NationStates Jolt Archive

First, let's agree on a definition of sweatshop.

- extremely low wages
- hard, unpleasant work
- uses child labour
- long hours
- dangerous working conditions that shorten life

Now that we know what we're talking about, are sweatshops good things?

I assert that they are. Much of the world's population already lives under conditions as described above; disease and famine shorten lives, children have to work from dawn to dusk, and wages (if there are any) are below subsistence level. By building a sweatshop, you're pumping wealth into their local economy. Most sweatshops feed their workers at least once a day, something those workers wouldn't get without them.

Sweatshops improve people's lives.

I wouldn't call them good things. Sure, they might be better than the alternative, but does that really mean anything? It's better to lose one leg than both, but isn't it still better not to lose a leg at all? If people can survive without sweatshops in the developed world, they should be able to survive without sweat shops in the developing world. It might require a bit of effort on the part of industrialized nations, but isn't it worth it in the long run? Sweatshops are a shortcut, not a proper solution.

Sweatshops themselves aren't good per se, but they are, however, a necessary step in the correct direction. You must first accumulate capital before you can rectify the situation (a poor economy, low standard of life, etc.). Sweatshops are the only method in which it is possible to accumulate enough capital to catalyze such a change. It's kind of like that guy whose arm was crushed under a boulder. No -- cutting your arm off with a dull knife is not "good." However, it's the best choice because the alternatives are all much more miserable.

Both. What we should work to eliminate is social conditions so horrible that working in a sweatshop is a better option, and we should also work to improve conditions at sweatshops. Preventing companies from, say, outsourcing in order to prevent sweatshops would not be decent solution.

The reality is that you cannot go from third world to developed world overnight. There were sweatshops in America, too. There are always ugly things in the transition between abject poverty and a modern economy. Without sweatshops and other 'cheap labor' sources, nations would lack the capital to transition to your modern, first world, nice'n'clean economy.

No, I'd say they're not good. To anyone who takes a serious position that sweatshops improve the lives of the workers they employ, I'd ask "have you, personally ever worked in a sweatshop? ". Lots of things inject money into a local depressed economy, urban crack dealing brings in cash from more prosperous adjacent neighborhoods, for example.

Additionally, in an economy which tolerates sweatshops, the competitive ability of employers who provide safe, clean, and healthy working environments ( which are more expensive to maintain than sweatshops) is greatly diminished. This creates a drag on the entire region's economy, reducing the overall standards of living and employment.

If what they had before was enough to survive reasonably well, then no, they're not.

Many of the workers in sweatshops are actually displaced from their normal communities. Displaced because the government of the region appropriates the common land that they've been using to support themselves, often to sell to the very company that sets up the factory, which leaves them with no choice but to work in the sweatshop if they want to continue existance.

Yes, their labour is now monetized, so looks good for the GDP, but their condition is actually much worse than it was before. Their real living conditions have actually taken a dip when you look at their lives before and after the sweatshop moved in.

This is one of the more legitimate ways that companies get people to work for sweatshops. Other ways include sending buses down to remote villages, offering a "chance" for those interested to come out to the factory and work there, but also lying about what the work is, what you can get out of it, and most importantly, about the company's intention to bring the person back if they don't like it.

Of course, some don't bother with this, they just bribe the ruling powers directly and have local communities moved to working for them at gunpoint. Pay them pitiful wages and then charge most or all of it back in rent and food. Without any way to leave to return to their community, and with soldiers present to "protect the peace" if they chance to rebel, workers are essentially slaves, but because they get given a "wage", the company manages to avoid charges of slavery.

If what they had before was enough to survive reasonably well, then no, they're not.

Many of the workers in sweatshops are actually displaced from their normal communities. Displaced because the government of the region appropriates the common land that they've been using to support themselves, often to sell to the very company that sets up the factory, which leaves them with no choice but to work in the sweatshop if they want to continue existance.

And what would happen if the gpvernment appropriated the land (or the multinationals bought/outcompeted the business, for another pertinent example) and no company was allowed to employ the displaced labor?

The workers would be worse off, not better.

And what would happen if the gpvernment appropriated the land (or the multinationals bought/outcompeted the business, for another pertinent example) and no company was allowed to employ the displaced labor?

The workers would be worse off, not better.
Perhaps the problem is the government appropriating the land that's being used to feed the community in the first place?

Two options:

Yes, if the people who start work there do so by their free will. Whether or not it will improve their position is written in the stars, but they clearly think so and I am in no position to make that judgement for them.

No, if the people who start work there do not do so by their free will. There have been many cases, as Waterkeep mentioned, of people more or less being forced into sweatshop labour. Some of these influencing factors happen more or less at random and can't be helped, but others are clearly schemes to force people into a certain lifestyle, which is not cool.

Suffice to say that companies would do well to watch what they're doing with their money. Real sweatshop labour (ie child labour and all that, not just cheap labour like in China) is something that is watched keenly by various groups, and good on them. It's bad PR to use it.

And secondly, as is usually the case with the problems in the 3rd world, to a large extent this is a home-grown issue. If local employers (who run the sweatshops) and the local government (which support or tolerate them) don't crack down on inhumane working conditions then that is not the fault of capitalism, or of free trade, or of the WTO and not even of multinational corporations.

Perhaps the problem is the government appropriating the land that's being used to feed the community in the first place?

Well, not necessarily that either. You have to develop somehow.

The problem is a system which values profit over human need and human dignity. But in the absence of a replacement, we probably have to take what is somewhat more achievable - sweatshops with enforced strict labor regulations.

Well, sweatshops are good if you wanna sweat it out. Ya know.:rolleyes:

- extremely low wages
- hard, unpleasant work
- uses child labour
- long hours
- dangerous working conditions that shorten life

Sounds a lot like farming, which, I believe, is usually the alternative to sweatshops, and the step before it on economic development.

Sure they help people. They help give the developed world cheap shit. Good enough for me.

yes. in the same way that a mugger calling 911 for you rather than just leaving you bleeding in an alley is helping people.

And secondly, as is usually the case with the problems in the 3rd world, to a large extent this is a home-grown issue. If local employers (who run the sweatshops) and the local government (which support or tolerate them) don't crack down on inhumane working conditions then that is not the fault of capitalism, or of free trade, or of the WTO and not even of multinational corporations.

Except if they force enough increases in labor costs, the multinationals will go elsewhere, which will cause even more problems and force wages and conditions down again.

I think they are a necessary evil. Yes, there are many disadvantages, but it is an effective way to help build a nation's economy.

I think they are a necessary evil. Yes, there are many disadvantages, but it is an effective way to help build a nation's economy.

and all things that are effective at building a nation's economy are necessary?

yes. in the same way that a mugger calling 911 for you rather than just leaving you bleeding in an alley is helping people.

Sound like help to me.

Sound like help to me.

Sure. But it would be better if there were no mugging in the first place. And it would be better if the multinationals were forced to actually help the people of the countries they invade, too.

Except if they force enough increases in labor costs, the multinationals will go elsewhere, which will cause even more problems and force wages and conditions down again.

Well, yeah. But low labor costs are not necessarily a bad thing; $20,000 a year in India is the average salary for a computer programmer (compared to $80,000 in the US), but that 75% smaller pay does not have any effect on living standards because costs are much less in India than in the US. In fact, that salary may very well provide a higher standard of living than $80,000 in the US due to PPP.

Eventually, wages worldwide will eventually catch up to those in the developed world, but that takes time. Therefore, it is important to regulate labor standards according to PPP to ensure wages are equitable in real terms and the working conditions of workers are acceptable and safe.

It's rarely the multinationals that commit the abuses; instead, it's the local employers that are not affected by international laws, regulations in their headquarters nation and PR issues that cause the most abuses.

Sweat shops are not nessisary, and are tools of corrupt governments who sacrifice thier own people to fatten thier own wallets.

First, let's agree on a definition of sweatshop.

- extremely low wages
- hard, unpleasant work
- uses child labour
- long hours
- dangerous working conditions that shorten life

Now that we know what we're talking about, are sweatshops good things?
..... You need to elaborate on that definition. For example by saying:
- how extremely low wages
- how hard, unpleasant work
- how it uses child labour
- how long hours
- how dangerous working conditions that shorten life in what way

Otherwise you're describing so many jobs.

........
It's rarely the multinationals that commit the abuses; instead, it's the local employers that are not affected by international laws, regulations in their headquarters nation and PR issues that cause the most abuses.
Which is why the multinationals set up shop there. Therefor they are responsible.

It's rarely the multinationals that commit the abuses; instead, it's the local employers that are not affected by international laws, regulations in their headquarters nation and PR issues that cause the most abuses.

But you can't separate one from the other. Sure, the workers at the maquiladoras might be better off than those elsewhere, but if Mexican real wages and working conditions are (relatively) bad in the first place because of the economic displacement caused by multinationals and free trade, that's hardly a justification.

Sure. But it would be better if there were no mugging in the first place. And it would be better if the multinationals were forced to actually help the people of the countries they invade, too.

Sure, it would be better if those people weren't poor...

...but they are.

Perhaps I should have prefaced the poll with "All else being equal..."

Sweatshops improve people's lives.

Eh?

So if I punch you in the face and then try it again but you duck, did I improve your life?

But you can't separate one from the other. Sure, the workers at the maquiladoras might be better off than those elsewhere, but if real wages and working conditions are bad in the first place because of the economic displacement caused by multinationals and free trade, that's hardly a justification.

Wait, did you just blame free trade for poverty?

How could that possibly be free trade's fault? All free trade does is prevent protectionism, and all protectionsm does is funnel wealth from part of your economy to another (look at the US steel tariffs - it transfers wealth from the local consumers of steel to the local producers of steel).

Wait, did you just blame free trade for poverty?

No, I didn't. I meant "relatively."

As for its consequences, in Third World countries it tends to harm small businesses and stagnant or inefficient sectors of the economy. Ultimately this may be a positive effect, but it tends to harm working conditions; one reason they need to be more strictly regulated.

Eh?

So if I punch you in the face and then try it again but you duck, did I improve your life?

No, you haven't done anything that helped me.

A better analogy would be be you found me getting beaten up by three guys, and you stopped one of them. THAT helps me.

Wait, did you just blame free trade for poverty?

How could that possibly be free trade's fault? All free trade does is prevent protectionism, and all protectionsm does is funnel wealth from part of your economy to another (look at the US steel tariffs - it transfers wealth from the local consumers of steel to the local producers of steel).
Free trade tends to benefit one side only.

But you can't separate one from the other. Sure, the workers at the maquiladoras might be better off than those elsewhere, but if real wages and working conditions are bad in the first place because of the economic displacement caused by multinationals and free trade, that's hardly a justification.

Economic displacement is a product of protectionism and imperialism. The largest economies in the world during the 1800's were India and China, but years of imperialism and mercantilsm/protectionism reduced them and other non-Western nations to a level far below their levels in a more competitive market.

Free trade when properly managed can be a way to alleviate years of abuse and correct relations between the developed and developing world, but if it isn't properly managed it will worsen the situation.

I don't support sweatshops, which is why free trade agreements have to provide protection to workers in terms of wages and working conditions. If a maquiladora's workers are recieving a wage that is comparable in PPP terms to those of workers in the same field in a developed nation, they are doing nothing wrong.

But if the workers are being taken advantage of and are being paid submarket, sub-living wages, that facility deserves to be shutdown regardless of who operates it.

Don't compare the wages in developing nations to wages in developed nations because the standard of living in both worlds is different (extremely different). In Somalia, for $20 (US) you can live in a hotel (top notch and everything running of course) for a month. For $25000-$30000, buy a villa (Italian architecture with the latest techs) :cool: but then again, most Somalis work abroad (mostly in developed nations) and bring back their earnings to their families in the Somalia (keeps the economy flowing indirectly).

No, I didn't. I meant "relatively."

Okay, let me back up.

Sure, the workers at the maquiladoras might be better off than those elsewhere, but if Mexican real wages and working conditions are (relatively) bad in the first place because of the economic displacement caused by multinationals and free trade, that's hardly a justification.

I think I can credibly claim to have helped a beggar if, upon passing him with $4000 in my pocket, I give him $0.65.

That I didn't give him more doesn't mean I didn't help him. It just means I didn't help him as much as I could have, but that's not what I asked.

Originally posted by Llewdor
Wait, did you just blame free trade for poverty?

How could that possibly be free trade's fault? All free trade does is prevent protectionism, and all protectionsm does is funnel wealth from part of your economy to another (look at the US steel tariffs - it transfers wealth from the local consumers of steel to the local producers of steel).
Ah! The mantra. If we keep on saying it maybe, one day, it will come true.

Okay, let me back up.



I think I can credibly claim to have helped a beggar if, upon passing him with $4000 in my pocket, I give him $0.65.

That I didn't give him more doesn't mean I didn't help him. It just means I didn't help him as much as I could have, but that's not what I asked.
What if you kicked over his soup bowl, while you were at it?

Free trade tends to benefit one side only.

I don't see how.

If I'm a rich country and you're a poor country, you can freely sell me goods, and I can freely buy them. That means I get cheaper goods, but you get more money. We both benefit.

Workers in my coutry who compete with you lost out, but they were unproductive workers, so I'm better off if they're moved to a different industry. There's no reason why anyone in my rich country should be doing things that your country can do, because if you can do it it mustn't be terribly difficult.

There's no reason a company can't pay liveable wages and treat workers well and still make a profit.

What if you kicked over his soup bowl, while you were at it?

That destorys the analogy. Sweatshops don't actually hurt the people - they give them jobs, and resources they wouldn't have had otherwise.

Ah! The mantra. If we keep on saying it maybe, one day, it will come true.

Protectionsim doesn't work. It's been proven a failiure time and again, and does nothing but cause poverty in the nations that are victims and unemployment and falling wages in the nations that use it.

There's no reason a company can't pay liveable wages and treat workers well and still make a profit.

Sure there is.

Because their competitors don't.

Ah! The mantra. If we keep on saying it maybe, one day, it will come true.

Explain to me then how protectionism is a net benefit. If the protected industry benefits, that money has to be coming from somewhere.

There's no reason a company can't pay liveable wages and treat workers well and still make a profit.

Most companies do; a lot of people have been lifted out of poverty and have entered the middle class thanks to foreign investment and trade liberalization. However, for those markets where the labor market doesn't work laws are required to force companies to pay wages comparable in PPP terms to those of a similar worker in a developed nation.

I don't see how.

If I'm a rich country and you're a poor country, you can freely sell me goods, and I can freely buy them. That means I get cheaper goods, but you get more money. We both benefit.

Workers in my coutry who compete with you lost out, but they were unproductive workers, so I'm better off if they're moved to a different industry. There's no reason why anyone in my rich country should be doing things that your country can do, because if you can do it it mustn't be terribly difficult.
You have bargaining power.

Except if they force enough increases in labor costs, the multinationals will go elsewhere, which will cause even more problems and force wages and conditions down again.
The thing with "labour costs" is that they really should be measured as "labour value".

It's a matter of subtracting costs from benefits. Just because labour costs are higher doesn't mean that no jobs will be around - the jobs start leaving if the labour provided is not enough to justify the costs, if the work done is just not worth it.

Sure there is.

Because their competitors don't.
If they produce a superior product, more people will buy their product than their competitor. Furthermore, it's not like these other companies wouldn't make a profit if they paid their employees liveable wages. You can't tell me that Nike can't afford to pay their labourors more than 5 cents a shoe when they're selling them for hundreds.

Protectionsim doesn't work. It's been proven a failiure time and again, and does nothing but cause poverty in the nations that are victims and unemployment and falling wages in the nations that use it.

Except in the US (and much of the rest of the developed world) for 150 years.

As a tool to protect developing industry that would otherwise be outcompeted by foreign imports - and only as such a tool - it can be useful.

Sound like help to me.

not the sort of help anyone would actively want

That destorys the analogy. Sweatshops don't actually hurt the people - they give them jobs, and resources they wouldn't have had otherwise.
The fact that sweatshops tend to destroy the local subsistence economy (which at least guarantees [more or less] food for everybody) doesn't hurt them?

There's no reason a company can't pay liveable wages and treat workers well and still make a profit.
Sure there is.
Because their competitors don't.
Make a profit != make as much as their competitors

The thing with "labour costs" is that they really should be measured as "labour value".

It's a matter of subtracting costs from benefits. Just because labour costs are higher doesn't mean that no jobs will be around - the jobs start leaving if the labour provided is not enough to justify the costs, if the work done is just not worth it.

Unless strict labor regulations are enacted multilaterally - as they should be, and can be - the multinational has a motive to move from a strictly regulated labor market to a more liberalized one, in order to benefit from lower labor costs.

It amazes me how people in nice cosy N. American and European households can sit there and pontificate on how crapping all over a 3rd world nation is something they should be thanking us for. The myth of free trade has reduced many of these countries to utter penury by destroying the local economy and replacing it with a sweatshop one (if they're very lucky) instead.

Too many people on these forums put to much store by economic statistics and $ signs while conveniently forgetting the real lives their pet theories are destroying all over the world.

That destorys the analogy. Sweatshops don't actually hurt the people - they give them jobs, and resources they wouldn't have had otherwise.
That depends on how bad they are. How much cost is being cut, whether certain minimum standards are being followed, etc.

Except in the US (and much of the rest of the developed world) for 150 years.

The world of 150 years ago was a lot different, and protectionism hardly worked well given the large number of international financial panics, recessions, and depressions in the 18th and 19th centuries. The nation whose trade was freest, Great Britain, had the strongest economic and trade growth in the world during the period and only lost ground when other nations began to liberalize their markets and compete directly against them.

Also, protectionism came at the expense of the rest of the world as well as a number of industrial abuses and the creation of long term unemployment in industries that were unable to compete. The US auto industry, the steel industry, and in fact most of our manufacturing was destroyed by our own protectionism or those of our trading partners.

As a tool to protect developing industry that would otherwise be outcompeted by foreign imports - and only as such a tool - it can be useful.

Infant industry protectionism is different; in many cases it is a good idea but it is very difficult to quantify whether an industry is mature or not. Unfortunately, given the politicized nature of protectionism in most cases it is common that fully mature industries are subsidized and protected to give the nation a massively unfair trade advantage. Also, it might prevent comparative advantage from working and depress overall economic growth and productivity worsening the standards of the workers in the economy.

Infant industry protectionism would have to be designed on a standardized international scale in order to keep these abuses from occuring and enforce the removal of the barriers as the industry gradually matures.

....
Infant industry protectionism is different; in many cases it is a good idea but it is very difficult to quantify whether an industry is mature or not. Unfortunately, given the politicized nature of protectionism in most cases it is common that fully mature industries are subsidized and protected to give the nation a massively unfair trade advantage. Also, it might prevent comparative advantage from working and depress overall economic growth and productivity worsening the standards of the workers in the economy.

Infant industry protectionism would have to be designed on a standardized international scale in order to keep these abuses from occuring and enforce the removal of the barriers as the industry gradually matures.
Infant industry protectionism is what many developing countries need. That they won't get until they form actual blocks of their own. Which is coming about in places.

It amazes me how people in nice cosy N. American and European households can sit there and pontificate on how crapping all over a 3rd world nation is something they should be thanking us for. The myth of free trade has reduced many of these countries to utter penury by destroying the local economy and replacing it with a sweatshop one (if they're very lucky) instead.

The Third World was much worse off before free trade than it is now; poverty is less, growth is stronger, and there are real ways for nations to negotiate their disputes rather than resulting to the petty trade wars that caused the Great Depression.

Protectionism created the poverty of the Third World by preventing these nations from developing their own industries and economic systems in favor of turning them in to resource factories for the developed world.

The nation whose trade was freest, Great Britain, had the strongest economic and trade growth in the world during the period and only lost ground when other nations began to liberalize their markets and compete directly against them.

Great Britain also industrialized early, giving it the advantage of not really having any competition. And considering that it was an imperial power, it enjoyed other advantages that had nothing to do with brilliant success on the free market.

Infant industry protectionism would have to be designed on a standardized international scale in order to keep these abuses from occuring and enforce the removal of the barriers as the industry gradually matures.

Agreed.

Originally posted by Vetalia
The world of 150 years ago was a lot different, and protectionism hardly worked well given the large number of international financial panics, recessions, and depressions in the 18th and 19th centuries. The nation whose trade was freest, Great Britain, had the strongest economic and trade growth in the world during the period and only lost ground when other nations began to liberalize their markets and compete directly against them.

And all those "fantastic" economic figures meant to the vast majority of British subjects was a short, brutal, miserable life in abject poverty and squalor that shocked visitors from India. I'm sure they were glad the economy was booming though.

The Third World was much worse off before free trade than it is now; poverty is less, growth is stronger, and there are real ways for nations to negotiate their disputes rather than resulting to the petty trade wars that caused the Great Depression.

Protectionism created the poverty of the Third World by preventing these nations from developing their own industries and economic systems in favor of turning them in to resource factories for the developed world.
Before free trade the third world was crawling from under the colonial yoke, (what drama). What trade wars caused the great depression?

And all those "fantastic" economic figures meant to the vast majority of British subjects was a short, brutal, miserable life in abject poverty and squalor that shocked visitors from India. I'm sure they were glad the economy was booming though.

Actually, they led to the establishment of the educated middle class as the dominant demographic of English society and eventually the rest of the developed world. Labor rights, public infrastructure, voting rights, and personal freedoms were all won during the mid and late 19th century by the growing middle class. Were the economy not to perform well, England would have not been able to develop these rights and movements and would have been economically disadvantaged.

Before free trade the third world was crawling from under the colonial yoke, (what drama). What trade wars caused the great depression?

The US Smoot-Hawley tariff along with a wave of prior financial protectionism in Europe and the US created a massive ripple effect of protectionism (a trade war) that reduced American trade volume by 75% and was an indirect cause of the stock market crash and the destruction of liquidity that prevented the world's central banks from creating the money necessary to prevent the total collapse of international finance afterwards.

Originally posted by Vetalia
The Third World was much worse off before free trade than it is now; poverty is less, growth is stronger, and there are real ways for nations to negotiate their disputes rather than resulting to the petty trade wars that caused the Great Depression.
You are not trying to tell me Africans are better off than they were 25 years ago. Nonsense. You may be able to quote economic stats to me but all that tells me is that there are unscrupulous people making a lot of money while the populace suffers.

The US Smoot-Hawley tariff along with a wave of prior financial protectionism in Europe and the US created a massive ripple effect of protectionism (a trade war) that reduced American trade volume by 75% and was an indirect cause of the stock market crash and the destruction of liquidity that prevented the world's central banks from creating the money necessary to prevent the total collapse of international finance afterwards.
Wasn't there a bubble ready to burst?

Wasn't there a bubble ready to burst?

Yes, but the market had already been breaking down due to fears of the tariff; the market had several huge dives in early 1929 due to fears over the tariff being passed, so the actual act was what finally popped the bubble. It wouldn't have been nearly as bad if liquidity and international trade were not nearly destroyed by the tariff and financial protectionism.

You are not trying to tell me Africans are better off than they were 25 years ago. Nonsense. You may be able to quote economic stats to me but all that tells me is that there are unscrupulous people making a lot of money while the populace suffers.

Africa is one of the least open markets in the world; it is little freer and open to investment than it was 25 years ago and that has a lot to do with its stagnation. India and China are the examples of trade liberalization in action, with poverty falling and real income rising significantly in the aftermath of opening their markets to foreign investment and trade.

Unless strict labor regulations are enacted multilaterally - as they should be, and can be - the multinational has a motive to move from a strictly regulated labor market to a more liberalized one, in order to benefit from lower labor costs.
Well yes. People don't like to be forced to do things, they'd rather do them voluntarily.

Anyways, my point is clear. The more advanced your labour force, the higher the wages you can demand while still getting companies to hire you. There is nothing wrong, or "immoral" about any of this.

As for Llanarc...you can keep talking about how statistics don't tell us anything, yet you offer no proof whatsoever. You don't put together an argument against statistics, and you don't put together an argument for a different way of looking at it.

Aid, Trade, Globalisation and Growth
By me
The University of Queensland

This paper investigates the phenomenon of globalisation, and the issues that come along with it. Globalisation is defined, and the theory of comparative advantage outlined. This is followed by a brief explanation of the problems with globalisation and a more detailed investigation of the links between trade and economic growth. Additionally, the influence of aid is discussed. Finally, the specific case of Uganda is investigated and the implementation of Yoweri Museveni’s growth strategies is evaluated.

Introduction
“I don’t want aid, I want trade.” When Uganda’s president, Yoweri Museveni spoke these words on his 2003 visit in the United States, it could be seen as a desperate plea to both the Western and African nations. As we proceed to move into the 21st century, technology has enabled mankind to form one cohesive whole, if not politically, then at least economically. But as is so often the case, in reality problems have to be solved which are not immediately apparent in theory.
This essay will try to bring light on the issues surrounding Museveni’s statement. It will outline the process of globalisation, and what can be gained from it, as well as its criticisms. Then a more meaningful linkage between the ability and willingness to liberalise and participate in world trade shall follow, after which Uganda’s specific situation will come under scrutiny.

Globalisation and Comparative Advantage
Globalisation is often assumed to concentrate entirely on economic issues, and when one looks for it in the dictionary, one will find it primarily related to the growth of industry to a global scale. Yet if one is to understand globalisation and its implications for humanity as a whole, one cannot underestimate the political and cultural integration of different peoples that is part of the process.
In general, the processes of globalisation ensue when people from different geographic areas make contact and begin to exchange goods and services but also ideas. When defined this way, it seems obvious that globalisation is not a new phenomenon, that ever since humans build communities, their horizons expanded with time as cultures built trade linkages. From ancient Greeks to Romans onwards, as history progressed the world has “grown larger” as societies’ horizons expanded to include first Spain, then Britain, India, Africa, China and then the New World and even Australia. Many other cultures developed this way too, although the sometimes aggressive way in which this exploration was conducted in later years could be argued to be uniquely Western. Indeed, we are already in the second modern period of globalisation. During the final years of the Industrial Age, around 1900, trade volume was already high and trade barriers had been dismantled. The two great wars of the 20th century brought this to a halt, and only after WWII did the second era of globalisation begin (Williamson, 2002).
But why would people do this? Why is it a good idea to trade with others? The answer lies in the concept of “comparative advantage”. Closely related to the specialisation observed in labour markets, comparative advantage explains what products a country is relatively better at producing, even though another nation may have an absolute advantage in any production process imaginable.
This concept is probably best illustrated by an example. Country A is a very advanced, modern economy, which can produce both food and computers at a very fast rate. Country B however is a poorer nation, which lacks technical facilities to produce many computers, and relies on labour-intensive, lower yielding agricultural methods. Both nations have a production possibility curve (PPC), as shown in figure 1. On this curve it can be seen that country A is clearly in such a good position that it can produce both goods better than B can, and that thus one could think that there is no need to trade with B. Yet when one assumes the two to trade, suddenly on aggregate both produce more than they did when they were autonomous. How is that possible? The answer lies in the relative costs of the two goods. Once one expresses these costs in terms of the other goods, ie the cost of a computer in A is 1.5 units of food, we can see that food can be produced relatively cheaper in B.
When one now assumes that both countries are part of one market, and there are no disincentives to trade, both nations combine their abilities to produce a better PPC, and thus to produce more goods on aggregate for their populations to enjoy.
This of course paints a very positive picture on free trade. Nonetheless, in the real world, not everyone benefits from a sudden economic liberalisation. Here we assumed that there were no negative effects in either country from the falling production of either food or computers, but in reality, industries could be destroyed, and potentially millions could lose their livelihood. Furthermore, if some nations specialise in goods or services for which demand is volatile, they will bear the brunt of any changes in demand.
Similarly, different elasticities for demand and supply dictate that transportation costs (which were also assumed away in the above example) will be split unevenly between producers and consumers. This has happened in the case of primary industry exports from Australia, and it is somewhat likely that similar developing nations would face the comparable problems (Brazil, Kolsen and Evans, 1993)
At any rate, countries that specialise in agricultural produce, like country B, are faced with demand that flattens over time. As incomes rise, the demand for computers and other luxury goods my continuously increase, yet the demand for food will stay fairly constant as everyone has reached a level where more food would not make them any better off.
And to add further complications, countries A and B may not live in a vacuum, indeed a war or other conflict may be imminent, and neither A nor B may be able to trade with each other, such that they may lack critical resources.

Criticisms
It is thus not surprising that in practice globalisation, like any other phenomenon, has its dark sides. The way the world trade is currently set up there can be no doubt that it is a rather unfair arrangement. Developing countries are repeatedly urged to drop all protectionism, to open their markets to trade, in practice often meaning Western multinational corporations, and governments are required to stay out of the free market processes. However, Western nations, especially the USA and the EU, have for years refused to do the same. Especially goods in which developing countries would have a comparative advantage, such as agricultural produce, are kept out of the Western world with quotas, tariffs and other trade barriers (Oxfam, 2002). The WTO, the IMF and the World Bank have been following relatively orthodox recipes for growth, repeatedly forcing developing countries to abandon sensible subsidisation or even protection schemes which, only decades ago, have helped nations like Japan and South Korea build up a capital stock and thus to reach their current wealth levels. Instead many now witness countries overwhelmed with debt, with poor governance being exploited by large corporations which use free trade laws to extract much of the resources of the third world, and profit from the value-adding processes in other nations. Similar schemes have existed before: Colonial India was known for its raw materials, which were then shipped to Britain, processed for a profit, and then shipped back to India to be sold to the locals for high prices. Then, there were laws against spinning clothes for oneself in India, today global trade is set up to prevent it automatically. Groups like Oxfam in particular have been campaigning for years to make international trade fairer to developing nations (Oxfam, 2005).
However, such arguments would concern the way globalisation has been done so far, its practical application. There are people however who are opposed to the very idea of free trade itself. Incidentally, this camp both includes members of the far right, who oppose it because they see it as weakening of their national standing and power, and the far left, who see most private enterprise as an exploitation of workers – especially workers who they see as unable to defend themselves. Especially the Left (which includes Green groups and various Anarchist movements) has been vocal in its protests against free trade, and the organisations that organise it. They see the vast income differences between countries as immoral, and consider trade to be the cause of them. It is thus understandable that they are highly sceptical that trade should actually serve to reverse the situation (Engels, 1847). However, realistically there are few ways in which society could today be structured without increasing contact, culturally and commercially, between nations.

The Relationship between Trade and Economic Growth
Economic Growth is then central to the wellbeing of a population. It is thus of interest to any country to attempt to increase economic growth over time. As little as 6% growth per year, quite attainable for countries with a small capital stock and much capacity for increase, can double incomes in twelve years. No government can thus afford to ignore the issue.
Economists generally explain long term economic growth using models, of which the endogenous growth model is considered one of the most accurate. In this model it is shown that capital growth, attained through investment in the country, raises the capacity of the economy to produce and thus increases GDP. However, both population growth and capital depreciation need to be considered as well, as there is a certain level of investment that is required simply to hold standards of living on the same level (Dornbusch, Bodman, Crosby, Fischer and Startz, 2004).
One can see that the rate of savings in a country is integral to continued growth of the economy over time, as it usually provides a large part of the funds required for investment in new capital. This places low-income countries in a difficult situation, as people are often barely able to survive by spending their entire income. They are in no position to save any of it for the future. Empirical evidence underlines this, as saving rates in low income nations, such as in sub-Saharan Africa are as low as 8% of GDP, while saving rates in newly industrialised economies reach levels of 35% (Aryeetey and Udry, 2000). Third world countries have therefore no choice but to attract investment from foreigners in the short term, while hopefully encouraging saving as income increases.
It is in this context that the quality of the financial system in a nation is of the utmost importance. Both theory and empirical evidence suggest that the quality of the banking system fosters entrepreneurship by offering funds (through the attraction of funds), risk diversion and by generally revealing the potential rewards to entrepreneurial activity (King and Levine, 1993).
Both foreign direct investment (FDI) and the provision of money through the banking system are of interest, since FDI not only creates work that may increase income, but also introduces technology, education and skills to the locals which often has positive externalities with it, and indeed this is suggested by the endogenous growth model, which considers positive externalities to be vital for continued growth performance. One must keep in mind however that the attraction of foreign companies for FDI also requires the setting of certain guidelines regarding the conduct of such firms on the country, as there is some evidence suggesting that such policies greatly influence the actual effectiveness of FDI when it comes to the reduction of poverty (Sumner, 2005). One possible explanation could be that some corporations tend to extract resources from developing nations, and thus very little can “trickle down” to the local population.
Nonetheless, investment is of great importance, so the link between trade and investment should be investigated further. Wacziarg and Welch (2003) suggest in their findings that mean investment in low-income countries has increased after trade liberalisation occurred by as much as 1-2%. It is suggested that in the short term, the increased investment attracted through liberalisation is the main channel through which growth follows, although this effect weakens over time.
However, empirical evidence still suggests that open countries grow at a faster rate than closed ones, even after a number of years have passed. This is most likely due to the greater market available to local firms as the economy establishes itself in world trade. Shortly after liberalisation, it is probable that much of the initial trade will consist of imports, which will force the domestic economy to adjust structurally until industries are established that can survive in the new competitive environment. Once it can be estimated where a country’s comparative advantage lies, it may be a good idea to help these sectors of the economy along. This policy has successfully been introduced by Japan after World War II, when industry councils, trade barriers and subsidies restructured the Japanese industry composition quite radically a number of times.
It is however unlikely that in the present climate Western countries would agree to such policies, and the WTO would thus step in and put a stop to any such cooperative agreements between government and industry in developing countries.

Developed economies however have reached a higher equilibrium point, in which growth is relatively stable on a higher level. Factor productivity is high, and both depreciation and population growth could easily be paid for by the higher savings rates. For these countries the question of free trade is thus one of increasing factor productivity through specialisation and attracting international investment to keep the economy at a steady growth path through the accumulation of additional capital. Both Mahadevan (2002) and Gaston (1998) have investigated the impact on liberalisation on Australia, and the results are more or less expected. Total factor productivity in the manufacturing industry increased as overseas competition became a threat to local industries, and industries which were unable to compete shrunk. However, it was also clear that industries in which Australia enjoys a comparative advantage, such as primary industries and some service industries have profited from liberalisation. Wall (1999) estimates the welfare costs to GDP from protectionism in the United States to be as high as 1.45% of GDP in 1996. Considering that this constitutes a dollar value of about US$110 billion, it is obvious that such a waste of resources is unlikely to benefit anyone in the long run.

Economic Aid in the Ugandan Case
Perhaps Yoweri Museveni’s statement was directed at such ineffective trade policies, for it was likely primarily directed at the audience he was speaking to, that being the American public. His emphasis on trade may very well have been meant to re-emphasise the need for the US Government to drop its trade restrictions on Ugandan exports, which include materials like tobacco, cotton, beef and maize.
Indeed Museveni has long worked on an economic policy that is founded on improving trade performance and greater liberalisation. It has been established that economic aid works best in conjunction with openness and institutional and structural reform, and he is likely looking for help to achieve such reforms (Burnside and Dollar, 2000). Furthermore, he may perhaps wish to underline his ownership of the economic strategies that Uganda is attempting to implement, thus increasing Western confidence in his government. Ownership of policy strategies has long been considered an absolutely vital part of successful implementation (Dijkstra, 2005)
When a government has run out of funds, economic aid may often seem like an easy way out of current fiscal crises, enabling governments to continue policies which could have been too expensive otherwise. In some nations, such as the Democratic Republic of the Congo, aid was channelled directly into the personal wealth of the leadership, which consequently provided no benefit to the population at all. Burnside and Dollar have investigated the usefulness of aid to low-income countries and have found that aid works best if it is combined with sound economic policy, such as liberalisation and attraction of foreign investment. Furthermore, the total amount of economic aid received from multinational institutions like the World Bank is likely to increase as policy improves as well (Burnside and Dollar, 2000).
Instead Museveni presumably aims to attract foreign aid that will translate into a better trade performance by using it to restructure the government and the major industries. He hopes that open trade relationships and the pressures of the free market will force government institutions to remain efficient and sensible, and that this can provide an incentive for firms to locate value-adding industries in Uganda.
As Burnside and Dollar also found that the quality of economic policy alone is no significant factor of how much bilateral aid is received, Museveni’s statement may also have the aim of increasing US aid specifically by underlining his relatively responsible government policies, and so convincing US politicians that they would get “value for money”.
He also fears that the wrong type of aid, used for the wrong purposes can cause nations to become dependant on it, such that economic policy becomes impossible to administer and the country remains in a poverty trap. This is presumably what he means by saying that “aid cannot transform society”. Uganda is currently relying on aid largely for the formation of new capital, which is a positive arrangement, yet a threat remains that aid receipts could become an integral part of day-to-day government spending as has been the case in a number of Central Asian countries (World Bank, 2005).
Such reckless use of aid money, which is originally meant to set a nation up for economic growth in the future (one could say to provide a cure for the illness, not the symptom) is an example of bad governance. It is immediately obvious that continued economic growth, particularly if supported by receiving aid in the short term, can only be sustained if institutions and the government are effective and efficient in what they do.
Institutional Quality in Uganda
Institutional quality is a central factor in attracting foreign investment, since things like stability, a lack of corruption and the quality of regulatory frameworks are vital if investors are to make decisions on what the future values of their investments will be.
As Burnside and Dollar have illustrated, good governance is vital if aid is to be used to its full effect, and the quality and effectiveness of government institutions are a vital criterion for good governance.
Some economists, like Joseph Stiglitz, have argued that handing out credit should be conditional on good governance as well, in that creditors should be responsible for any negative effects that ensue if their money is used to fund negative policies (Stiglitz, 2003). If debt relief is indeed a policy option in the future, the risk to creditors may increase somewhat, such that effective governance becomes even more important.
Uganda has had a turbulent past. After independence, the first president, Milton Obote created a dictatorship, which was overthrown and changed time and time again until President Museveni took control in a guerrilla war in 1986. Since then he has instigated institutional reforms and furthered a free trade agenda, all of which culminated in the allowance of fairly free elections in 1996. In July 2005, the so called “movement” system, which prevented political parties from running in elections directly, was abandoned.
However, Uganda remains a dangerous place at times. In the North, the “Lord’s Resistance Army” (LRA), a religiously inspired guerrilla force has yet to agree to a lasting peace, and Uganda has been known to support similar movements in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which it also invaded twice.
This uncertainty is reflected in the World Bank’s assessment of the institutional quality in Uganda. Compared to its neighbours, in the category “Voice and Accountability” Uganda’s performance is mediocre, and thus it stands in the lowest quintile worldwide (figure 2). This is unlikely to improve, since there have been concerns for the validity of Uganda’s democracy due to a proposed change in the constitution that would allow Museveni to run for President a third time, as well as the government closure of a news station after the death of the Sudanese vice-president in a crash with an official Ugandan presidential helicopter (Reporters sans frontiers, 2005).
Political Stability is understandably low, due to the continued crisis in neighbouring DR Congo and the conflict with the LRA, which is poised to continue for some time. The same goes for the rule of law, which is severely strained by the internal strife, as well as the poor control of corruption which, while slightly better than in neighbouring countries, is nonetheless in the bottom 20% worldwide.
However, as far as government effectiveness and regulatory quality are concerned, Uganda takes the lead in the region. Government effectiveness is ranked at 43.8, and regulatory quality (no doubt due to Museveni’s focus on liberalisation) even makes it into the top 50% worldwide at a rank of about 55 (World Bank, 2003).
According to the World Bank, Museveni should be encouraged with his economic policies, but in other key areas Uganda has yet to leave the past behind it. The International Criminal Court has recently issued arrest warrants for the LRA leadership, but this would nonetheless require Joseph Kony and his group to be captured first (BBC, 2005). As the LRA has reportedly moved into surrounding nations, Uganda may have to rely on more international cooperation if the situation is to be stabilised.
Furthermore, Museveni himself may soon become a risk to his vision of Uganda. If indeed he gets a third term in office (terms in Uganda are already five years long), the democratic process in the country will be severely strained. Perhaps it would be a better option to use his popularity in the US to achieve multinational support for his security policy, while designating a successor to him to run in the 2006 elections. He could stay in an advisory role (the prime minister of Uganda is in such a position) if necessary, and so continue to oversee the progress that is being made.
The alternative may be a collapse of Uganda’s government and a return to dictatorship, which would surely scare away investors and damage relations internationally.

Conclusion
In conclusion, the sometimes stark differences between theory and practice have been made obvious by the past 50 years or so. Despite similar starting positions, Asian countries have been able to grow at high rates through adhering to sensible economic policies, while nations from Sub-Saharan Africa, perhaps faced with more political and ethnic diversity from the start, have failed.
In theory, trade will bring increased growth through the accumulation of more capital, through the greater size of the market domestic firms can access, and in the long term through the concept of comparative advantage. Once a reasonable income can be created and distributed, savings rates will likely increase and further enable locals to invest in the capital stock, thus lifting nations out of poverty for good.
In practice however, global trade is still unfair, in that developing nations, reliant on agricultural and other primary exports face severe protections from the Western world. While in theory bodies like the WTO should prevent this from happening, in practice no meaningful improvement has been achieved so far.
For Uganda in particular this means a continued reliance on Western goodwill if its free trade policies are to succeed in the long term. Nonetheless, empirical evidence suggests that Museveni’s policies are likely to improve income growth, and thus standards of living over time, provided that the President himself provides a framework of stability and accountability in the country, on which future growth can be based.

References

Aryeetey, E. and Udry, C. 2000. Saving in Sub-Saharan Africa. Center for International Development Harvard, Working Paper No. 38.

BBC News. 2005. Court moves against Uganda rebels. BBC World News, 7/10/2005.
Accessed on 12/10/2005.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4317852.stm

Brazil, P., Kolsen, H. and Evans, J. 1993. Liner Shipping Cargoes and Conferences, AGPS, Canberra, pp.2-7 (Chapter 2 in Appendix C).

Burnside, C. and Dollar, D. 2000. Aid, Policies and Growth. American Economic Review, 90(4): 847-868.

Dornbusch, R. Bodman, P. Crosby, M, Fischer, S. and Startz, R. 2002. Macroeconomics. 1st edn. McGraw-Hill, Sydney.

Engels, F. 1847. Protective Tariffs or Free Trade System. Deutsche Brüsseler Zeitung, 10/6/1847.

Gatson, N. 1998. The Impact of International Trade and Protection on Australian Manufacturing Employment. Australian Economic Papers, 37(2): 119-136.

King, R. G. and Levine, R. 1993. Finance, Entrepreneurship and Growth. Journal for Monetary Economics, 32: 513-542.

Mahadevan, R. 2002. Trade Liberalization and Productivity Growth in Australian Manufacturing Industries. Atlantic Economic Journal, 30(2): 170-185.

Williamson, J. G. 2002. Winners and Losers over Two Centuries of Globalization. National Bureau of Economic Research Cambridge, Working Paper No. 9161.

Oxfam. 2002. Stop the Dumping! How EU agricultural subsidies are damaging livelihoods in the developing world. Oxfam Briefing Paper 31.
Accessed on 14/10/05. http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/trade/subsidies/2002/10stopdumping.pdf

Oxfam, 2005. Make Trade Fair.
Accessed on 13/10/05.
http://www.oxfam.org/eng/programs_camp_mtf.htm

Reporters sans Frontièrs. 2005. Government shuts down radio station following presidential threats against media.
Accessed on 14/10/2005.
http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=14687

Stiglitz, J. 2003. Odious Rulers, Odious Debts. Atlantic Monthly, November 2003.

Sumner, A. 2005. Is Foreign Direct Investment good for the poor? A review and stocktake. Development in Practice, 15(3): 265-285.

Wacziarg, R. and Welch, K. H. 2003. Trade Liberalization and Growth: New Evidence. National Bureau of Economic Research Cambridge, Working Paper No. 10152.

Wall, H. J. 1999. Using the Gravity Model to estimate the Costs of Protection. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Review, January/February 1999: 33-40.

World Bank, 2003. Governance and Anti-Corruption Indicators.
Accessed on 12/10/2005.
http://info.worldbank.org/governance/

World Bank. 2005. Aid Dependency. World Development Indicators 2005, section 6.10: 350-353.

19thC UK (not England) had a succesion of booms, busts, chronic high unemployment, poverty and squalor on a previously inimagined scale and social conditions which saw the standard of living of the vast majority of the populace fall over the century. Other more "protectionist" nations managed to industrialise without having any where near the same social problems.

I'm not advocating protectionism as a be all and end all but I neither will I believe unfettered free trade is a panacea for all the worlds ills. As with most things, a balance is recquired. 3rd world nations need to be allowed to find their own way rather than having the IMF, World Bank or the US Treasury dictating their every economic and financial move.

The Scorecard on Globalization 1980-2000: Twenty Years of Diminished Progress (http://www.cepr.net/publications/globalization_2001_07_11.htm)

Another piece of evidence:
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/countries.cfm

Look at the first few countries and then the last few. See a pattern yet?

Yes, but the market had already been breaking down due to fears of the tariff; the market had several huge dives in early 1929 due to fears over the tariff being passed, so the actual act was what finally popped the bubble. It wouldn't have been nearly as bad if liquidity and international trade were not nearly destroyed by the tariff and financial protectionism.
Sure it wouldn't have grown bigger and burst with an even louder pop later if not for the fear of the tariff? Anyway, it seems to me that both free trade and protections should be applied with care. Free trade doesn't stay free by itself.

Other more "protectionist" nations managed to industrialise without having any where near the same social problems.
Two things about that:
1) Name one.
2) Don't you think that these other nations were a little more self-sufficient then than the UK, which depended on the Empire? And do you think that without trade throughout the Empire, a tiny country like the UK could have stood up to a place like Germany, with something like three times the population, huge amounts of resources and the industrial power to match it?

We don't need sweatshops, and for the things we need sweatshops to produce, we don't need.

I think the thing that pisses me off the most (as if the child labor and horrid working conditions weren't bad enough) is the forced prostitution often involved, as many girls have been sold off into brothels, sometimes to a place far away from their homes, to other countries even. Not just that, but the gall the US has to label the land a "US Territory", so they can continue the sweatshops and say it was made in the USA like some proud jackass, all the while not having to give the workers the rights and priveledges of a US citizen.

It's immoral, it's sickening, it's horrible, it's fascist, it's loopholes, it's a pat on the back of the idiot who wears his new Nike's marked "Made In USA" and feels good about it.

I hate everything about it, with a passion. It's one of the largest reasons I hate most of the clothing and footwear corporations, ergo I hate most of capitalism in general.

19thC UK (not England) had a succesion of booms, busts, chronic high unemployment, poverty and squalor on a previously inimagined scale and social conditions which saw the standard of living of the vast majority of the populace fall over the century. Other more "protectionist" nations managed to industrialise without having any where near the same social problems.

All of the industrial world had the same problems, with the US in particular hurt very badly by its harsh protectionism in the early half of the century. Britain did not liberalize considerably until the 1840's and 1850's, and it was only after that that real income rose, unemployment fell, inflation stabilized, and the volume of trade controlled by Britain soared.

I'm not advocating protectionism as a be all and end all but I neither will I believe unfettered free trade is a panacea for all the worlds ills. As with most things, a balance is recquired. 3rd world nations need to be allowed to find their own way rather than having the IMF, World Bank or the US Treasury dictating their every economic and financial move.

The problem is, that way is often corrupted by tyrannical or nationalistic regimes that sell out their economic opportunities to enrich themselves. Transitioning previously closed nations to free trade is a gradual process that requires cooperation by a variety of nations and organizations; rapid and imbalanced liberalization is just as dangerous as protectionism if the causes of economic imbalance are not addressed at least somewhat beforehand.

The Scorecard on Globalization 1980-2000: Twenty Years of Diminished Progress (http://www.cepr.net/publications/globalization_2001_07_11.htm)
So you average out countries like South Korea (which freed up its economy and enjoyed spectacular success) with countries like Ethiopia (which virtually destroyed itself in major wars) - and lo and behold: You find a slowdown in growth.

What they should have been doing is compare countries before and after trade liberalisation. Like these guys have done:
http://www.stanford.edu/~wacziarg/downloads/integration.pdf

Also of interest:
http://www.stanford.edu/~wacziarg/downloads/liberalization.pdf
http://www.stanford.edu/~wacziarg/articles/nytdemoc/nytdemoc.html (this (http://www.stanford.edu/~wacziarg/downloads/democ.pdf) here is the paper)

Most of these african military goverments steal the peoples land for "the good of society" If African people want to stay farmers let em but if they dont, let someone buy thier land not steal through (eminant domain.)

The problem is these african dictators who steal, pillage and kill thier own people being proped up by Funds sent to africa for the sake of HUman Rights and are stolen by these corrupt dictators. What Africa needs is UN boots on the ground spreading democacy. Once a democratic africa is achieved the people can decide if they want weatshops or farms with simple hoes

I'm all for simple hoes. They're the easiest to control.

No. Sweatshops don't help People.

No. Sweatshops don't help People.

Hurrah.

I'm all for simple hoes. They're the easiest to control.


Where thier is a heo thier is civilization

I'm not getting into another fruitless dialogue with neu Leonstein where he/she quotes stats at me while I try to make he/she see that people matter.

I've studied history. I've studied the period of 19thC Europe and the UK in particular. If I could be ar*ed I could photocopy tables and post them here for you (and they would be tables created by independent economists and not just some thing I wrote) but this is an internet forum and not something I take seriously enough to go to all that effort.

The last time we got into this sort of thing you berated me over a statement I made about poverty in the UK until I got so fed up being called a liar that I eventually dredged up a stat (how ironic) which proved the validity of my statement. I'm not doing it again. The Victorian economy boomed but the people suffered and their standard of living fell. It happened. And another thing, the UK and Europe did very little trade with the various empires. On average only about 2% (-ish off the top of my head) of European trade was with the empires. The vast masjority of the trade was with other European countries and the USA.

Infant industry protectionism is what many developing countries need. That they won't get until they form actual blocks of their own. Which is coming about in places.

The "infant" analogy is wrong.

An infant human certainly needs protection. But that infant human, in twenty years or so, will very much want to leave home, and its protection to face the world.

An "infant" industry is not analogous to this. A protected industry can viably produce over-priced, low quality goods with a captive market. It is not, and never is the case that they will be able to compete. India's automotive industry was protected from commercial competition, and this is what they have been making for the last 43 years: The Hindustan Ambassador (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindustan_Ambassador). (Another article: http://www.aworldconnected.org/article.php/301.html, this compares Hindustan with Toyota, which is not protected from competition)

If you protect an industry, you simply ensure it will be permanently unable to compete.

The Ambassador, after India's car industry was opened to competition, saw its market share shrink to less than 5%.

Most of these african military goverments steal the peoples land for "the good of society" If African people want to stay farmers let em but if they dont, let someone buy thier land not steal through (eminant domain.)

The problem is these african dictators who steal, pillage and kill thier own people being proped up by Funds sent to africa for the sake of HUman Rights and are stolen by these corrupt dictators. What Africa needs is UN boots on the ground spreading democacy. Once a democratic africa is achieved the people can decide if they want weatshops or farms with simple hoes

Yes, although the spreading of liberty is far more important than democracy, though perhaps liberty is what you were referring to.

The lack of enforcement of private property rights in Africa also gives insight into the reasons behind sweatshop conditions. It does not cost much to provide the inadequate accomodations, and lack of safety in sweatshops. Because the investment is quite low, than can set up in the Third World because if their property is stolen, it wasn't worth much anyway.

Without full enforcement of private property rights, and an end to corrupt governments, there can be no solution to sweatshops, because there can be no incentive to invest in better work conditions.

I'm not getting into another fruitless dialogue with neu Leonstein where he/she quotes stats at me while I try to make he/she see that people matter.

If you can't refute him with evidence, or sound logic, then be man enough to admit it.



In general, the people in these areas must think sweatshops are an improvement, because they ask for jobs there. The closing of a sweatshop generally leads to devastation of that area, including child prostitution. None of the advocates of closing sweatshops has ever taken responsibility for this child prostitution.

The idea that because we have hobbled our labour markets with regulations, they must do so as well is nothing more than protectionism. the purpose of advocating these regulations is simply to increase the costs of labour.

It is we who should remove regulations, not they who should impose them.

It is also vital to note that we went through this stage, and we've no right to hold them back.

Originally postd by Disraeliland 3
If you can't refute him with evidence, or sound logic, then be man enough to admit it.
In the previous dialogue I had with NL "evidence and sound logic" made no impact on him/her. Just another blinkered libertarian who refuses to look beyond their shiny little economic theory and see the damage it causes to real peoples lives. There is a simple logic to the myth of free trade but unfortunately it does not take into account that the people active within it are not sagely wise gurus, faithful to the ideals of liberalisation of economies for the good of all, but flawed human beings who will twist those ideals to suit themselves. The real world gets in the way. That is why I use the term "myth" because it does not and never will exist in any real sense.

And by the way, to say people who advocate the closing of sweatshops are responsible for child prostitution is an outrageous statement to make. Not quite as outrageous as NL's when he/she supported leaving the sick and disabled to die, as they had become economically unviable and that wasn't his/her problem (in a previous thread), but the kind of nonsense I've come to expect from libertarians.

Not quite as outrageous as NL's when he/she supported leaving the sick and disabled to die, as they had become economically unviable and that wasn't his/her problem (in a previous thread), but the kind of nonsense I've come to expect from libertarians.

NL's not a libertarian.

Don't think they have those in Australia?

As to the sick comment? Did you ever think he might have said that to tweak you?

Originally posted by Black Forest
NL's not a libertarian.

Don't think they have those in Australia?

As to the sick comment? Did you ever think he might have said that to tweak you?
NL certainly considers himself a dyed in the wool, diehard libertarian. Red in tooth and claw. It may not be what you personally think of as libertarian but I've discovered that therre are as many definitions of libertarian as there are libertarians.

As to the "was he tweaking" assertion;
Originally Posted by Llanarc
How does your laissez-faire liberalised system cater for those incapable of making economic deals. Such as the sick, infirm, psychological problems etc and those who have to care for them. Are they to be exposed on hillsides to die as being economically unviable?
Well, two ways to deal with that:
a) What would happen to them if we were still living in the stone ages? What would be the natural thing to happen to them?
b) As you said, the people who cared for them and would want them to survive would take care of them.
If that does hurt their ability to achieve their own goals, then that is a personal tragedy, and I wouldn't dispute that. I just question your assertion that this tragedy is therefore to be shifted to me.
NL believes other peoples problems are a pity but nothing to do with him, and why should any of his earnings be taxed to help those less fortunate. This is a heartless world I would not want to be part of.

In the previous dialogue I had with NL "evidence and sound logic" made no impact on him/her.
This (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=478585&page=13) is the thread, in case anyone is interested (Disraeliland probably). It goes all the way to page 20, but you'll probably need to see the whole thing.
You told me that a quarter of all the poor in the EU came from Britain. I felt that was a little bit much, and asked for evidence. It took you ages to produce any, all the time insisting that I was to take your assertion (which was damaging to my original argument) on face value. That's not how a debate works.
And when you then provided evidence, it didn't exactly convince me. And now the bloody link doesn't work anymore, so I can't even tell you why exactly.

Just another blinkered libertarian who refuses to look beyond their shiny little economic theory and see the damage it causes to real peoples lives.
I study Economics. It will play quite a part in my life and livelihood.
I told you before that your "real people" are an unknown to me, as they are to you. No one can know every poor person on the planet. The only thing we have are statistics and generalisations, and now you're telling me they're not valid, therefore we must again accept your assertions at face value.
And that quite aside from the fact that there are quite a number of sub-branches in economics that concern themselves with real people on the most basic level.

There is a simple logic to the myth of free trade but unfortunately it does not take into account that the people active within it are not sagely wise gurus, faithful to the ideals of liberalisation of economies for the good of all, but flawed human beings who will twist those ideals to suit themselves.
Not only does it take this into account, it depends on it.

The real world gets in the way. That is why I use the term "myth" because it does not and never will exist in any real sense.
What gets in the way is two things:
1) Governments who feel they need to snare in voters by rehashing 19th century nationalism in the form of protectionism.
2) Governments who oppress their people and take away their opportunities (which is, as I indicated before, the main problem the 3rd world has)
3) Anti-Free Trade Activists, who instead of getting involved with things that directly help "real people" (like the Grameen Bank) prefer to condemn the reason they have that computer...for if no one had a computer, then those without one couldn't envy the others.

And by the way, to say people who advocate the closing of sweatshops are responsible for child prostitution is an outrageous statement to make.
It depends. For some families the same forces who make them move into the city will still exist, sweat shops or not. And how do you suppose these people will earn their money now, without jobs for the unskilled and uneducated?

Some will have to go into prostitution, it's not exactly a new discovery.

NL believes other peoples problems are a pity but nothing to do with him, and why should any of his earnings be taxed to help those less fortunate. This is a heartless world I would not want to be part of.
The point is that it is not heartless. It would just be voluntary.
Who says I wouldn't give away money? Almost all people in Forbes' list give away millions and millions of dollars!

An "infant" industry is not analogous to this. A protected industry can viably produce over-priced, low quality goods with a captive market. It is not, and never is the case that they will be able to compete.

I agree; infant industry protection might be useful as a very temporary measure in an artificially underdeveloped market, but ultimately it will doom that industry to failure for the simple fact that temporary protectionist measures are retained well beyond their useful life for political reasons

If you protect an industry, you simply ensure it will be permanently unable to compete. The Ambassador, after India's car industry was opened to competition, saw its market share shrink to less than 5%.

Look at the US auto industry as well; protectionism led to dramatic declines in quality and resulted in the companies becoming bureaucratic and saddled with high labor costs. After than, hundreds of thousands of jobs in auto manufacturing and related industries were lost due to the artificial disadvantage American automakers created with their protectionist policies.

Also, in the 1970's, the quota system gave foreign automakers the ability to charge quota rents on their products because their products were overall superior which enabled them to charge above the market price due to the imbalance between supply and demand in the US market. Those profits enabled them to gain huge market share once the quotas were lifted; they had to be lifted to prevent the Big Three from collapsing in on themselves, but that ended up dooming them to falling market share and cutting jobs during the 1980's, 1990's, and the current decade.

It was either bankruptcy or losing market share; ultimately, the fate of the US auto industry is a more damning criticism of protectionism than any in recent times and a clear sign of the dangers of that ideology (it's not economics, it's ideology) on the economy and the workers that power it.

I agree; infant industry protection might be useful as a very temporary measure in an artificially underdeveloped market, but ultimately it will doom that industry to failure for the simple fact that temporary protectionist measures are retained well beyond their useful life for political reasons.
Well, Japan or Korea would be classic examples. The Japanese in particular had programs tailored to "infant industries", and I believe they used protective tariffs as well.

The trick is to have tough competition in domestic markets. And once firms start developing economies of scale on the domestic level, you can let them loose on the world. It's called New Trade Theory, and seems to have some merits to it.

Suffice to say that this depends on a government capable of doing this properly, as well as the aforementioned domestic competition. Most 3rd world countries have neither.

This (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=478585&page=13) is the thread, in case anyone is interested (Disraeliland probably). It goes all the way to page 20, but you'll probably need to see the whole thing.
*SNIP*

But the question remains

Have you ever been a member of the Libertarian party? :p

..........................
Suffice to say that this depends on a government capable of doing this properly, as well as the aforementioned domestic competition. Most 3rd world countries have neither.Perhaps that is where aid should be directed.

The point is that it is not heartless. It would just be voluntary.

This is the important point. NL isn't objecting to the charity; he's objecting to the coercive force behind taxation.

And good for him. Taxation creates more poverty (through perverse incentives) than it cures.

Sweatshop work is better than no work and starvation, but not as good as education.

But the question remains

Have you ever been a member of the Libertarian party? :p
Well no. I haven't even voted for one (although I might in the next election...depends on what they'll do for the time being, and how Merkel goes).

Perhaps that is where aid should be directed.
Exactly.
http://www.stanford.edu/~wacziarg/articles/nytdemoc/nytdemoc.html

And I also like the idea of charity and aid being run like a business, ie goal orientated.
The Economist had a report on that a while back, and charities having to compete with each other on that level seem to function better.

Generally this is how an economy goes from underdeveloped to developed

Inefficent subsistance agriculture --->using manual labour people farm the land with little to show for it. Drought and insects can easily wipe out crops leaving farmers with nothing.----->

agricultural reform and investment----->With access to water people now have stable food levels and excess agricultural products are sold at market. Profits are used to buy other foods or products growing the local economy------>

trade and investment reform-------->With a stable growing economy low wage manufacturing appears due to local entrepreners, government help and foriegn ventures. Although life is still tough the standard of living has never been better. Parents now have enough income to provide a good education. The economy as a whole still exports much of what it creates

Industral economy grows rapidly -----> There manufacturing is still geared to export, but domestic demand is rising fast due to rising wages in factories and improved education providing opportunities. Service industries also grow rapidly.

Economy matures -----> The domestic manufacturing sector has now far exceeded export as its wealthy population consumes large quantities of goods. The largest sector of the economy is now the service.

That destorys the analogy. Sweatshops don't actually hurt the people - they give them jobs, and resources they wouldn't have had otherwise.

Sweatshops however, generally involve forced 'slavery'

I do not know about you, but where I am, there are many cases of employers bringing in people illegally to work at their factories/orchards/plantations and confiscating their passports. They hire guards to make sure the 'employees' are docile and when all the work has been worked out of them, they abscond with the money and passports. Sometimes, they just kick them out.

This creates a cycle of poverty where people without money or documentation are brought into the economy with no means out short of returning to even more slave labor.

Sweatshops in legal and fair manners can help the economy. The problem is that sweatshops by their very nature often just don't operate legally. And of course the parent companies don't care because they get to show great numbers to their stockholders.

First, let's agree on a definition of sweatshop.

- extremely low wages
- hard, unpleasant work
- uses child labour
- long hours
- dangerous working conditions that shorten life

Now that we know what we're talking about, are sweatshops good things?

I assert that they are. Much of the world's population already lives under conditions as described above; disease and famine shorten lives, children have to work from dawn to dusk, and wages (if there are any) are below subsistence level. By building a sweatshop, you're pumping wealth into their local economy. Most sweatshops feed their workers at least once a day, something those workers wouldn't get without them.

Sweatshops improve people's lives.
Slave owners provide food, clothing, shelter and health care for their workers.
By providing work, they also have money to pump into the local economy. The more slave they have the more tools and equipment they must buy. And the more food, etc, they must buy. And they sure don't want the slaves to get sick or they lose their investment. So I contend that slavery is far better than sweat shops or minimum wage.

Well, Japan or Korea would be classic examples. The Japanese in particular had programs tailored to "infant industries", and I believe they used protective tariffs as well.

The trick is to have tough competition in domestic markets. And once firms start developing economies of scale on the domestic level, you can let them loose on the world. It's called New Trade Theory, and seems to have some merits to it.

Suffice to say that this depends on a government capable of doing this properly, as well as the aforementioned domestic competition. Most 3rd world countries have neither.

This article is pertinent to Japan's protectionism: http://www.freetrade.org/pubs/freetotrade/chap7.html

I would further add that Hong Kong introduced total unilateral free trade, and became extremely wealthy because of it.

The best thing the government can do for industry is run a police force, military forces, and a legal system.

Originally posted by Disraeliland
The best thing the government can do for industry is run a police force, military forces, and a legal system.
I suppose that's to keep the great mass of poor under the thumb and well away from the gated communities.

Low taxes, charity instead of social security blah, blah. We'd be back in the 19th century in no time if you lot get your way. A mega rich elite, the vast bulk of the population living in poverty but great economic stats. Hooray!!

I can only assume you're students full of what you assume to be all the answers but who are actually only a small part of the way there. Hopefully experience of the real world will enlighten you at least a little bit. Perhaps reading "Globalisation - and its discontents" by Joseph Stiglitz (Chief Economist with the World Bank and Nobel Prize Winner for Economics)will help you understand things better.

And the reason you didn't like the stats I dredged up for you in the previous thread NL is you didn't like the fact it proved me right. It proved that at the end of Thatchers reign in the UK, nearly 1/4 of British households lived in poverty and that those people made up nearly 1/4 of all the poor households in the EU. It kind of cast a pall over the whole St Margaret thing.

One parting shot before I depart this depressing thread. All your theories seem to depend on "trickle down economics" to ensure peoples incomes increase. How often does that theory have to fail before people like you finally admit it is crap :headbang: .

They depend on nothing of the sort.

We'd be back in the 19th century in no time if you lot get your way.
Make your case.

I can only assume you're students full of what you assume to be all the answers but who are actually only a small part of the way there.
Nope. Sorry. I am a student, and I'm full of facts, figures and theories. But I don't assume to know a universal truth that I would push upon your life.
Indeed, I probably know more about Jo Stiglitz' writings than you do.
And why does everyone go for Stiglitz, and no one for Amartya Sen?

Hopefully experience of the real world will enlighten you at least a little bit.
To be honest, it was experience in the real world that drove me away from the left.

And the reason you didn't like the stats I dredged up for you in the previous thread NL is you didn't like the fact it proved me right. It proved that at the end of Thatchers reign in the UK, nearly 1/4 of British households lived in poverty and that those people made up nearly 1/4 of all the poor households in the EU. It kind of cast a pall over the whole St Margaret thing.
And if I was to accept that, you would still have to prove to me that this was due to Thatcher, and not the government incompetence that preceded her.

And then...she may have had good ideas - but was she putting them into practice properly?
http://www.mises.net/econsense/ch63.asp

Also a good little bit (although once more I have to cringe at the Austrian's ability to doublethink and peddle conservative viewpoints - "bear children out of wedlock" - along with legitimate ones):
http://www.mises.org/story/2140

One parting shot before I depart this depressing thread. All your theories seem to depend on "trickle down economics" to ensure peoples incomes increase. How often does that theory have to fail before people like you finally admit it is crap :headbang: .
1) On a very personal level, I don't really care. Nothing trickles on me but the world I live in, which exists thanks to the personal endevours of individuals, not the State making things happen. If I want to become rich, I will have to make it happen myself.
2) The evidence is there that ultimately more freedom in trade raises GDP per capita. It is also true that income inequality increases. And that is because you leave many more things up to the individual. Their wealth suddenly becomes a measure of their ability to make the right decisions and go through with them. Unfortunately, many poor people have thus made wrong decisions in their lives. I'm not in the business of paying for other people's mistakes.
3) Ultimately, there is a trade-off, yes. It's a trade-off between either me being richer and others being poorer, or others being richer and me being poorer. A trade-off between working to help my own family, partners and friends, and working to help people I never even heard of. A trade-off between feeding my own starving child, or my neighbour's. Because truly, there is no difference in how much money I already have - a dollar is a dollar, regardless of purpose.
4) And even if we accepted all your goals as good - look at the world. Look at the performance of governments when it comes to solving problems! It's just no good. Compare it with the performance of NGO's or just determined individuals, and you see that there is no contest.

I'm in the middle on this one.

Richer coporations should not be using sweat shops at all to produce their goods.
However, in some cases a sweat shop could be a persons only chance at a job in which case it's ok I guess.

All dependant on situation.

Means to an end people, means to an end.

And why does everyone go for Stiglitz, and no one for Amartya Sen?

he's not nearly european enough

(Sighs heavily. Ponders the point of giving such an obviously immoral argument credence by arguing against it. Decides to make one last post in the hope he never has to make another one.)

Originally posted by Neu Leonstein
Quote:
Originally Posted by Llanarc
We'd be back in the 19th century in no time if you lot get your way.
Make your case.
I'd already started and hoped you'd have the imagination to fill in the rest. Well, here's a list;
(1) Low taxation
(2) Charity instead of social security (doesn't work as the basis of a comprehensive social policy, but then you don't care)
(3) Pseudo Free Trade (as however you may wish it it will never be what you want)
(4) Child labour (as you have advocated in this thread)
(5) Chronic high unemployment (see Mid-Victorian Britain 1851-75 by Geoffrey Best page 148-9. If you want proof)
(6) No health care unless you are wealthy
(7) Poor working conditions (sweat shops and unregulated workplaces)
....... and on and on and on ....

Originally posted by Neu Leonstein
Nope. Sorry. I am a student, and I'm full of facts, figures and theories. But I don't assume to know a universal truth that I would push upon your life.
Indeed, I probably know more about Jo Stiglitz' writings than you do.
I would hope you were full of these things and know more about Jo (bit personal that ... do you know him ;) ) Stiglitz otherwise the govt has wasted a lot of money helping to educate you in Economics. Unfortunately, all these facts, figures and theories are what you make of them. If you don't know that now you'll soon find out in the real world. And by the way, you do assume to know a universal truth you'd push upon my life. That has come across clearly in every post.

Originally posted by Neu Leonstein
Quote:
Originally Posted by Llanarc
And the reason you didn't like the stats I dredged up for you in the previous thread NL is you didn't like the fact it proved me right. It proved that at the end of Thatchers reign in the UK, nearly 1/4 of British households lived in poverty and that those people made up nearly 1/4 of all the poor households in the EU. It kind of cast a pall over the whole St Margaret thing.

And if I was to accept that, you would still have to prove to me that this was due to Thatcher, and not the government incompetence that preceded her.
You call yourself an economist and come out with nonsense like that. She was in power from 1979-92 and took the country into its first two recessions since WW2. I would think if she hadn't had anything to do with it she would have been the most pointless politician in history.

On the subject of trickle down economics I have to apologise for assuming you were expecting others to benefit from the boom you prophesy. I forgot you don't care if the rest of the world falls into squalor and poverty so long as you're all right.

Finally, for anyone interested enough in knowing the dangers of this pie in the sky pure free trade theory and the "evils" that will tag along (and who could not be gripped by it), here is a book list;

Globalization - and its discontents by Joseph Stiglitz (Nobel Prize winning Economist)
The Silent Takeover by Noreena Hertz (Judge Institute, University of Cambridge)
Captive State by George Monbiot (Award winning author and journalist)

... and to have a taster of the kind of society we would have to live in;

Hard Times by Charles Dickens (though it must be noted that NLs world would be far harsher as even Victorians had some compassion).

(Stops typing and sighs again. Thinks " why does this guy feel he needs to challenge me? Am I a threat? Maybe he's not as sure of himself as he makes out")

(Sighs heavily. Ponders the point of giving such an obviously immoral argument credence by arguing against it. Decides to make one last post in the hope he never has to make another one.)
You should know that morality is not something universal. Which is why you can't expect your morality to work when being imposed upon others by threat of force.
As for "hoping never to have to make another post" - note how I'm not forcing you to write anything.

(1) Low taxation
That would of course be terrible. Afterall, if I could keep my extra 20% of income, my poor arse might not be quite so poor anymore...

(2) Charity instead of social security (doesn't work as the basis of a comprehensive social policy, but then you don't care)
http://www.forbes.com/philanthropy/
http://www.forbes.com/lists/results.jhtml?bktDisplayField=stringfield1&bktDisplayFieldLength=2&passListId=14&passYear=2004&passListType=Misc&searchParameter1=unset&searchParameter2=unset&resultsStart=1&resultsHowMany=25&resultsSortProperties=%2Bstringfield2%2C-numberfield1&resultsSortCategoryName=Name&category1=category&category2=category&passKeyword=

(3) Pseudo Free Trade (as however you may wish it it will never be what you want)
On a certain level, no of course it couldn't be completely free. Unless (and this is where you need to step away from Stiglitz and read Sen) you give everyone the chance to a start. When and where you are born should not close doors for you. And that's where the 19th century failed somewhat.
But once everyone has a basic level of education, they need to be free to fail or succeed, based on their own merit.

(4) Child labour (as you have advocated in this thread)
Care to find the quote?

(5) Chronic high unemployment (see Mid-Victorian Britain 1851-75 by Geoffrey Best page 148-9. If you want proof)
You know, if everyone leaves the country and moves into a city that does not offer enough jobs, then that's what happens. Today however, communication is up to a level that allows people to know exactly where and what sort of job is available.

(6) No health care unless you are wealthy
A basic level of health in the society is in my interest. I don't want everyone around me to get the plague.
There are insurances, there are charitable organisations, and there is the ability to save too. Plus, since the market for cheap healthcare is potentially huge, someone will jump in.
You can't expect $100 a month healthcare to be as good as $1000 a month healthcare, but it's just a lie that people would have to go without.
If necessary, the government could even use vouchers, just as they could with education. There already is evidence that free healthcare makes people go to the doctor more often than they strictly speaking would need to.

And finally - government administered free healthcare is a hugely expensive project and difficult to administer. So far, no government has been able to organise anything but basic GP services adequately.

(7) Poor working conditions (sweat shops and unregulated workplaces)
That's an assumption. As I said before, acquiring skills is a choice.
And a skilled worker will have no problems finding the conditions he or she can live with.

I deliver Pizzas for a large corporation. You can imagine that it is not the most flexible and caring of workplaces. But I have managed to become the best and fastest driver in my store, and I have in personal negotiations with my manager got all sorts of boni, from better shifts to double-pay on public holidays (it's a long story, but drivers don't get that usually).

Stiglitz otherwise the govt has wasted a lot of money helping to educate you in Economics.
Right now, I have to earn at least $3000 every semester to keep studying.

If you don't know that now you'll soon find out in the real world.
Oh, you mean my world isn't real now, do you? The world in which many of the people around me just aren't as good at what they do as I am? In which I am sick of doing entire group assignments alone because no one else manages to get anything done on time? In which centrelink fails to help out my family, although we'd really need it? In which I can only afford to keep studying, to repair my car, to help my family pay the rent if I do, not if I claim?

And by the way, you do assume to know a universal truth you'd push upon my life. That has come across clearly in every post.
If you want to live in harmony with those who will take advantage of you, please do.
The point is that my world does not require anyone to be forced. If you so wish, you can set up your own little Social Security-NGO, billing members to then pay when someone needs it. You can make your truth whatever you want it to be, and I'll stick to mine.
But you want your organisation to be universal, to include me against my will. And thus you are saying that your truth is universal, that you know what is best for me.
There is a difference.

Captive State by George Monbiot (Award winning author and journalist)
Also green anarchist...

Also green anarchist...

George Monbiot is not a "green anarchist." Green, yes; anarchist, no.

George Monbiot is not a "green anarchist." Green, yes; anarchist, no.
True. Thanks for that.

"Democracy"...pfft. :p

Sure, of course sweat shops are a good thing - you have to consider the differences in purchasing power - here, ten cents an hour is almost literaly nothing, there it's a good wage, since their economies suck so much.

would you rather earn very little or earn nothing at all and die?
I say take what you have and be glad of it

Didn't expect to see this thread resurrected.

But one point on sweat shops not previously mentioned (I think). If they are a necessary rung on a countries economic ladder to prosperity, why are they being found more and more in the US? Surely the most economically advanced country in the world would be beyond this stage. Or is it that sweat shops are not just a step on the road to prosperity but actually a means to an end in themselves ... ie the virtual enslavement of poor people who have no means of redress to make some disreputable character rich? Is this the future the right wing libertarians would condemn us to :rolleyes: ?

Are sweatshops better than the alternative, which may be starving to death? Unquestionably.

Are they needlessly exploitative and cruel to their workers in the name of greater profit? Certainly.

Are they therefore justified? No. They are the Western world (and their unscrupulous contractors based within third world countries) taking advantage of misery and suffering for their own material ends.

It is unfortunate that under our present system, somebody has to clean the toilet. But the least we can do, if we're stuck with said system, is expect these workers to use something other than their tongues.

Sweatshops themselves aren't good per se, but they are, however, a necessary step in the correct direction. You must first accumulate capital before you can rectify the situation (a poor economy, low standard of life, etc.). Sweatshops are the only method in which it is possible to accumulate enough capital to catalyze such a change. It's kind of like that guy whose arm was crushed under a boulder. No -- cutting your arm off with a dull knife is not "good." However, it's the best choice because the alternatives are all much more miserable.
Well, considering there are Sweatshops in the US, the richest country in the world, then I can't see where is the intention to "rectify the situation".