The Successes of Capitalism

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by onodera

You actually have to take other countries into account -- those that provide labour and resourses to non-****hole countries.
I doubt sweatshop workers and Niger delta tribes are very satisfied with capitalism.

so, how many people are forced to work in sweatshops?
if they have better options then i suggest they take them.

if they don't, it means sweatshops are better than their other choises.

so perhaps awfull by western standards, it sill offers the best job a sweatshop worker can find.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

so, how many people are forced to work in sweatshops?
if they have better options then i suggest they take them.

if they don't, it means sweatshops are better than their other choises.

so perhaps awfull by western standards, it sill offers the best job a sweatshop worker can find.

...that's not really a justification. The awful conditions in factories during the industrial revolution could be justified by much the same arguments, couldn't they? If you give people a horrific job when their only alternative is starving to death as a subsistence farmer, you might as well sell shoddy rafts to passengers on the Titanic. Sure, they might not make it all the way to shore, but they'll drown if they stay, right?

[Sirotnikov]

i'm not saying conditions are great there, or that they shouldn't be improved.

i'm saying that major factories opening shop in places with little job options and a huge popuation, is not an evil thing. If the factories were not desperately needed - no one would show up for work.

The fact they need to be monitored and worker conditions should be regulated is of course true.

But it's not like someone is forced to go work in a factory by the evil corporation.

[Elok]

No, they're forced by evil circumstances. Works out about the same. Given the massive profits made by companies who employ sweatshop labor (they could afford to pay those workers at least ten times as much as they do, and still turn a profit), I don't see them as humanitarian.

[Blake]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

so, how many people are forced to work in sweatshops?
if they have better options then i suggest they take them.

if they don't, it means sweatshops are better than their other choises.

One of the oldest fallacies in the book.

The logic that if someone chooses to do something, it must be in their self interest to do that!

The thing is, whenever there is an element of fear, anger, addiction, desperation that kind of thing, rational decision making is thrown out the window.

It's like colonizing a country, getting the natives addicted to booze, and then they need to acquire money from the colonists in order to buy booze. The only way to get the money, is to sell their land or labor.
The thing is, the addiction to the booze, has not enhanced the quality of their life, so the decisions made based on that addiction, are not decisions made in self-interest.

But of course it's okay, because even if the natives refuse to get addicted to booze, the land can just be taken by force of arms.

If they choose surrender, then it must be in their self interest to surrender, right?
If they choose to die for their cause, it must be in their self interest to die, right?

Not really. There's no "right" there.

Only once people have a particular freedoms - freedom from desperation, can it be said that they are doing what is in their self interest.

When people go around making others desperate (by getting them addicted or pointing a gun at their head), then that is oppression, plain and simple.

[Kuciwalker]

Oldest fallacy in the book.

The logic that if someone chooses to do something, it must be in their self interest to do that!

That's definitely not the oldest fallacy in the book.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Elok
No, they're forced by evil circumstances. Works out about the same. Given the massive profits made by companies who employ sweatshop labor (they could afford to pay those workers at least ten times as much as they do, and still turn a profit), I don't see them as humanitarian.

False. If the corporations had imposed on themselves an obligation to pay third world workers what you'd call a "decent" wage along with improving overall work conditions, then there woudn't have been an economic incentive to move the jobs overseas in the first place, as it would have been cheaper to continue on with the manufacturing infrastructure already existing in developed countries. Instead of the status quo where third world workers at least have a choice between subsistence farming and poorly paid manufacturing, they would have no choice at all. Does that sound more or less unfair to you?

[Blake]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Oldest fallacy in the book.

The logic that if someone chooses to do something, it must be in their self interest to do that!

That's definitely not the oldest fallacy in the book.

Immediately after posting I went back and edited it to "One of the oldest", but you were too fast, ack .

[OneFootInTheGrave]

lawyers/judges

from the beginning, and how > they make the rules and than charge everyone else exorbitant amounts of money on interpreting them, a capitalistic success story, under other systems they would not be rewarded so amply, and be protected so vigorously as under this one...

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Elok
No, they're forced by evil circumstances. Works out about the same. Given the massive profits made by companies who employ sweatshop labor (they could afford to pay those workers at least ten times as much as they do, and still turn a profit), I don't see them as humanitarian.

I don't see them as humanitarian either.

It is when pure interest creates processes which better society, that is the magic.

The evil circumstances were not created by the evil companies. They are a result of history. The evil companies owe poor 3rd world nations nothing.

But it is their interest to create new jobs to poor 3rd world nations, and to make them slightly better paying that what already exists in said 3rd world nations (or else no one would come).

This process creates gradual improvement in the conditions in said nation. However the conditions of the worker depend on lots of stuff - the way social life is run, rule of law, security etc.

The only people who owe anything to the 3rd world citizens are their governments. If they are smart, they create good conditions that improve education, allow better economic activity, and allow local entrepreneurs open successful businesses. If they are not smart - they steal the public funds, and take bribe.

[Sirotnikov]

When people go around making others desperate (by getting them addicted or pointing a gun at their head), then that is oppression, plain and simple.

yes I can see how it can be easy to get addicted to sweat-shops

Come on. This 18 century colonialism talk is unrealistic.

You wanna talk about companies bribing governments and abusing their power to keep the working conditions low - I'll agree that it is bad.

But there is no sense in blaming Nike for desperation in 3rd world.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Barnabas
All countries which arent ****holes are capitalistic countries.

Surely you jest.

All countries which aren't ****holes have extremely generous welfare states.

[Darius871]

...and yet the welfare state (even if we suppose it's entirely anathema to capitalist society rather than a mere practical feature) could never have come into being had it not been for capitalism creating the wealth that the welfare state redistributes. Couldn't that be called a "success"?

[OneFootInTheGrave]

How capitalistic is Norway, France?

If that is true capitalism, I am all for it

[Elok]

Originally posted by Darius871
False. If the corporations had imposed on themselves an obligation to pay third world workers what you'd call a "decent" wage along with improving overall work conditions, then there woudn't have been an economic incentive to move the jobs overseas in the first place, as it would have been cheaper to continue on with the manufacturing infrastructure already existing in developed countries. Instead of the status quo where third world workers at least have a choice between subsistence farming and poorly paid manufacturing, they would have no choice at all. Does that sound more or less unfair to you?

I understand the economics, thank you. I'm not that dense on the subject. I'm sure the people who employ sweatshop labor use exactly that logic, selling feces as food to a starving man. It wouldn't be legal for them to treat people in America that way, so they subcontract it out, mistreat some foreigners instead. Out of sight, out of mind. I'm talking morals, not economics or law, and treating people like total crap is immoral even if they're used to being lower than crap.