4 ms·
Briefly stated Krugman says that cheap-labour manufacturing is better than rural poverty for the Third World. He is right on a historic scale (development taki
by kds 16y ago
Briefly stated Krugman says that cheap-labour manufacturing is better than rural poverty for the Third World.
He is right on a historic scale (development taking decades and presuming that transfer of know-how and tech sooner or later is to be followed by the ability to retain larger profits within the receiving nation).
But this is nothing original as a thought because ~150 years before him it was Marx who said that capitalism is better than the rural feudal economics, anyway, and explicitly acknowledged its productive power (Before dissecting his problems as a social order, in his understanding).
Anyway, this arm-chair observations hardly matter to the overworked and overstressed individual, or to the parents of those who commit suicide out of desperation.
- berntb 16y agoNot relevant to the point, which is: Cheap labor manufacturing is better than the alternative of no cheap labor manufacturing -- and the first step on the ladder to a better/modern economy. I don't like it, either. But afaik, there is no other way to start the road to a modern society (this also needs good governance, no conflicts, etc). Obviously, if you had a better answer, you would have addressed the point. Edit: Did I miss that you are arguing FOR something -- instead of just complaining that the first step out of poverty is just a few times better than the poverty?
- kds 16y agoI don't know what you missed but it seems you assume too much while interpreting freely other people's posts (here) or writings (the link you provided above). I never said I liked, disliked, complained, or argued about anything, neither I felt there was a point to be addressed so to argue with you over something. I've answered you what I think (after reading the article) just out of politeness - so get over it (if the answer doesn't match quite your opinion) and move on.
- berntb 16y ago>>[...] neither I felt there was a point to be addressed so to argue with you over something. >>I've answered you what I think (after reading the article) just out of politeness I assumed you had something to say about my reference/argument when you wrote. My fault of course, to assume that you did more than finger exercises. I'll try to remember you and not assume that you have any content in your writing. 1/2 :-)