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

[Al B. Sure!]

I don't think so. I think he was more about getting rid of protectionism. But that's besides the point.

No, I was right. Sachs is all about aid. Against protectionism, too, but aid is the primary means of getting out of the 'poverty trap'

Sachs argues that sufficient foreign aid can make up for the lack of capital in poor countries, maintaining that, “If the foreign assistance is substantial enough, and lasts long enough, the capital stock rises sufficiently to lift households above subsistence.”

Also Sachs is a Keynesian. He has a lot of op-ed pieces on the Huffington Post about the necessity of foreign aid in the developing world and about Keynesianism.

A little surprised you would like him, HC.

[DaShi]

It's not wrong for a company to hire sweatshop labor, it's wrong that sweatshop labor is the best option imaginable for millions of people.

Actually, since by hiring sweatshop labor, they are creating demand for sweatshop labor. Therefore, if you consider sweatshop labor immoral, then you can consider companies that engage in it immoral.

[DaShi]

HC, this is not the zero sum game you are pretending it is. If I pay my worker an extra $ a day, I neither create or destroy value unless I presuppose that I am better able to use that $ than my worker or vice versa.

Exactly. All of HC's arguments are the common conservative strawmen that can be regurgitated by anyone on the street.

[KrazyHorse]

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.

EVERY TIME YOU DON'T BUY SOMETHING MADE IN THE THIRD WORLD YOU ARE GIVING THEM THE ****TIER DEAL.

That means that companies which build and sell their **** in the first world are helping third worlders less than the people who trade with them.

Why is it the responsibility of those doing the trading with the third world to, in addition, give them stuff? Why is their moral burden higher?

[KrazyHorse]

They live in a world that has neglected to give them the same opportunities other people have, therefore they can either accept terrible working conditions with terrible pay or else they'll starve or be absolutely destitute. That sounds like exploitation to me.

The moral wrong is that they are born into ****ty situations with ****ty opportunities and ALL OF US FAIL TO RECTIFY THAT.

The moral wrong in NO WAY disproportionately falls on those in the first world who trade with them. THE TRADE ISN'T THE PROBLEM. THE FACT THAT THEY DON'T HAVE BETTER OPPORTUNITIES IS. THAT PROBLEM IS THE FAULT OF EVERYBODY IN THE WORLD, NOT THE ONES HIRING THEM AT ****TY WAGES.

[KrazyHorse]

Well there's kind of two options, the first being to employ sweatshop labor, which is better than doing nothing, and the second is for people who are well off to do things that will help people in undeveloped countries for no direct personal benefit. I think it's helpful if people recognize that they are the beneficiaries of a grossly unequal distribution of opportunities and that they owe a debt to the rest of the human race and are morally obligated to pay it back.

Obviously misunderstood your earlier post.

Partly agree with this. However, your moral argument appears to rest on the basis of "fairness", whatever that means. Alternatively, it might rest on equality of material opportunity. Neither are particularly compelling moral arguments, as far as I'm concerned.

[Felch]

I have a question. How do I invest in sweatshops? I would prefer it if there were an index just for exploitative companies, like the EVIL8000. That would be ****ing awesome. Then I could just plunk some money down in an EVIL ETF, and start profiting from the abuse of Indonesian children.

[giblets]

The moral wrong is that they are born into ****ty situations with ****ty opportunities and ALL OF US FAIL TO RECTIFY THAT.

The moral wrong in NO WAY disproportionately falls on those in the first world who trade with them. THE TRADE ISN'T THE PROBLEM. THE FACT THAT THEY DON'T HAVE BETTER OPPORTUNITIES IS. THAT PROBLEM IS THE FAULT OF EVERYBODY IN THE WORLD, NOT THE ONES HIRING THEM AT ****TY WAGES.

I NEVER SAID TRADE WAS THE PROBLEM

[KrazyHorse]

HC, this is not the zero sum game you are pretending it is. If I pay my worker an extra $ a day, I neither create or destroy value unless I presuppose that I am better able to use that $ than my worker or vice versa.

Actually, you do end up destroying value. You are paying your worker an economic rent. Assuming that there is movement in and out of your employment, this will lead to welfare-destroying rent-seeking behavior.

Charitable gifts based on non-gameable qualities (e.g. randomly distributing cash to people in a third-world country) doesn't suffer from this problem. Conditioning on being in your employ does.

[KrazyHorse]

I NEVER SAID TRADE WAS THE PROBLEM

IF YOU'LL NOTICE THERE WAS A FOLLOW-UP POST. I ONLY READ POLY DURING THE WORKDAY FROM MY PHONE, SO I AM CATCHING UP NOW.

[KrazyHorse]

If the job is unskilled labor, as most of these jobs we're talking about are, the only real difference in paying more is the laborer is likely to work a bit harder out of desire to keep the job, and that you will get first pick of the unskilled laborers (strongest, most dexterous, or whatever natural ability best fits the job). Skilled laborers and those with higher education are unlikely to want to do, or to be capable of doing better at, unskilled labor.

Yet another example of the "assume away elasticities" school of economic thought.

[giblets]

IF YOU'LL NOTICE THERE WAS A FOLLOW-UP POST. I ONLY READ POLY DURING THE WORKDAY FROM MY PHONE, SO I AM CATCHING UP NOW.

Sorry.

[Felch]

Any human being who isn't spending their entire life running away from smilodons is doing okay by prehistoric standards.

For me, and most sensible people, the most troubling thing about Quest for Fire is that Ron Perlman's character Amoukar spent most of the movie unable to smoke any weed at all. They didn't even have brownie technology. Never forget that we have come a long way from our malnourished and sober forebears.

p.s. I was looking at Ron Perlman's imdb, and it says he's rumored to be in The Hobbit. He'd be an awesome Beorn.

p.p.s. I actually looked up on wikipedia to find out that smilodon was the technical term for sabertooth tigers. I just wanted you all to know that I put way more effort into this post than it actually deserved.

p.p.p.s. I'm doing unskilled labor right now, winterizing swimming pools. It's fun, we smoke weed, and throw covers over pools, and steal whatever isn't nailed down. Generally the black guys with no college are better workers than the white college dropouts, since they take the job more seriously. I don't know how this factors into the conversation, but I wanted to continue with my post scripts as long as I could.

p.p.p.p.s. Don't trust.

[Whoha]

I have a question. How do I invest in sweatshops? I would prefer it if there were an index just for exploitative companies, like the EVIL8000. That would be ****ing awesome. Then I could just plunk some money down in an EVIL ETF, and start profiting from the abuse of Indonesian children.

Are there 3x leveraged EVIL ETFs as well? This intrigues me.

[Elok]

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.

EVERY TIME YOU DON'T BUY SOMETHING MADE IN THE THIRD WORLD YOU ARE GIVING THEM THE ****TIER DEAL.

That means that companies which build and sell their **** in the first world are helping third worlders less than the people who trade with them.

Why is it the responsibility of those doing the trading with the third world to, in addition, give them stuff? Why is their moral burden higher?

I'm not quite convinced. Maybe if you had just used the caps lock a little more, it would persuade me. Anyway, I really don't care about long-term economic consequences, and I'm not so silly as to preach about moral burdens when I hardly know a thing about the situation--I only know what I know about sweatshops from a college class taught by a hyper-liberal professor years ago, and I'm sure I should take even my memories with a grain of salt. But it's not like some suit at Abercrombie & Fitch sat down and said, "you know, I feel bad for those Indian Dalits. I think I'll build a factory there." No, he said "how can I produce these goods a little cheaper? I know, I'll hire some Indians to build a factory and have the local dirt-muckers work double shifts for a pittance. If any of them agitate for better treatment, my boys can just axe them and hire others without any of that Union BS." IE, an exploitative attitude. It was exploitative when they did it in Victorian England, it's exploitative when they do it in the modern third world. It appears to have made England a much stronger country in the long run, and it may very well do the same for India, Indonesia, Vietnam and wherever else our tacky little consumer goods are made. I hope it does. But that doesn't change the basic exploitative relationship. I suppose this is mostly a semantic argument on my part.