4 ms·

I think one would most reasonably hold that it is both a form of exploitation and a form of enrichment. Enrichment would leave them -- well, enriched, and expl

I think one would most reasonably hold that it is both a form of exploitation and a form of enrichment. Enrichment would leave them -- well, enriched, and exploitation would leave them poorer. These possibilities are diametrically opposed, unless you change the referent of "them" midargument.

_delirium 15y ago
It can depend on what you count as riches, in part. For example, several African countries are being enriched by oil and mineral sales, if you count wealth in currency. But several of the countries have cut very bad deals (often due to corrupt governments) over their commodity exports, so that they're exporting considerably more valuable commodities than what they're getting paid for them in currency. So if you include commodities as a form of value, net value is flowing away from the country, enriching the government's short-term budget figures at the expense of draining their long-term commodities reserves.
huxley 15y ago
Not at all. A country can be simultaneously enriched and exploited if the people in the country are not equally enriched and exploited, which is usually the case. It doesn't have to sum out. Also you need to consider that you can be enriched by one factor and exploited in another. Say I pay you $10,000 for your kidney and you agree because your family is destitute. I have both enriched and exploited you.
Lazare 15y ago
I think the problem here is that "exploitation" is very poorly defined. It's widely used concept, and most people have an intuitive sense of what the word means, but these definitions conflict. Let's step back a moment: Let's say person A has a widget, which he values at $5. Person has $20, and would like a widget, which he values at $10. In a free market we would expect these people to negotiate and reach an agreement where A swaps the widget with B in exchange for between $5.01 and $9.99 of cash. The aggregate benefit of the transaction is $5 (that is, as a society, we are $5 better off after this transaction is made), and A and B are each somewhere between $0.01 and $4.99 better off. In this simple model, clearly both sides are benefiting, or if you prefer, are being enriched. Question: Is anyone being exploited? Does it depend on the price? Or do we need to know more details about the transaction, and if so, what? I think most people intuitively have one of two reactions: 1) "Unless fraud or force is being used, of course nobody is being exploited. Both sides enter into the transaction with open eyes, and both sides benefit. They can negotiate however they want to divy up the $5 in benefit - but as long as fraud or force aren't used, this can't be exploitation." 2) "Well, we need to know more. If one side has a lot more power than the other, they might drive the price unfairly far to one side or the other. If A is a large factory churning out widgets, a price of $5.10 might be a perfectly reasonable wholesale price; if A is peasant hand-crafting widgets and B is a multi-national widget trader, maybe anything less than $6 may represent the unfair exploitation of A. Conversely, a price of $9.90 might be fine if B is a collector of rare widgets, but even $8 might be exploitive if B is desperately trying to find a widget to repair his generator after an earthquake. We just can't know." I don't think either response is inherently more correct - both definitions are valid. But, obviously, they conflict. :) Also, in my experience people rarely, if ever, will change their initial intuition. Either you think exploitation is only the result of fraud or force (ie, using slave labour to produce widgets), or you think exploitation is involved in any transaction with a price that seems "unfair" (to you, based on fuzzy and usually undefined metrics). As a result, I'm not sure discussions of exploitation really make a lot of sense. Given the same objective and universally agreed facts about, e.g., Foxconn, a certain chunk of the population will say "that's obviously not exploitation" and a certain chunk will say "that's clearly exploitation", despite there being no real disagreement about what's actually taking place on the ground.

_delirium 15y ago

It can depend on what you count as riches, in part. For example, several African countries are being enriched by oil and mineral sales, if you count wealth in currency. But several of the countries have cut very bad deals (often due to corrupt governments) over their commodity exports, so that they're exporting considerably more valuable commodities than what they're getting paid for them in currency. So if you include commodities as a form of value, net value is flowing away from the country, enriching the government's short-term budget figures at the expense of draining their long-term commodities reserves.

huxley 15y ago

Not at all. A country can be simultaneously enriched and exploited if the people in the country are not equally enriched and exploited, which is usually the case. It doesn't have to sum out. Also you need to consider that you can be enriched by one factor and exploited in another. Say I pay you $10,000 for your kidney and you agree because your family is destitute. I have both enriched and exploited you.

Lazare 15y ago

I think the problem here is that "exploitation" is very poorly defined. It's widely used concept, and most people have an intuitive sense of what the word means, but these definitions conflict. Let's step back a moment: Let's say person A has a widget, which he values at $5. Person has $20, and would like a widget, which he values at $10. In a free market we would expect these people to negotiate and reach an agreement where A swaps the widget with B in exchange for between $5.01 and $9.99 of cash. The aggregate benefit of the transaction is $5 (that is, as a society, we are $5 better off after this transaction is made), and A and B are each somewhere between $0.01 and $4.99 better off. In this simple model, clearly both sides are benefiting, or if you prefer, are being enriched. Question: Is anyone being exploited? Does it depend on the price? Or do we need to know more details about the transaction, and if so, what? I think most people intuitively have one of two reactions: 1) "Unless fraud or force is being used, of course nobody is being exploited. Both sides enter into the transaction with open eyes, and both sides benefit. They can negotiate however they want to divy up the $5 in benefit - but as long as fraud or force aren't used, this can't be exploitation." 2) "Well, we need to know more. If one side has a lot more power than the other, they might drive the price unfairly far to one side or the other. If A is a large factory churning out widgets, a price of $5.10 might be a perfectly reasonable wholesale price; if A is peasant hand-crafting widgets and B is a multi-national widget trader, maybe anything less than $6 may represent the unfair exploitation of A. Conversely, a price of $9.90 might be fine if B is a collector of rare widgets, but even $8 might be exploitive if B is desperately trying to find a widget to repair his generator after an earthquake. We just can't know." I don't think either response is inherently more correct - both definitions are valid. But, obviously, they conflict. :) Also, in my experience people rarely, if ever, will change their initial intuition. Either you think exploitation is only the result of fraud or force (ie, using slave labour to produce widgets), or you think exploitation is involved in any transaction with a price that seems "unfair" (to you, based on fuzzy and usually undefined metrics). As a result, I'm not sure discussions of exploitation really make a lot of sense. Given the same objective and universally agreed facts about, e.g., Foxconn, a certain chunk of the population will say "that's obviously not exploitation" and a certain chunk will say "that's clearly exploitation", despite there being no real disagreement about what's actually taking place on the ground.