Boris' pissed off and he's telling you why

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
oncle boris: i know it was a joke. it's still a good quote to put there. as for the holocaust one, that one's just trying too hard.
at least you have someone else quoting you. some posters quote themselves, like *cough* riddler_new *cough*.

anyway:
look, nobody's saying that the kids in sweatshops is a good thing. i see it as a necessary evil: industrialization is a brutal process, and unless you plan on forking of millions if not billions of dollars to leapfrog these third-world economies into first-world/information economies, they're going to have to go through the tough and brutal process that is industrialization and modernization.
sure the us government has done some nasty things. but i challenge you to show me any government in a position similar to america's, with that sort of superpower status, that itself didn't do some nasty things to ensure its position in the world. it'd be nice if the world operated on principles beyond realism, but it doesn't. you're going to have powers espousing values other than what they practice: do as i say, not as i do. sure it'd be nice to have economies grow up without having to go through industrialization: but it costs money--money they don't have, money that others aren't quite willing to give, and time for those investments to start paying dividends.

the problem is when you try to force people to do things they don't want to do, you create resentment. you try and force some of those american megacorps, or even transnationals, to be kinder and gentler, if they think the cost is too much, they'll drop the market. sucks, but that's the way the world works.

What you are saying here certainly makes some sense. What I despise the most, however, is how the propaganda describes the brutal industrialization as an altruistic and necessary tool towards democracy, while it is obviously not. And yes, America is not any more evil than any empire has been throughout history- which is, to say the least, not much bright anyway.

The point I am defending is that as the West is rich right now, we can afford to save the third world a good part of the suffering our population went through until the 1950s. And, though our values are supposed to be justice and all, no one seems to be defending them outside of its borders.

And now to Corporations. They will continue to exist as long as there is a profit to be made. Using our political rights, we do have the power to enforce some form of wealth redistribution that can be a compromise between profitabilty and justice. Of course, imposing an international minimal wage of 5$ will just ruin all the poor countries. But given that millions still only earn less than 2$ a day, can we really say there is nothing to be done? Do you really think the big boys will stop moving unskilled jobs to China if they have to pay their workers 0,40$ an hour instead of 0,32$ ? In both cases, the savings are so huge that I doubt they will incur the costs of going back to America just to protest against the 8 cents rise.
There is some kind of pragmatic and realistic things we can do to ease the process, without ruining the corporations while helping a little bit the poor. And I don't think there is any such thing as retroactive suffering. My grandfather went to jail because he tried to unionize his shop, and I don't wish this to happen to anyone else in the world. Solidarity is certainly not about sharing the pain!

I tend to think that my point of view is moderate and that we can hardly be against such common sense. But hell, it seems like I must be wrong.

EDIT: sure, we can't leapfrog them towards first class economies. But a few cents mean much more to a Chinese peasant than an American CEO.

[Ned]

We ALL know that the left does not care about the long hours or hard working conditions of people in the third world. What they care about is the United States sending jobs to the third world because that undercuts the left's ability to impose high wages on American society in exchange for less productivity.

Doubt this?

When is the last time the left complained about bad working conditions in the third world outside the context of American business? When have they called for a boycott of products produced in the third world by companies other than US companies?

[Ned]

Proves my point:

From Oncle Boris:
" Do you really think the big boys will stop moving unskilled jobs to China if they have to pay their workers 0,40$ an hour instead of 0,32$ ?"

[JohnT]

They don't, Ned. Apparently we Americans are the only ones capable of forming corporate entities or something...

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Ned
We ALL know that the left does not care about the long hours or hard working conditions of people in the third world. What they care about is the United States sending jobs to the third world because that undercuts the left's ability to impose high wages on American society in exchange for less productivity.

Doubt this?

When is the last time the left complained about bad working conditions in the third world outside the context of American business? When have they called for a boycott of products produced in the third world by companies other than US companies?

True, the issue of moving jobs from the US to the rest of the world is very sensitive, and it is about in fact the only point on which you can truly accuse the left of bad intent.

However, even though I don't expect you to rememeber everything I say, I did write somewhere on this post that the American unions formed international syndicates to prevent the loss of their own jobs. In any case, the disrepancy between Western salaries vs the rest of the world is so huge that the incentive to move jobs away will stay for a long, very long time.

What I am denouncing is the huge power the new capitalist oligarchs are pitting against governments throughout the world- because they have absolutely no intent to bring reasonable working conditions to their third class employees. In just too much countries, the army and the police are mere tools to dissuade the workers from forming unions and protesting.

So? If we want a fair globalization, it's our job to watch the corporations. Don't forget, it took wars, massacres and revolutions to get us what we have right now. Why not act now, in a peaceful way, to spare the trouble to 5 billion humans?

[Ned]

OB, I have NO idea why you are saying what you are saying about US companies (as opposed to companies from other countries). It is very the case that US companies always bring with them better working conditions than the worker could find working in other jobs in their country. What happens is that the people begin to demand the same conditions elsewhere after they get a taste. And, they usually get it -- as witnessed by the gradual upgrade in the conditions of Thailand, Singapore and China.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Ned
Proves my point:

Do you know of many corporations based in the third world that are selling in the US?

No, and you've got the reason: it's called economic colonization. So, the left is concentrating its protests against Western companies because we do have power over them, because they do have the means to pay their workers a bit more, and because THEY are the ones who are either buying goods produced under quasi-slavery, or outright producing them in sweatshops.

There is not much we can do directly for the little boy selling oranges in the village market. But there is something we can do about American grocers buying it from the distributor. And guess what? If the little boy's parents get more from the American groceries, then he'll be going to school instead of selling the surplus on the local market.

And what then? Enriching part of a population will help enrich the other part which is producing only for the local market. Don't try to tell me the right holds the altruistic position here.
And BTW, before the trade agreement between Mexico, Canada and the US, wages in local Mexican industries were better than those in the sweatshops.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Ned
OB, I have NO idea why you are saying what you are saying about US companies (as opposed to companies from other countries). It is very the case that US companies always bring with them better working conditions than the worker could find working in other jobs in their country. What happens is that the people begin to demand the same conditions elsewhere after they get a taste. And, they usually get it -- as witnessed by the gradual upgrade in the conditions of Thailand, Singapore and China.

This is false. Globalization is far from having an only successful record. Yes, it did work in some places. Not because the corporations were any help. Because the local governments did it in their own, prudent way. (Think of Korea). Deregulation policies have also had their share of bad effects. And what is the US (AND their allies, how many times do I have to repeat) doing? Imposing their own policies, which are usually way too prematurate to be of any help. They are defending their own interests, period. And these interests, given the money needed by the democratic election process, will always stay within the range of corporate donations.

[Q Classic]

Not because the corporations were any help. Because the local governments did it in their own, prudent way. (Think of Korea).

can you explain what you mean here?

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Q Cubed

Not because the corporations were any help. Because the local governments did it in their own, prudent way. (Think of Korea).

can you explain what you mean here?

What I mean is that I got the understanding from reading fellow Apolytoners' posts that Korea indeed used protectionism on its key industries and only opened its market when they had become competitive enough.

I'm adding a comment here: remark that most countries that have known the successes of free market have done it by developping their own expertise and exportations, rather than letting the foreign sweatshops savagely exploit their workforce. That may be the explanation behind the success of Japan, Singapore, Korea, and the failure of Mexico, Argentina and the likes.
Are there any such things as Hynix, Hyundai, Sony, Mitsubishi in Latin America?

Put it another way: countries with a large internal market should use more protectionism because they got the means to develop their own competence and export it later, while smaller countries should open their market now to benefit from the foreign industries (because their economy can only be based on exports anyway).

I may be wrong, but it seems defendable to me.

[Kuciwalker]

defensible

(sorry to nitpick )

[JohnT]

I agree with OB on this one: protectionism and excessive tariffs are a valid policy to use with developing countries and was used quite extensively in the US in the 19th century to protect our developing market from being swamped by European manufactures. I also think the argument used by another poster in another thread in re: to the size of the internal market viz protectionism has validity: for really small countries (Nicaragua was one of the examples given), protectionism is harmful as they are incapable of sustaining highly specialized industries, whereas for larger countries (Brazil) it does make sense.

[Q Classic]

What I mean is that I got the understanding from reading fellow Apolytoners' posts that Korea indeed used protectionism on its key industries and only opened its market when they had become competitive enough.

korea did use protectionism. however, to say that the corporations were no help (which is why i asked for the explanation--it wasn't too clear by what you'd said earlier) is absolutely ludicrous. why? if you go to korea today, you'll see that it's dominated by megacorps. to you, samsung only makes electronics. to koreans, samsung makes electronics, cars, clothes, chemicals, insurance, stock market securities, and oodles of other things.
furthermore, korea's economic miracle developed because of a close cooperation between corporations and government; similar to japan's success through MITI. government and the corporate were in bed to an extent that would make even american republicans blanche.

I'm adding a comment here: remark that most countries that have known the successes of free market have done it by developping their own expertise and exportations, rather than letting the foreign sweatshops savagely exploit their workforce. That may be the explanation behind the success of Japan, Singapore, Korea, and the failure of Mexico, Argentina and the likes.

actually, skorea savagely exploited their own workforce in sweatshops. until the early 90s, much of korea's economy was based on sweatshop labor: textiles, knockoff electronics, and the like. the reason why mexico and argentina failed while korea, japan, and singapore did not is because the government and corporate world did everything together. that and corruption rates were lower: rather than taking a 50% cut of all contracts, they settled for a 10% cut.
not to mention that unions were not smiled upon in korea, and still aren't to a certain extent.

Are there any such things as Hynix, Hyundai, Sony, Mitsubishi in Latin America?

hynix is currently bankrupt, and being kept alive only by government bailouts after a failed buyout attempt by micron. now, i'm glad hynix is still korean, but still. hynix is an offshoot of hyundai: used to be known as hyundai semiconductor. hyundai, btw, is also a big oozing megacorp, with tentacles in everything from shipbuilding to construction. i take it you're referring only to hyundai motor, the car company; which actually own both the hyundai motors and kia motors divisions. that's doing fine, while the hyundai group which they split off from is still facing a bit of a cash squeeze.

Put it another way: countries with a large internal market should use more protectionism because they got the means to develop their own competence and export it later, while smaller countries should open their market now to benefit from the foreign industries (because their economy can only be based on exports anyway).

hmm? not sure what this means.
until after the asian financial crisis of '97, korea was export-driven. meaning, they had a tiny internal market. people didn't buy much: they had a 33% savings rate in the banks, which then loaned it out to the corporations, which then used it to build build build and sell to the world, not domestically. now korea's got a burgeoning domestic consumer market (and a burgeoning personal bankruptcy rate), but that's after it dropped a lot of the protectionist tactics. furthermore, before the '97 financial crisis, many of the ventures in korea were joint ventures--which, btw, allowed american and other foreign companies to bypass the protectionist barriers (SK-Enron and Samsung Corning are two such examples).
so, if you're referring to a large potential internal market, it makes sense--but then, many of those less developed nations also have large potential internal markets: indonesia, thailand, argentina, mexico, nigeria...

so, what i'm trying to say is that your initial post seemed to say that the korean economic growth occured primarily through the government, while corporations were of little help; rather, korea's economy grew from a partnership. protectionism only works if the government is willing to look the other way while giving blank checks to the corporations and allow them to ruthlessly use the populace to develop and build up.

[Q Classic]

now that i think about it, samsung electronics, part of the samsung group, is really the brightest shining star. the samsung group's survival in the aftermath of the crisis is in a large part due to samsung electronics. that's also how it leapfrogged from being the fourth largest chaebol (megacorp) to the largest, as daewoo (not just cars!) collapsed, hyundai split into different branches, and lg just kinda stayed in a holding pattern.

[Ramo]

I agree with OB on this one: protectionism and excessive tariffs are a valid policy to use with developing countries and was used quite extensively in the US in the 19th century to protect our developing market from being swamped by European manufactures. I also think the argument used by another poster in another thread in re: to the size of the internal market viz protectionism has validity: for really small countries (Nicaragua was one of the examples given), protectionism is harmful as they are incapable of sustaining highly specialized industries, whereas for larger countries (Brazil) it does make sense.

I'd say that protectionism in general is a bad thing for developing states, even for large developing states. What's particularly harmful is protectionism between developing states which takes away what ought to be their natural markets - neighboring states, given transporation costs, etc.; OTOH, protectionism against developed states is much less important an issue. The reason why the US grew so quickly in the 19th century is not due to protectionist policies, which ended up hurting the majority of the population for most of the century - farmers, but a high immigration rate rapidly developing markets and capital.

Though I will say that protectionism for developing states in the form of reasonable taxes on capital transfers is for the most part a good thing for developing states as they'd prevent large-scale speculative capital flows (think the Asian Crisis a few years ago) or the pressuring of governments to take away nuissances like unions.