporting them it's not very expensive compared to other costs. But think about paper for instance. First they have to get a lot of wood in the factory ->expensive transportation. Then they have to transport the paper to the customers ->not as expensive but transportation nevertheless, expensive compared to the product. Only special paper materials are exported, everything else goes as close as possible. Same with everything related to wood. The factories are where the forests are.

I haven't noticed this. My government keeps boasting about how unemployment is the lowest its been for decades. Of course, jobs have been lost in some industries and gained in others.
You haven't????? Where you live? You can't outsource everything, that's clear but as far as I know, every western country has problems with companies outsourcing their factories into cheap labour countries.

You're not giving up beer are you? :confused:
Why should he?

Back to the origional post...... In your staunch unyeilding stance to be an individual you just joined the ranks of thousands of non-comformists worldwide. Unless you are on the cutting edge of something-politics, religion, technology- it is doubtful that you will accomplish anything origional. What you're saying is nothing I haven't heard before. Non-conformists these days, because there are so many of you, now equal conformists. You should have kept your ideas to yourself. Now lots of people are just like you and you are no longer individual.

Oh, and I'm sorry to say, you are now, without a doubt, a "Target Market".
You had some satisfaction writing that? Individuals are all alike but that doesn't mean that using your own brains is a stupid idea. I believe that the starter is quite young as the sentences were so strong and perhaps not thought all the way through. We don't have to accomplish anything original to make the world a better place to live. People who don't questionize anything are the ones who are ruining the planet.

Sosato

Good for you. Many NSers are too lazy to do anything about anything and are willing to believe everything some economists are saying. Many of them oppose their own government but yet believe companies and other instances which have a strong (hidden) agenda. Hegemony all the way...

... as I'd rather drink a bottle of warm urine than a beer.

Prove it. Cannonball that whiz. Drink! Drink! Drink!


*Christ! He did it!*

Sosato wins this round, but I will be back!

Prove it. Cannonball that whiz. Drink! Drink! Drink!


*Christ! He did it!*

Sosato wins this round, but I will be back!

Haha. *licks lips
Mmm-mmm. Nothing better as a mid-afternoon refresher on a cold day.

t sounds like a petty reason, but there's probably a whole stack of proper reasons to boycott most major beer companies in Australia - but it's not worth researching for me, as I'd rather drink a bottle of warm urine than a beer.

Well, that does make you a bit different from most Aussies. however, I, for one, see no problem with that.

Possibly, though, the most impossible thing about your declaration of 'I refuse' is that it looks like you intend to live your life by a bunch of rules. Are you religious? Do you like having a whole set of rules to live by? Personally, I am a Christian, and one of the things I love about being a Christian is the freedom. Yes, Christianity does have lots of rules, but any good Christian knows that rules don't actually help that much. Humans do what they love to do, regardless of the rules, Christians included. The Christian pathway is to choose to love God, and then obeying Him comes naturally, because it is a natural consequence of love. Thus, a Christian is free to love and obey God, because that is the whole direction and point of his or her life. Because love is the motivation, the rules can be reassigned to secondary importance. They serve only as guides. Love is the strength that keeps the resolve firm.

In your case, your rules seem to be built up on what you dislike or hate. hating beer, TV, and all those other things is not going to make your life better. Only if you chose to love something with you really be successful. So I ask you, what is it that you love? What do you really love? Don't give me your dislikes and hates and then expect me to understand where you are coming from.

Won't watch Seven, Nine or Ten. Ha, Your stuck with all those aboriginal documentaries on the ABC then. And do you have to advertise that you're an Australian after that big rant, It may embarrass some of us.

I don't watch those channels... unless there's a movie on...

And although i don't agree with everything that was said in the first post, there's no reason not to say that you're Aussie (whoever started this thread) just cause CC might get embarrassed... :p

I don't watch those channels... unless there's a movie on...

And although i don't agree with everything that was said in the first post, there's no reason not to say that you're Aussie (whoever started this thread) just cause CC might get embarrassed... :p

No body listen to her. She's evil.

Kanabia, I've forgotten what we're talking about.

I think that buying goods from developing countries is good because it can provide people there with jobs that may be better than other alternatives they have.

Do you think people shouldn't buy goods from developing countries?

I don't think that. I think people shouldn't buy goods from companies that are taking advantage of their undeveloped state to exploit the nation without contributing to its economic development.

Milk is not good for you; the dairy industry is not a charity organization. Do you really think they pour all that money into advertising dairy products because they want to improve the health status of the population?

Maybe not, but I produce my own dairy products from my own goats at no significant profit to myself. Why? Because milk IS good for you, good for your kids, tastes excellent and is versatile in cooking.

Maybe you should read the studies for yourself and judge based on fact, rather than forming an opinion and bending the truth to fit the mold you've set up.

Edit: Milk tastes damn good, too. What ever happened to "I refuse to deny myself pleasures," eh? Iced cream is a pleasure to most.. quesadillas and cheesecake are pleasurable to me. Maybe I also refuse to deny myself pleasure. Sorry if I'm taking this too seriously.. sometimes it's hard to believe the crap you see online.

Good for you Sosato!
ABC rules, I hope to work there one day!
Why? Because milk IS good for you, good for your kids, tastes excellent and is versatile in cooking.
Why is it that every other mammal only feeds their offspring milk when they are young, and never again? I don't think milk is very good for us. We need calcium of course, but I think there are other sources. Also, so many drugs are put into milk and so many people are intolerant to it. Personally, I hate the taste, it reminds me of cow pus.

Good for you Sosato!
ABC rules, I hope to work there one day!

Why is it that every other mammal only feeds their offspring milk when they are young, and never again? I don't think milk is very good for us. We need calcium of course, but I think there are other sources. Also, so many drugs are put into milk and so many people are intolerant to it. Personally, I hate the taste, it reminds me of cow pus.

What does any of that have to do with health? Nothing.

Animals in nature don't inject themselves with each other's insulin to regulate blood sugar, or penicillin or other antibiotics to stay alive. I guess we should give those up, since they couldn't possibly help us.

Interesting, I don't recall putting any drugs in my milk.. I guess space aliens fly in at night and inject my goats with carcinogens or steroids or something? Should I be concerned?

The only nutrient humans can absorb from cow's (and other mammal's) milk is protein. Because there is such a high concentration of protein in milk and other dairy products, it leeches the calcium out of your bones.
All the independent, unbiased studies into the health effects of consuming dairy products have shown that it causes osteoporosis, major allergic reactions (mainly in children, sometimes in adults), and a whole range of other disorders and problems.
BUT... i will say this much. There are studies that show humans cannot absorb nutrients out of pasteurised and homogenised milk, BUT, fresh, raw milk does have many health benefits. I dont really agree, but it is a side. Raw milk is illegal because milk contains blood, pus and dirt from the abuse of cattle in order to suck milk out of them 24/7. Apparently boiling it makes this not as bad...
Milk is disgusting.

The only nutrient humans can absorb from cow's (and other mammal's) milk is protein. Because there is such a high concentration of protein in milk and other dairy products, it leeches the calcium out of your bones.
All the independent, unbiased studies into the health effects of consuming dairy products have shown that it causes osteoporosis, major allergic reactions (mainly in children, sometimes in adults), and a whole range of other disorders and problems.
BUT... i will say this much. There are studies that show humans cannot absorb nutrients out of pasteurised and homogenised milk, BUT, fresh, raw milk does have many health benefits. I dont really agree, but it is a side. Raw milk is illegal because milk contains blood, pus and dirt from the abuse of cattle in order to suck milk out of them 24/7. Apparently boiling it makes this not as bad...
Milk is disgusting.

I think you've been misled.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/030321.html

Maybe you should review your sources on those "facts" you've got there, especially the outright false ones, e.g. that protein is the only nutrient absorbed through drinking milk.. even thoroughly boiled chalk-water like Skim Milk has several vitamins and minerals retained.. I'd love to see a source with any proof otherwise.

http://www.nutritiondata.com/facts-001-02s002m.html

Hey Sosato, who do you think you are anyway someone important? NOT!!! Here's a news flash, nobody gives a S#&* about what you are or are not gonna to do. Now get off your weak little knees and be a man for the first time in your life.

Hey Sosato, who do you think you are anyway someone important? NOT!!! Here's a news flash, nobody gives a S#&* about what you are or are not gonna to do. Now get off your weak little knees and be a man for the first time in your life.

...

Hold on, he's making a personal moral stand here and you're telling him to get off his knees and be a man?

What do you expect him to do, exactly, Mr. Righteous?

...

Hold on, he's making a personal moral stand here and you're telling him to get off his knees and be a man?

What do you expect him to do, exactly, Mr. Righteous?

Very true. It takes some courage to put your worldview up for criticism, and as long as it's in good faith, it's a worthwhile topic..

As much as I shudder to think of how much of the original poster's opinions are based on illogical groupthink (e.g. the entire milk thing), it's still commendable to have made the effort.

What does any of that have to do with health? Nothing.

Animals in nature don't inject themselves with each other's insulin to regulate blood sugar, or penicillin or other antibiotics to stay alive. I guess we should give those up, since they couldn't possibly help us.

Interesting, I don't recall putting any drugs in my milk.. I guess space aliens fly in at night and inject my goats with carcinogens or steroids or something? Should I be concerned?
I’m not suggesting we abandon all technological advances, medicines etc. because animals don’t use these. How ridiculous. I think it is important though that animals only feed their young milk for a short period of time and never again. People say that we NEED dairy products to be healthy, but I don’t think we do. The fact that animals eventually wean their young off milk might be seen as one example of this. Also, women only breast feed their young for a short amount of time.

Rat milk is intended for their offspring. Cat milk is intended for kittens. Human milk is intended for human babies. Cow milk is intended for cows. Cows have different bodies to humans, they need more protein then us, therefore milk contains large amounts of protein and is intended to cater for the cow’s needs.

You don’t put any drugs in your milk? Good for you! I wasn’t talking about the milk you produce personally; I was talking about milk which is mass produced by huge companies. Drugs are used. How else do you think milk is able to be produced on such a huge scale?


With genetic manipulation and intensive production technologies, it is common for modern dairy cows to produce 100 pounds of milk a day— 10 times more than they would produce in nature. To keep milk production as high as possible, farmers artificially inseminate cows every year. Growth hormones and unnatural milking schedules cause dairy cows' udders to become painful and so heavy that they sometimes drag on the ground, resulting in frequent infections and overuse of antibiotics. Cows— like all mammals— make milk to feed their own babies— not humans.

Here is an interesting theory:
And dairy products may actually cause osteoporosis, not prevent it, since their high-protein content leaches calcium from the body. Population studies, backed up by a groundbreaking Harvard study of more than 75,000 nurses, suggest that drinking milk can actually cause osteoporosis.

I won’t drink dairy milk because I don’t think humans need it to function efficiently. I hate the taste too. Also, the apparent unethical treatment of cows on many farms to mass produce milk is off putting.

Male calves, the "byproducts" of the dairy industry, endure 14 to 17 weeks of torment in veal crates so small that they can't even turn around. Female calves often replace their old, worn-out mothers, or are slaughtered soon after birth for the rennet in their stomachs (an ingredient of most commercial cheeses). They are often kept in tiny crates or tethered in stalls for the first few months of their lives, only to grow up to become "milk machines" like their mothers.
I’m not sure how accurate this source is, but it is plausible enough to turn me off milk.

Source: www.milksucks.com ;)
Of course this site obviously isn't objective and some inaccuracies may exist, but other research seems to correspond. It makes sense to me.

Dear Kanabia,

I think people shouldn't buy goods from companies that are taking advantage of their undeveloped state to exploit the nation without contributing to its economic development.

I think that if they want to sell goods it's okay for rich nations to buy them. If it didn't benefit them they wouldn't sell them. I don't see rich nations exploiting developing nations so much as hurting them by putting up trade barriers. Trade barrier are different from exploitation. With exploitation you take something. Trade barriers stop people from improving their position by selling things.

Just a random observation here but this guy's fairly full of bile for someone who claims to be at peace with the world. All this "Get a real identity you insufferable slobs!" and "Stop salivating over advertisements you greasy animals!". Seems like he's got respect for everything that ain't human.

I refuse to spout generic urban leftist rubbish and hypocritically call myself an independent thinker.

"Trying walking into a store ... and putting your Dong on the counter"

I think you'd be arrested for obscenity.

"Every company has an incentive to pay their workers as little as possible."

No they don't. I wish people would learn some basic economics before running off at the keyboard.

Companies have an incentive to pay their workers the most economic rate possible. Not the lowest.

If you set up a factory making light textile products, and pay your workers $2 an hour, and I set one up which is makes light textiles, and I pay $8 an hour (assuming that both factories are viable entities, i.e. we both have a ready market, we both can pay all our costs etc), they're going to want to work for me because I pay more. Moreover, I would be able to choose the best workers, whereas you with your lower rates must accept anybody.

All economies go through their textile phase, and into more advanced things.

The reason clothing manufacturers set up in the third world is that it is economical to so do.

What is required for the third world to develop is the following:

-Government that respects people's rights (the right to property being the important one here, no one will invest if some thug with a party badge can just nick it)

-Free trade, the trade barriers, for which most governments must take responsibility, reduce the incentive to trade and create wealth. Trade barriers raise the price of goods, and have ensured that it is extremely difficult for the Third World to sell its goods to the First World, keeping the Third World poor. After WW2, Hong Kong built itself from a little British colony, scarred by war, to a global trade powerhouse.

Here's a good article on Hong Kong vs. Third World protectionism:
Reason: A Tale of Two Countries - Economic Impact of Philippine Protectionism Policies, and Lack of Protectionism in Hong Kong (http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1568/is_n2_v26/ai_15473461)

-Investment, this will follow the resolution of questions of governance and free trade. The money invested in good, viable enterprise will benefit the entire economy.

Aid is not the solution, it has made things worse. (N.B. by aid I don't mean immediate didaster relief like what was launched in the wake of the Tsuami, I mean the type of long-term aid to which Africa has been subjected)

Aid perpetuates dependency, and has been corrupted. Africa has had the equivilant of 6 Marshall Plans, and its infrastructure (outside South Africa at least) couldn't support Victoria.

To those who claim that more and more aid will end poverty, where are the results?

Corruption, and perpetual poverty are the results.

I think that if they want to sell goods it's okay for rich nations to buy them. If it didn't benefit them they wouldn't sell them.
But who does it benefit? The exploitation of underdeveloped nations or slave labour does not benefit the people who actually make the goods and NEED the money to survive. It does not benefit the poor, struggling or needy at all. The only people it benefits are the rich, greedy minority in these struggling nations and the developed countries such as Australia and America.

People who have no choice but to work in unsafe and unhygienic factories as cheap labour in these countries get paid only the equivalent to 60 cents (Australian) for 10 hours of sweat and tears. It’s an abuse of human rights and a great injustice.

My, aren't we the active for no apparent reason :D

I'm sick of all this milk bashing. God forbid we have a food chain and use our intelligence to survive and flourish. Maybe instead we should all go out and live in the wild and see how we fare against the big teeth and claws of other animals. Yeah.

"Every company has an incentive to pay their workers as little as possible."

No they don't. I wish people would learn some basic economics before running off at the keyboard.

Oh dear oh dear. I try to write simply and it results in more understanding. How about this: Low wages better than even lower wages.

Hopefully that conveys what I'm trying to get accross.

To those who claim that more and more aid will end poverty, where are the results?

Elimination of smallpox and much less polio. A women in Vietnam who started a small business with a microloan. A man in Tibet who has sight in one eye due to Fredd Hollows slicing out the cloudy lens and putting a plastic one in. That is aid. Aid as in help. It helped people. Building big dams and bridges and giving money to the ethically handicapped often isn't quite as helpful and may be what you're thinking of.

"But who does it benefit? The exploitation of underdeveloped nations or slave labour does not benefit the people who actually make the goods and NEED the money to survive. It does not benefit the poor, struggling or needy at all. The only people it benefits are the rich, greedy minority in these struggling nations and the developed countries such as Australia and America."

You admit that the people of the third world need the money, and corporations are paying them that money... What would your solution be? Corporations not employing them so they can just starve?

I honestly fail to see how you could have overlooked the crass hypocrisy of your statement. You openly state that these people are being paid money that they NEED to survive, and yet you oppose the companies that give them this money, and you still claim to be an advocate for these starving people... I mean, where exactly is the logic in that?

Believe it or not, they aren't forced at gunpoint to take these sweatshop jobs (at least, not usually), they take these jobs because they can't feed their familes without them. This basic fact is labelled "exploitation", which is absurd. If a person working for what they need is exploitation then what isn't? Should companies only hire people who don't need the money? If people didn't need the money, why would they want the job to begin with?
People have often claimed that corporations should pay them more, but if they were made to pay more it would become more profitable to keep jobs domestic. Again meaning that the people of developing nations would have nothing.

In response to this very simple pursuit of practicality, people attack these companies as being "greedy" and pursuing profit. But again this ignores basic reality: if these companies didn't do what best profited them they would go bankrupt and no longer be able to employ people who need the jobs they provide.

What all this amounts to is kids in rich countries feeling guilty for having been born in a rich country. So they feel they need to constantly attack their own homes as "greedy" and "exploitative," and then be vocal advocates for the poor people of less fortunate nations. But in the process they are attacking the very foundations that made them so lucky and could still bring the people of the developing world to the same level of wealth as them. They are de facto supporters of the status quo.

Elimination of smallpox and much less polio

That's public health,

A women in Vietnam who started a small business with a microloan.

Loaning people money is different to giving governments and NGO's money

A man in Tibet who has sight in one eye due to Fredd Hollows slicing out the cloudy lens and putting a plastic one in.

One man's charity, given by him working directly, and inspiring others to do so. Most of the "aid" to the Third world is government to government, or government to NGO.

That is aid. Aid as in help. It helped people. Building big dams and bridges and giving money to the ethically handicapped often isn't quite as helpful and may be what you're thinking of.

Nice obfuscation.

Most aid either doesn't get there, or is stolen, or is withheld. Aid is used as a weapon, and it supresses any economic growth in the recipient nations.

What you are asking me do to is remember only the $1 that does get there, and actually do something good, and forget the $999 that ends up in Switzerland, is wasted by some totally unaccountable Western NGO, or is put down as "administrative expenses".

"Believe it or not, they aren't forced at gunpoint to take these sweatshop jobs (at least, not usually), they take these jobs because they can't feed their familes without them. This basic fact is labelled "exploitation", which is absurd."

Agreed, well said!

I think that if they want to sell goods it's okay for rich nations to buy them. If it didn't benefit them they wouldn't sell them. I don't see rich nations exploiting developing nations so much as hurting them by putting up trade barriers. Trade barrier are different from exploitation. With exploitation you take something. Trade barriers stop people from improving their position by selling things.
The first sentence is a bit misleading. THEY are not selling anything to us (they are, but you're not talking about that here) Western companies are selling products made in other countries to us. The western companies get the profit, not local companies. These westerners don't even have to pay taxes in most of the South East Asian countries. Usually they get 3 years free when they start making business in some country. But after that they don't start paying taxes. If the government insist it, they just move to other country to avoid taxation. Those countries can't help it. Also if the government raises the minimum wage, the companies just leave to another country which is cheaper.

But I do agree with trade barriers. Those got to go.

Companies have an incentive to pay their workers the most economic rate possible. Not the lowest.

If you set up a factory making light textile products, and pay your workers $2 an hour, and I set one up which is makes light textiles, and I pay $8 an hour (assuming that both factories are viable entities, i.e. we both have a ready market, we both can pay all our costs etc), they're going to want to work for me because I pay more. Moreover, I would be able to choose the best workers, whereas you with your lower rates must accept anybody.

...

To those who claim that more and more aid will end poverty, where are the results?


If you'd pay them 8$ you'd be insane. When the unemployment is very high you don't have to fight to get proper workers. You can pay as little as you want and no one can't complain as the only other option is getting nothing at all. Quite many won't even pay the minimum wage. That's illegal but you really think that e.g. GAP gives a shit. If the consumers don't care, the company does not care. Your system only works in countries where there are more jobs than workers.

You had some good ideas there.

About aid. It's true that we've being throwing insane amounts of aid to other countries with almost no result what so ever. That's mainly because the aid has been very poorly addressed. Microloans can help many (and yes, it is aid). Education is IMO the best method to aid. Vaccines are aid, it's not public health if there is no public health programs in country.

I will not buy anything from:
–Microsoft

Are you using an Apple Mac then?

You admit that the people of the third world need the money, and corporations are paying them that money... What would your solution be? Corporations not employing them so they can just starve?


Actually if they would stay in the countryside, farm animals etc, work for their own community, they would not need money. Corporations could start with paying minimun wages, paying for extra work, paying taxes, stop using child labour, limit the daily working hours to 10 hours, stop dumbing their waste on where ever they want etc etc

Are you using an Apple Mac then?
Linux?
Anyway, using computers is never very ethical. But we all have to compromise in some issues.

No body listen to her. She's evil.

*yawns*

In one thread i'm evil, in another beautiful... i spose i could be both, but maybe you should make up your mind :D

*yawns*

In one thread i'm evil, in another beautiful... i spose i could be both, but maybe you should make up your mind :D

I'm sorry Lashie. You're not evil. To my knowledge. I know for sure that you are very beautiful. :fluffle: