Obama wins, saves economy single-handedly while defeating economy-hating Republicans

[KrazyHorse]

Kuci jr is not old enough yet to be familiar with the concept of morals. He is still, at the age where the equator runs through your arse.

And yet, despite your advanced age, you're unable to see where this analogy breaks down.

The choice is not between selling the life raft and giving it away; the choice is between selling the life raft to the people in the water and simply walking away.

The latter is what people who DON'T hire 3rd world workers do.

Anybody with a functioning mind should be able to see that.

[dannubis]

What analogy are you alluding to exactely ? Or are you just drunk again...

[Aeson]

I think KH is trying to say that he hasn't hired any third world workers, and if he were on the Titanic, he'd have kept all the lifeboats to himself.

Personally, if on the Titanic, I'd have tied together all the third world workers to make a raft, so they'd have a raft to save themselves with.

[Arrian]

One question: do you know the difference between liability coverage and collision coverage?

Clearly not.

The choice is not between selling the life raft and giving it away; the choice is between selling the life raft to the people in the water and simply walking away.

Seems to me all three are options. Walk (sail?) away (drown, suckers!), sell seats, give seats away.

-Arrian

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Its rather simple. KH was simply stating the obvious. The so called victims ('exploited') are far better for being 'exploited' than if they had not been. Further those who offer the so called victims a consentual opportunity to be 'victimized' are actually morally superior to those who laud themselves as noble and would refrain from doing transactions with those 'victims' for fear of taking advantage of them, all in the name of enabling their self righteous pious idignation.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Its rather simple. KH was simply stating the obvious. The so called victims ('exploited') are far better for being 'exploited' than if they had not been. Further those who offer the so called victims a consentual opportunity to be 'victimized' are actually morally superior to those who laud themselves as noble and would refrain from doing transactions with those 'victims' for fear of taking advantage of them, all in the name of enabling their self righteous pious idignation.

It all depends. Morality is a fickle thing. One can easily suscribe to a morality that it is better to let everyone die than to push 1 person off a cliff to save 500. Comes down to the morality final consequences of a series of acts vs. the morality each individual act.

[KrazyHorse]

Clearly not.



Seems to me all three are options. Walk (sail?) away (drown, suckers!), sell seats, give seats away.

-Arrian

And I agree that giving free stuff (especially money) to third-worlders is a great, positively moral thing to do. Engaging in market transactions based on self-interest is basically morally neutral (though you are helping them, of course; market transactions help both sides). Applying all sorts of self-righteous restrictions to your transactions with the third world is both stupid and morally wrong.

I also have no idea why a company which engages in morally neutral market transactions with the third world has any more of a moral obligation to give stuff away to the third world than does a company which conducts its business wholly in the first world. The two actions are orthogonal, in my mind.

[KrazyHorse]

To take a famous example, I have no idea what principle is being invoked when it is claimed that Nike has more of a moral obligation to help its third-world workers over and above the market-clearing wages paid for their time and effort than Caterpillar or Microsoft has to help those same workers...

[Dinner]

That's covered by liability insurance though, which you're required to have by law.

True, but out here everyone seems to have a $50,000-$70,000 car even the poor folks who lease instead of buy. That's most true in LA and less true here but, sadly, the LA mentality bleeds over. Even a minor accident can easily cost more then $15,000 (fixing the bumper on my friend's Audi was over $20,000) so only a fool doesn't have collision because even if it is not your fault the court will usually split things 50-50 insuring the other bastard spends massive just to spite you.

[Dinner]

One question: do you know the difference between liability coverage and collision coverage?

One answer, both will get your arse sued off when the other ****er is driving a $75,000 car which most people seem to do around here. Either way you buy the insurance because it is potential suicide not to.

[Elok]

And yet, despite your advanced age, you're unable to see where this analogy breaks down.

The choice is not between selling the life raft and giving it away; the choice is between selling the life raft to the people in the water and simply walking away.

The latter is what people who DON'T hire 3rd world workers do.

Anybody with a functioning mind should be able to see that.

I didn't say anything about giving it away. My point has nothing to do with any understanding of economics; it's that offering people a ****ty deal when all they have is an even ****tier deal, knowing they'll take it because they basically have no choice (get treated like crap and live vs. keep on subsistence farming and maybe starve when the next rainy season falters), is exploitative. I didn't say it should stop, because realistically I know nobody's going to actually give them decent treatment. But I find it hard to deny that it's exploitative. Not when they were specifically chosen for the job to circumvent first-world laws about hours worked, wages paid, safe/reasonable working conditions, not having your boss tell you "have an abortion or you're out on your ass"...

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Chicken and egg arguement. Critical mass of employed industrialized labor is required before reforms can be expected. If no one 'exploits' these primitive economies they are forever subject to subsistence existances.

[Elok]

I don't know enough about economics to know if that's true or not. I'm not crusading for reform here. I'm just saying, the fact that they're better off working fifteen-hour shifts for pocket change than scrabbling to get decent crop yields with medieval technology does not change the basically exploitative nature of the relationship. If a company is acting without any regard for the well-being of its employees, it's exploiting them. And yes, by that definition many companies might be called exploitative, depending on how you split hairs and yadda yadda yadda. I'm only taking issue with HC's "the **** they're eating now is more nutritious than the **** they would be eating otherwise, so it's not exploitative" logic here.

[Hauldren Collider]

Except I'm right. But I'm at school. So I can't back it up right now.

[giblets]

They are being exploited, IMO, but their employer shouldn't be blamed for it. The employer has to heed market forces to stay in business so they have to offer jobs at something near the market rate.