NationStates Jolt Archive

I want to focus mainly on USA economics here, but also this can apply to other Western countries. I have a few questions to ask

1)What can we do to stop the abuse of the enviroment by Corps.?
Many corporations will often times break enviromental laws, because it is cheaper to pay the fine, than to obey the laws. This obviously needs to stop.

2) How can we stop the outsourcing of jobs, and the exploitation of cheap labour? This is obviously bad, as with a decrease of jobs means that there is a decrease of money going into the economies. Cheap labour is also bad due to human rights abuses and such.

3) What can the west do, with out taking back prior laws and promises, to encourage economic growth in industry and business?

4) Would it be more feasible to answer these questions by either restricting or overhauling globalization? Meaning, in order to protect jobs and such, should we make laws to restrict globalization, or should we overhaul it, to where a worldwide economic society comes about, such as the EU, where goods, jobs, people and ideas are allowed to go across borders freely?

I want to focus mainly on USA economics here, but also this can apply to other Western countries. I have a few questions to ask

1)What can we do to stop the abuse of the enviroment by Corps.?
Many corporations will often times break enviromental laws, because it is cheaper to pay the fine, than to obey the laws. This obviously needs to stop.

2) How can we stop the outsourcing of jobs, and the exploitation of cheap labour? This is obviously bad, as with a decrease of jobs means that there is a decrease of money going into the economies. Cheap labour is also bad due to human rights abuses and such.

3) What can the west do, with out taking back prior laws and promises, to encourage economic growth in industry and business?

4) Would it be more feasible to answer these questions by either restricting or overhauling globalization? Meaning, in order to protect jobs and such, should we make laws to restrict globalization, or should we overhaul it, to where a worldwide economic society comes about, such as the EU, where goods, jobs, people and ideas are allowed to go across borders freely?

My 2 cents;

1) If it's cheaper to pay the fine than obey the law, make it cheaper to obey the law by raising the fine. That's a start anyway. I would suggest more direct state control over resource aquisition to more effectively monitor resource scarcity, but that doesn't really fit in with the American economic model. Perhaps by setting the environmental fines high enough, you may end up creating a sub-industry that deals specifically with environmental solutions for corporations? However, remaining economically competitive in our globalizing economy means that restrictive fines may chase away business... which leads me to the next point.

2) The nature of 'cheap labour' is debatable. It's a matter of comparative price costs in the nation where the labour is being provided. If this ends up with lower cost goods for consumers 'back home', this will generally lead to more purchasing and thus a stronger economy/more jobs. I believe the danger lies in nations 'cutting corners' in labour/environmental laws in order to attract industrial development. So, ideally, I think it would be responsible for the US and other developed nations, to set heavy fines to corps that wish to do business in the US, yet follow poor labour practices which would be illegal in the developed world. It would be the first step towards creating International Labour laws, and would prevent a future 'low bid' war, where nations will make unsafe compromises for investment. The same could apply towards environmental laws as well, i.e., you want to do business in the US, follow US laws abroad. (Not without precedent really, check out the Helms-Burton Act.)

3) The west can continue doing what it's doing; with an emphasis on creating truly fair and equatable trade and labour standards. The global marketplace will take care of itself, and each nation can decide at what level the state will support their citizens in the global marketplace.

4) Massive changes tend to be hard to implement, and slow to enact. The US could start with its own legislative changes and make drastic changes in a global economic sense due to its enormous economic clout. Better to make the changes at home first, and hope that the rest of the world sees the sense in it.

There are a few other things, such as more transparency for corporations dealing with developing nations (particularly resource-based economies)... but that's off the top of my head at any rate.

Burn Urban Milk Packages

Burn Urban Milk Packages

Well, that won't solve anything ... are you saying that destroying city-dwellers' milk will send a message to end corportate exploitation of the urban workforce?! Besides which, milk is not flammable ... unless it's powdered milk, I suppose ...

I want to focus mainly on USA economics here, but also this can apply to other Western countries. I have a few questions to ask

1)What can we do to stop the abuse of the enviroment by Corps.?
Many corporations will often times break enviromental laws, because it is cheaper to pay the fine, than to obey the laws. This obviously needs to stop.

Increase the fines. And force corps to make their internal processes as transparent as possible, with regular audits.


2) How can we stop the outsourcing of jobs, and the exploitation of cheap labour? This is obviously bad, as with a decrease of jobs means that there is a decrease of money going into the economies. Cheap labour is also bad due to human rights abuses and such.

Hmm... two options here:

Raise import tax to such heights that will make it unprofitable to have goods produced outside the country (I wouldn't advise that, it only creates the illusion of a good economy, and it's bound to lead to trouble with other countries. Also, it only works if your country reall can produce everything it needs itself)

Second option would be to train your people for jobs that can not be done in any cheap-labour-country. Offer highly qualified labour as opposed to cheap, untrained labour. Go for innovation instead of manufacturing.


3) What can the west do, with out taking back prior laws and promises, to encourage economic growth in industry and business?

See above ;)


4) Would it be more feasible to answer these questions by either restricting or overhauling globalization? Meaning, in order to protect jobs and such, should we make laws to restrict globalization, or should we overhaul it, to where a worldwide economic society comes about, such as the EU, where goods, jobs, people and ideas are allowed to go across borders freely?

It would help, I guess, to have a general, impartial organisation controling globalisation. It's the only way we can possibly implement rudimentary labour and environmental laws.

1)What can we do to stop the abuse of the enviroment by Corps.?
Many corporations will often times break enviromental laws, because it is cheaper to pay the fine, than to obey the laws. This obviously needs to stop.Hm. Well, as long as we have the ridiculous "Three Strikes and You're Out" laws, we can apply them to corporations, as well, with 'out' in this case meaning immediate seizure of all assets of the corporation.

2) How can we stop the outsourcing of jobs, and the exploitation of cheap labour? This is obviously bad, as with a decrease of jobs means that there is a decrease of money going into the economies. Cheap labour is also bad due to human rights abuses and such.I'll echo somewhat what Cabra West said - invest government funds into retraining workers in industries that are about to be outsourced; the unemployment is the problem, not the loss of manufacturing jobs.

3) What can the west do, with out taking back prior laws and promises, to encourage economic growth in industry and business?Invest government funds in training people in technological innovation and business management.

4) Would it be more feasible to answer these questions by either restricting or overhauling globalization? Meaning, in order to protect jobs and such, should we make laws to restrict globalization, or should we overhaul it, to where a worldwide economic society comes about, such as the EU, where goods, jobs, people and ideas are allowed to go across borders freely?We can have the government require that all companies who are based in the U.S. disclose their foreign business practices to consumers, for more effective moderation of their overseas activities. This will raise labor standards in other countries, thus making outsourcing less desireable.

I want to focus mainly on USA economics here, but also this can apply to other Western countries. I have a few questions to ask

1)What can we do to stop the abuse of the enviroment by Corps.?
Many corporations will often times break enviromental laws, because it is cheaper to pay the fine, than to obey the laws. This obviously needs to stop.

2) How can we stop the outsourcing of jobs, and the exploitation of cheap labour? This is obviously bad, as with a decrease of jobs means that there is a decrease of money going into the economies. Cheap labour is also bad due to human rights abuses and such.

3) What can the west do, with out taking back prior laws and promises, to encourage economic growth in industry and business?

4) Would it be more feasible to answer these questions by either restricting or overhauling globalization? Meaning, in order to protect jobs and such, should we make laws to restrict globalization, or should we overhaul it, to where a worldwide economic society comes about, such as the EU, where goods, jobs, people and ideas are allowed to go across borders freely?
1. Fuck the enviroment.
2. Bomb China.
3. Elect leaders that have there heads so shallowly up their asses that they can tell the difference between the internet and a series of tubes.
4.See #2.

1. Fuck the enviroment.
2. Bomb China.
3. Elect leaders that have there heads so shallowly up their asses that they can tell the difference between the internet and a series of tubes.
4.See #2.

Those all seem good to me :p

Those all seem good to me :p
Personally, I'd wait till Big V shows up. He knows his economics, even though he has a bit too wuch fait in the hand.

1)What can we do to stop the abuse of the enviroment by Corps.?
Many corporations will often times break enviromental laws, because it is cheaper to pay the fine, than to obey the laws. This obviously needs to stop.

2) How can we stop the outsourcing of jobs, and the exploitation of cheap labour? This is obviously bad, as with a decrease of jobs means that there is a decrease of money going into the economies. Cheap labour is also bad due to human rights abuses and such.

3) What can the west do, with out taking back prior laws and promises, to encourage economic growth in industry and business?

4) Would it be more feasible to answer these questions by either restricting or overhauling globalization? Meaning, in order to protect jobs and such, should we make laws to restrict globalization, or should we overhaul it, to where a worldwide economic society comes about, such as the EU, where goods, jobs, people and ideas are allowed to go across borders freely?

Tell the most evil of the corporations to get up and move to the East. Now they will have all these problems!

I want to focus mainly on USA economics here, but also this can apply to other Western countries. I have a few questions to ask

1)What can we do to stop the abuse of the enviroment by Corps.?
Many corporations will often times break enviromental laws, because it is cheaper to pay the fine, than to obey the laws. This obviously needs to stop.

2) How can we stop the outsourcing of jobs, and the exploitation of cheap labour? This is obviously bad, as with a decrease of jobs means that there is a decrease of money going into the economies. Cheap labour is also bad due to human rights abuses and such.

3) What can the west do, with out taking back prior laws and promises, to encourage economic growth in industry and business?

4) Would it be more feasible to answer these questions by either restricting or overhauling globalization? Meaning, in order to protect jobs and such, should we make laws to restrict globalization, or should we overhaul it, to where a worldwide economic society comes about, such as the EU, where goods, jobs, people and ideas are allowed to go across borders freely?

Point 1:
I've had a friend who refused to buy car insurance, because the cost of the car insurance was £400 and the fine for not having it was £80(if caught)
With corps doing the pollution, introduce 'the polluter pays' until the corps lobby congress/parliment to have that law changed while the eco-freaks attempts to sue the corps for causing the pollution: result some very rich lawyers and f*** all is done about all the dead fish in the river.

Point 2:
Do not stop the globalization and the exporting of jobs, as there will always be companies that think profitibility comes from making stuff for the cheapest price it can while selling the product for the highest price it can..... see certain running shoes manufacturers, while real profitibility comes from having a good quality well designed product that does'nt fall apart the first time you go jogging in the rain.

Point 3:
Education educashun, edukashun.
Educating children that making stuff is fun and not some dirty profession only followed by loosers,weirdos and under achievers.
Oh and increase the pay rates for manufacturing so that a child is'nt faced with the choice of what degree to do , manufacturing graduate.. £18000/yr starting pay, Accounting/Law grad £25000/yr starting pay.

Point 4:
Open borders..... even the EU does'nt have those, re the recent EU entrant countries can have their people move west into the UK and Ireland as they have low unemployment rates, Countries with high unemployment rates eg France have the right to block migrants from newly joined countries.

Actually, given how big business works, and our current crop of business and political 'leaders' the west is doomed, the EU will fall first,followed by the US leaving China as the sole superpower.

1) raise fines and offer incentives for cleaner things

2) improve the education of the population cheap unskilled labour is as dead as the dodo (also provide more technology grants so that cheap human labour becomes unprofitable)

3) Work on Education, provide more technology grants and lower tariffs (to encourage development into new industries and to provide cheap goods for the high tech industry)

4) Allow free trade and set up a system like our E.U with North America to allow cheaper movement of goods and labour just try not to make it as corrupt and bureaucratic

To restrict globalisation would be shortsighted, immoral and ultimately lead to the deaths of millions.

Outsourcing does not decrease the number of jobs. For every Western job, an employer could afford to give that workload to many more workers in the Third World. The difference is that if a Westerner does not have a job they go on benefits - if a Third Worlder does not have a job they, and their entire family, starve to death. Furthermore, in the industrialised West, people have the oppurtunity to retrain, to an extent that people nowhere else have.

So, when I hear people talking about forcing industry to keep jobs local, (and don't get me wrong, I don't believe that industry does it out of the goodness of its heart, its heartless, it just happens that market forces coincide with common morality), I get angry, it sounds Imperialist, and a cowardly route to genocide.

I'll add that it would have very bad consequences for the West in the first place. What do you think the Third World would do if all outsourcing is closed and the West goes isolationist?

At first it will be a blow to their economies. Later they will band together, form a union, side with whomever of the Eastern Europe the West rejects, and we'll be back in the Cold War. But this time with all the Asia and half of Europe on the East side. Chinese are quite good in reverse-engineering and mass production today, other parts of Asia have a lot of electronic industries they can use and develop themselves, Russian science will needs just a stream of funding to resurrected, India has a lot of potential, land and resources are abundant...
And, finally, remember that all these countries are developing, and developing rapidly.

1)What can we do to stop the abuse of the enviroment by Corps.? Many corporations will often times break enviromental laws, because it is cheaper to pay the fine, than to obey the laws. This obviously needs to stop.

Instead of having regulations that are just something to get around one way or another, and that can serve as a costly entry-barrier by powerful corporations, we can have private arbitration over pollution, seeing as how pollution is a form of trespassing against those polluted. This worked during the beginning of the industrial revolution, where people in the US were suffering damages to their property due to the emissions of coke factories (coal, not the soft drink). They brought the case to the courts, and the courts made the factories pay compensation for their pollution. They then began to put defibrillators in their plants to try and reduce pollution so they wouldn't have to pay so much. Unfortunately, this was all turned on its head when the legislature stepped in and protected them from any more judicial difficulties, thus allowing them to reverse their position.

2) How can we stop the outsourcing of jobs, and the exploitation of cheap labour? This is obviously bad, as with a decrease of jobs means that there is a decrease of money going into the economies. Cheap labour is also bad due to human rights abuses and such.

This point of view is part of the legacy of mercantilism. It is not so much an outsourcing of jobs as it is an exchange of jobs- while 3000 jobs were outsourced, 5000 jobs were insourced (Bureau of Labor Statistics). This exchange of jobs allows for better specialization to produce more goods overall, which increases everyone's standard of living. Those who perform the cheap labor in these countries obviously choose it because they believe it to be their best option for their livelihoods- otherwise, they wouldn't choose it. While child labor should be prohibited in industrialized, wealthy nations, for poorer nations with families who need more money, not having an extra source of income is a death sentence, and they will simply go around the law to get the money anyway. If there are human rights abuses, this is more the fault of the government, whose responsibility it is to prohibit force and fraud, than it is the fault of any other individuals.

3) What can the west do, with out taking back prior laws and promises, to encourage economic growth in industry and business?

Prevent and manage conflict, and where there is no conflict, let them do as they will.

4) Would it be more feasible to answer these questions by either restricting or overhauling globalization? Meaning, in order to protect jobs and such, should we make laws to restrict globalization, or should we overhaul it, to where a worldwide economic society comes about, such as the EU, where goods, jobs, people and ideas are allowed to go across borders freely?

No. Let people do as they will, so long as they do not initiate force or fraud against one another. Government would do best to step aside and just make sure no one's rights are being violated, as opposed to managing the non-violent relations of individuals.

I want to focus mainly on USA economics here, but also this can apply to other Western countries. I have a few questions to ask
1)What can we do to stop the abuse of the enviroment by Corps.?
Many corporations will often times break enviromental laws, because it is cheaper to pay the fine, than to obey the laws. This obviously needs to stop.This is easy. What is happening with the current situation is called market failure. Basically market failure is when the freemarket fucks up. This is not because of the freemarket formula, but usually the way it is selectively applied, or by human psychology. The reason the corps exploit the environment is because economically speaking they should. A corporation should be balancing it's marginal benefits and costs to run at economic efficiency. Now exploiting the environment is efficient, because its free. There is a smart approach and a stupid approach to fixing this problem. Guess what, the world has picked the stupid approach, that is to fine corporations when they get rich following the rules of economics. The best solution is to give property rights to the environment to people (or governments). Corporations won't flagrantly pollute our atmosphere if it is owned by someone who will charge them per ton of carbondioxide emissions based on a scale which is relevant to the amount of carbon dioxide emissions already being pumped into the atmosphere, and how much the atmosphere can handle. In capitalist economics, nothing can be free or unowned. Everything must be owned by someone. When it's not, tragedy of the commons occurs, and we have market failure. We need entities to own the atmosphere, the ocean, endangered animals (well all animals), and nature in general. This way, if your corporate operations pollute the sky/river/local panda population you will get a bill in the mail. Then Corporations will adjust their operations with these costs in mind in line with the theories of freemarket economics. They will have to decide if it is cheaper to dump their waste into the river, or to dispose of it properly, or to produce their products in cleaner-yet-more-expensive ways. If the damage they do is as bad as they say, it shouldn't be viable to pay for it. Furthermore, it would be in the interest of the owners of the river to use what money they do gain from the dumping that does exist to clean the river and thus protect their asset.

2) How can we stop the outsourcing of jobs, and the exploitation of cheap labour? This is obviously bad, as with a decrease of jobs means that there is a decrease of money going into the economies. Cheap labour is also bad due to human rights abuses and such. It isn't actually bad. it is good. It reduces the price of what ever good/service was being poduced/provided thus saving more money for investment or highly taxed luxuries. While you lose some money, you gain some capital. You then use that capital to generate money from nothing from within and abroad. A pointer, don't listen to ultra-conservatives when they talk about anything, especially things which are based on scientific fact. They will tell you things which 'make sense', and make you want to nod your head. Unfortunately, the world doesn't work on common sense. Outsourcing of jobs sounds bad, and protectionism sounds good, but it is the other way around.

3) What can the west do, with out taking back prior laws and promises, to encourage economic growth in industry and business?Hmm, investment and specialisation. If an industryisn't profitable, it should be abandoned. Freemarkets work best when entities within specialise in their strengths. If Joe is good at making pizza, and not good at brewing beer lets say he can make 10 pizzas or 5 beers a day. Because he needs both pizza and beer, Joe has to comprimise and do both. So Joe can make 1 beers and 8 pizzas, 2 beers and 6 pizzas, 3 beers and 4 pizzas, and so on. Lets say he makes 3 beers and 4 pizzas (a nice medium). Now meet Joanne, she is an awesome brewer, but can't make pizzas for crap. In one day she can brew 10 beers or make 5 pizzas. If she had to do both (because she was a 'protectionist') then she would end up with 1 pizza and 8 beers, 2 pizzas and 6 beers, 3 pizzas and 4 beers, and so on. Let say she makes 3 pizzas and 4 beers. Now if Joe and Joanne were the only people who made pizza and beer on their block, then their block produces 7 beers and 7 pizzas in total. Now consider this. If Joe and Joanne concentrate on their strengths exclusively, they can produce 10 pizzas and 10 beers respectively. If they then trade their goods, they could reasonable end up with 5 beers and 5 pizzas each. So the same people, doing the same amount of work, making the same goods can either end up with 3 pizzas and 4 beers (or vice versa), or 5 of each just through specialisation. Thats more beer and more pizza for everyone *cracks open a can and grabs a slice of pepperoni*, thats what I call economics. ;)

4) Would it be more feasible to answer these questions by either restricting or overhauling globalization? Meaning, in order to protect jobs and such, should we make laws to restrict globalization, or should we overhaul it, to where a worldwide economic society comes about, such as the EU, where goods, jobs, people and ideas are allowed to go across borders freely?

We should let globalisation take it's course. Then we will end up with the latter example you provided.

1)What can we do to stop the abuse of the enviroment by Corps.? Many corporations will often times break enviromental laws, because it is cheaper to pay the fine, than to obey the laws. This obviously needs to stop.

No, it doesn't need to stop. Moreover, we need to repeal all laws pertaining to the destruction of the environment -- such laws are anti-democratic. We should, however, make the pollution data of companies publicly accessible and force companies to post it like a maximum occupancy sign where any customer can see it. If the customer decides that they do not wish to patronize a company which excessively pollutes, then the market will force companies to cut down on pollutions to an acceptable level -- the level set by the people.

2) How can we stop the outsourcing of jobs, and the exploitation of cheap labour? This is obviously bad, as with a decrease of jobs means that there is a decrease of money going into the economies. Cheap labour is also bad due to human rights abuses and such.

We need to repeal the minimum wage to allow companies to hire workers cheaper in the US. If we impose laws against outsourcing, than fewer businesses will wish to conduct business in the US, and thus our economy would greatly lose out. We also need to focus on breeding white-collar workers, the kind which are not found in China, India, etc. Thus, we need to abolish the minimum wage, heavily slice welfare to those who refuse the opportunity to work, and instead devote that money into a privatized educational system which will crank out highly competitive workers, giving the US an even footing on the global market. Our labour will most likely not be able to match that found in third-world countries. We need to move slowly away from that type of labour but we must also try to conserve as much of our cheap labour workforce as possible.

3) What can the west do, with out taking back prior laws and promises, to encourage economic growth in industry and business?

We can slash taxation for businesses and we can stop creating anti-business laws, one after another.

I want to focus mainly on USA economics here, but also this can apply to other Western countries. I have a few questions to ask

1)What can we do to stop the abuse of the enviroment by Corps.?
Many corporations will often times break enviromental laws, because it is cheaper to pay the fine, than to obey the laws. This obviously needs to stop.


I don't feel like addressing the rest, but I'll address this one. I really like the idea of trading pollution credits. It introduces market forces that allow for the internalization of the external costs of pollution. In Norway just last week the first ocean drilling platform was introduced that sequesters CO2. Tey did this for the sole purpose of increasing profitability. Since they are now sequestering their CO2 emmissions they can now sell all of the CO2 credits they have for that platform to other companies. I'd like to see many more programs like this. Economic incentive works and if you build flexibility into the system it works even better.

Economic incentive works and if you build flexibility into the system it works even better.
...But as always, for U.S. the Kyoto Protocol is not profitable and therefore rejected, and no internal ecology incentives can be expected if even external don't work.

...But as always, for U.S. the Kyoto Protocol is not profitable and therefore rejected, and no internal ecology incentives can be expected if even external don't work.

True, but several states have actually adopted laws that are stronger than Kyoto and now that California has many more probably will as well.

1) When fucking the environment, it is important to have a very good lube handy. Oil spills are excellent for this.
2) If God didn't intend for 12-year old Chinese kids to be making my T-Shirts and sandals, then he wouldn't have given them such agile and responsive fingers.
3) Reduce regulations and taxation a bit? Wait for the third world to suffer our increased regulation and cost of living, forcing costs up and making the idea of doing business in those places (and putting up with the high transportation costs and tariffs associated with them) a little less appealing.
Of course, that might qualify as taking back "promises", so then just wait.
4) Globalisation has been going on since the Roman Empire, just get used to it: if you can't provide the best benefit for someone's dollar, they'll go elsewhere.