3 ms·

Earlier today I was thinking about this positively. None of my ideas are original, but some anti-corporatism thought struck a chord today. Why do we rely on dic

Earlier today I was thinking about this positively. None of my ideas are original, but some anti-corporatism thought struck a chord today. Why do we rely on dictatorships and unstable countries for critical infrastructure? Why do we rely on slave labor overseas for such basics as textiles when we could make it here? It isn't "markets" that are wrong altogether, but there is something destabilizing and unethical about shipping a neighbor's job away to a slave to save a penny for the stockholder. Supply chains and globalization should be very much rethought in this century.

jhugo 5y ago
> Why do we rely on slave labor overseas for such basics as textiles when we could make it here? Calling it slave labour is a great sound bite but glosses over the wide variety in working conditions "overseas", and the fact that trade has vastly improved conditions in many such "overseas" countries. I have broadly the opposite view about supply chains and globalisation; the inter-reliance of countries and the trade in labour/goods/services leads to diplomacy, negotiation, communication, better understanding and ultimately a safer, better world. History has demonstrated this consistently if you take a long view. The direction of "make everything in your own country, rely on no other country for anything" is the opposite to all of the above: less need for diplomacy, less leverage in negotiation, less communication, less understanding. That's a sad direction for the world to move in.
- riffraff 5y ago
  It's worth noting this was one of the foundations of the European free market and then the European union: make the European countries so integrated that a war becomes unthinkable.
- unethical_ban 5y ago
  Yes, good counterpoint. And to the other poster, yes, the EU was apparently designed with this point explicitly in mind. However, the EU countries are on the same order of magnitude of wealth. Is there any point at which we say "it is wrong to remove wealth from my country, put a fraction of it into working conditions unthinkable in my country, and let the owners of the means of production pocket the rest"? Shouldn't we mandate US-like living conditions and safety regulations if we are going to ethically export labor?
  - jhugo 5y ago
    > Shouldn't we mandate US-like living conditions and safety regulations if we are going to ethically export labor? To make that mandate at the beginning is simply to decide not to export labour, since the trade can't happen if you apply those conditions from the outset. That's worse for everybody: your t-shirt costs more, and the worker in Cambodia or Bangladesh goes back to subsistence farming. The present system of international trade has delivered a marked improvement in living conditions for labour-exporting countries. It's always worthwhile to talk about how to make further improvement happen faster, but mandates aren't the solution — to pretend economic realities don't exist doesn't make them go away.
  - bllguo 5y ago
    pragmatic concerns aside, the US standards you hold so dear would not even be possible without being subsidized by the labor and suffering of those you criticize. Calling them ethical is quite the stretch
MathCodeLove 5y ago
You can choose to buy from companies who only operate domestically Why don't you? Why is it unethical to save a penny for a stockholder yet it isn't unethical for you to save a penny by buying foreign produced goods? Sure, there are many specific brands unavailable domestically, but you can find some variation of everything you need locally. Even if there are exceptions to that, I would bet you rarely choose to purchase domestic goods because they're too expensive. Supply chains operate at the maximum possible efficiency to save you as much money as possible. If you're willing to spend more to uphold your ideals, then do it. You already have the option.
- metabagel 5y ago
  It’s not possible for a single average consumer to support domestic industry on their narrow shoulders. It typically takes some sort of collective action, often in the form of government trade policy.
  - MathCodeLove 5y ago
    The collective is nothing but many individuals. While I'm not accusing you specifically of this, I feel as if these sort of responses are often used as a way to shirk the responsibility of taking any action for the causes one claims to support. It's a fair point to make, but doesn't mean that OP shouldn't be doing their part by buying domestically if they really hate that some products get manufactured in another country. If everyone who complained about this issue decides to only buy domestically the domestic market would be much stronger.
    - unethical_ban 5y ago
      To some extent I get it, but that ignores the very real and obvious psychological issue of "going it alone" and feeling as if you are not impacting anything while paying the price. See: The United States and others trying to push a climate-change agenda while India and China say "fuck you" and keep dumping into rivers and ramping up coal production. If we "do our part" all we do is lose out while others destroy our economy and planet. At the "buy all American", I disagree with your point that I could possibly source everything in my house from the United States even if I had a million dollars - and if I could, though it would make me feel better, it doesn't change the macro fact.
aaronblohowiak 5y ago
We should have free trade with people who play by the same rules.
bakuninsbart 5y ago
While I don't subscribe to the neoliberal idea of globalization being great for the global poor, I think it is quite telling that very few countries managed to get rich purely through internal means. Barring a few minor exceptions, countries either became rich through exploitation of other countries (Western Europe, colonial nations and Japan), or by using global markets to drive growth through exports (SK, Taiwan, PRC and a few others). The majority of the jobs you call slavery are indeed in horrible conditions, but still better paying than substistence farming, thus being one of the ways people can break the circle of poverty. Exploitation needs to be weighed and reigned in, but rather than taking industry back home, it would be better to just make sure that workers in poor countries are also paid fair wages.
- quartesixte 5y ago
  To be honest, at least with SK, they in a way self-exploited themselves during the dictatorship eras. Exporting materials (steel), industrial capacity (famously, container ships), labor (Saudi Arabian oilfield workers and nurses in Germany among others), and mercenaries (Vietnam War). Wages from which were taken by the government and invested (via national monopolies such as Samsung and Hyundai) into more infrastructure growth. Which slowly led to the Korea of today. Add in a dash of democratization and you get the softpower exporting, shipbuilding, chip fabbing regional power today. It’s an interesting case study into I guess so-called “benevolent dictatorships” that managed to democratize itself (very very violently by the way), and then kept its nationalistic spirit going to weather through an IMF Credit Crisis to become what it is today.

jhugo 5y ago

> Why do we rely on slave labor overseas for such basics as textiles when we could make it here? Calling it slave labour is a great sound bite but glosses over the wide variety in working conditions "overseas", and the fact that trade has vastly improved conditions in many such "overseas" countries. I have broadly the opposite view about supply chains and globalisation; the inter-reliance of countries and the trade in labour/goods/services leads to diplomacy, negotiation, communication, better understanding and ultimately a safer, better world. History has demonstrated this consistently if you take a long view. The direction of "make everything in your own country, rely on no other country for anything" is the opposite to all of the above: less need for diplomacy, less leverage in negotiation, less communication, less understanding. That's a sad direction for the world to move in.

riffraff 5y ago
It's worth noting this was one of the foundations of the European free market and then the European union: make the European countries so integrated that a war becomes unthinkable.
unethical_ban 5y ago
Yes, good counterpoint. And to the other poster, yes, the EU was apparently designed with this point explicitly in mind. However, the EU countries are on the same order of magnitude of wealth. Is there any point at which we say "it is wrong to remove wealth from my country, put a fraction of it into working conditions unthinkable in my country, and let the owners of the means of production pocket the rest"? Shouldn't we mandate US-like living conditions and safety regulations if we are going to ethically export labor?
- jhugo 5y ago
  > Shouldn't we mandate US-like living conditions and safety regulations if we are going to ethically export labor? To make that mandate at the beginning is simply to decide not to export labour, since the trade can't happen if you apply those conditions from the outset. That's worse for everybody: your t-shirt costs more, and the worker in Cambodia or Bangladesh goes back to subsistence farming. The present system of international trade has delivered a marked improvement in living conditions for labour-exporting countries. It's always worthwhile to talk about how to make further improvement happen faster, but mandates aren't the solution — to pretend economic realities don't exist doesn't make them go away.
- bllguo 5y ago
  pragmatic concerns aside, the US standards you hold so dear would not even be possible without being subsidized by the labor and suffering of those you criticize. Calling them ethical is quite the stretch

MathCodeLove 5y ago

You can choose to buy from companies who only operate domestically Why don't you? Why is it unethical to save a penny for a stockholder yet it isn't unethical for you to save a penny by buying foreign produced goods? Sure, there are many specific brands unavailable domestically, but you can find some variation of everything you need locally. Even if there are exceptions to that, I would bet you rarely choose to purchase domestic goods because they're too expensive. Supply chains operate at the maximum possible efficiency to save you as much money as possible. If you're willing to spend more to uphold your ideals, then do it. You already have the option.

metabagel 5y ago
It’s not possible for a single average consumer to support domestic industry on their narrow shoulders. It typically takes some sort of collective action, often in the form of government trade policy.
- MathCodeLove 5y ago
  The collective is nothing but many individuals. While I'm not accusing you specifically of this, I feel as if these sort of responses are often used as a way to shirk the responsibility of taking any action for the causes one claims to support. It's a fair point to make, but doesn't mean that OP shouldn't be doing their part by buying domestically if they really hate that some products get manufactured in another country. If everyone who complained about this issue decides to only buy domestically the domestic market would be much stronger.
  - unethical_ban 5y ago
    To some extent I get it, but that ignores the very real and obvious psychological issue of "going it alone" and feeling as if you are not impacting anything while paying the price. See: The United States and others trying to push a climate-change agenda while India and China say "fuck you" and keep dumping into rivers and ramping up coal production. If we "do our part" all we do is lose out while others destroy our economy and planet. At the "buy all American", I disagree with your point that I could possibly source everything in my house from the United States even if I had a million dollars - and if I could, though it would make me feel better, it doesn't change the macro fact.

aaronblohowiak 5y ago

We should have free trade with people who play by the same rules.

bakuninsbart 5y ago

While I don't subscribe to the neoliberal idea of globalization being great for the global poor, I think it is quite telling that very few countries managed to get rich purely through internal means. Barring a few minor exceptions, countries either became rich through exploitation of other countries (Western Europe, colonial nations and Japan), or by using global markets to drive growth through exports (SK, Taiwan, PRC and a few others). The majority of the jobs you call slavery are indeed in horrible conditions, but still better paying than substistence farming, thus being one of the ways people can break the circle of poverty. Exploitation needs to be weighed and reigned in, but rather than taking industry back home, it would be better to just make sure that workers in poor countries are also paid fair wages.

quartesixte 5y ago
To be honest, at least with SK, they in a way self-exploited themselves during the dictatorship eras. Exporting materials (steel), industrial capacity (famously, container ships), labor (Saudi Arabian oilfield workers and nurses in Germany among others), and mercenaries (Vietnam War). Wages from which were taken by the government and invested (via national monopolies such as Samsung and Hyundai) into more infrastructure growth. Which slowly led to the Korea of today. Add in a dash of democratization and you get the softpower exporting, shipbuilding, chip fabbing regional power today. It’s an interesting case study into I guess so-called “benevolent dictatorships” that managed to democratize itself (very very violently by the way), and then kept its nationalistic spirit going to weather through an IMF Credit Crisis to become what it is today.