4 ms·

You're merely describing the history of nearly all nations (at one point or another), which doesn't properly explain why some nations develop to a radical degre

You're merely describing the history of nearly all nations (at one point or another), which doesn't properly explain why some nations develop to a radical degree when it comes to the formation of industry, wealth, high productivity, innovation, technology, etc. Vietnam - as one prominent example - has had repeated bouts of internal exploitation and genocide throughout its history, including in the post Vietnam War era by the ruling CPV dictatorship. That treatment didn't make them richer or more developed, the opposite did: liberalized markets, increased protections for property rights, global trade, manufacturing, paid labor with rapidly increasing wages, rapidly increasing productivity, and so on. The approach of exploitation and genocide destroyed potential and held them back, as it similarly did to numerous other Communist nations. You have to pretend that all worker wages are inherently exploitation (that the business to worker relationship is always structured on worker exploitation), to believe that every rich nation primarily got there via exploitation.

BobbyJo 5y ago
Allowing people to sell their labor, and allowing other people to buy that labor, is inherently exploitive /s
Kinrany 5y ago
> You have to pretend that all worker wages are inherently exploitation (that the business to worker relationship is always structured on worker exploitation), to believe that every rich nation primarily got there via exploitation. Merely that exploitation is more common than a fair trade where both parties can afford to walk away. How often is it historically that a person can quit on the spot without fear of becoming homeless? A quick search finds this article that suggests that in US today 40% of people have negative net worth: https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2016/02/the-costs-of-inequality-when-a-fair-shake-isnt/ https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2016/02/the-costs-of-... Exploitation is not a good source of wealth for the country, of course. For people working minimum wage jobs their time would be more efficiently spent on education. But it's a great way to accumulate wealth that exists anyway.

BobbyJo 5y ago

Allowing people to sell their labor, and allowing other people to buy that labor, is inherently exploitive /s

Kinrany 5y ago

> You have to pretend that all worker wages are inherently exploitation (that the business to worker relationship is always structured on worker exploitation), to believe that every rich nation primarily got there via exploitation. Merely that exploitation is more common than a fair trade where both parties can afford to walk away. How often is it historically that a person can quit on the spot without fear of becoming homeless? A quick search finds this article that suggests that in US today 40% of people have negative net worth: https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2016/02/the-costs-of-inequality-when-a-fair-shake-isnt/ https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2016/02/the-costs-of-... Exploitation is not a good source of wealth for the country, of course. For people working minimum wage jobs their time would be more efficiently spent on education. But it's a great way to accumulate wealth that exists anyway.