11 ms·

Great idea! Do we get to pollute the local ecology and go totally-hands off to let the businesses exploit the workers, too? Maybe a little child labor here and

by unoti 14y ago

Great idea! Do we get to pollute the local ecology and go totally-hands off to let the businesses exploit the workers, too? Maybe a little child labor here and there? I'm envisioning the 21st century version of The Jungle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jungle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jungle. Actually in all seriousness, that could make a seriously cool sci fi/social commentary movie. Read that wikipedia article, and picture it in 2015 right on the Mexican border of the US. I realize that there is great merit in your idea. But at the same time, there are some ugly realities to consider. The good old days of the US was built on the backs of some very ugly, pretty much unrestricted capitalism complete with destroying the environment, exploiting the heck out of workers, child labor, you name it. Your point still has merit, and I'm worried about the future of the West as well.

sespindola 14y ago
Regretably, unless some sort of worldwide ethical commerce treaty is established in the near future, a "foxconnified" workforce will be a basic requirement in order to mass produce anything, anwywhere in the world.
- krasin 14y ago
  I still have a hope for robots. They are behind the sci-fi schedule, but still cheaper&easier to program every year.
  - logicallee 13y ago
    I love the sense of entitlement here. "We should have lifechanging robots by now, but even though they're late I still have hope."
    - GFischer 13y ago
      I didn't see any entitlement in the grandparent post, only an expression of hope :) We ARE seeing lifechanging robots (example: Google self driving cars, there are less visible ones, but even my hospital here in Uruguay has one for surgeries). In my visit to BMW's factories, I was amazed by their robots. They just haven't reached the masses yet, there isn't a Microsoft of robots ("one robot in every house"). Note: Microsoft's original vision "a computer on every desk and in every home, running Microsoft software"
      - deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
- unoti 14y ago
  I have no doubt that this near-slavery condition will always exist, but that doesn't make it right. Confederates before the US Civil War argued in favor of slavery, and some of the arguments weren't far off from that thinking. http://www.ushistory.org/us/27f.asp http://www.ushistory.org/us/27f.asp
  - ms4720 14y ago
    not Confederates it was the Democrats that argued it
    - craigyk 14y ago
      if I remember correctly, the Republicans and Democrats swapped places in every way but name not too long after that.
      - deleted 14y ago
        [deleted]
      - kyllo 14y ago
        Yeah, after the Reconstruction there was a mass defection of Southern Democrats or "Dixiecrats" (aka unabashedly racist politicians, many of whom were Klan members) from the Democratic to the Republican party.
        mnutt 14y ago
        The Southern Democrats moved over to the Republican party long after the Reconstruction, starting in the 1960s.
- eru 13y ago
  Germany does just fine producing stuff.
dpatru 14y ago
Workers get "exploited" when they're poor and have limited options. Government "protections" can only make it worse. For example, many illegal aliens in the US are exploited because they are prohibited by law from getting a job. So they can only get hired by the few employers willing to break the law to hire them. If it were legal for them to work, they would find better jobs. Similarly child labor is only a problem when families are too poor to survive if the children don't work. Minimum wage laws "protect" the least profitable workers from getting legal jobs, forcing them to get illegal jobs or survive on government handouts. To see this, imagine if the minimum wage were set just above your current wage. You would then be out of a job. Environmental destruction happens because government restricts property rights and creates commons which belong to no one. For example, when the river waters belong to no one, people feel free to dump into it. As soon as the waters have an owner, the owner has an incentive to protect them. See http://mises.org/daily/2120 http://mises.org/daily/2120
- pyre 14y ago
  | As soon as the waters have an owner, the owner has | an incentive to protect them What if the owners don't care? What if it's not possible to police it (it's not like a local stream is monetizable in the way that a section of the Mississippi would be). What if major waterways like the Mississippi were owned? What if a section of the Mississippi were owned by some guy that would only allow people/companies through if they were (e.g.) Christians? What happens when I dump toxic waste on my own property but it seeps into ground water that the entire area (or just my neighbors via pumps) uses for water? What happens when it runs off and onto my neighbor's property? What if my neighbor is a farmer and this wrecks his livelihood?
- honestcoyote 14y ago
  I think you're correct. If only corporations owned more of this country, there would be less pollution. After all, industry has always taken great care of their own land. Former industrial sites are often prized by their new owners because the land is usually quite pristine.
- crag 14y ago
  "Environmental destruction happens because government restricts property rights and creates commons which belong to no one. For example, when the river waters belong to no one, people feel free to dump into it. As soon as the waters have an owner, the owner has an incentive to protect them." It's the other way around. When property is owned by all, we take care of it better. Think of parks. There are already companies who own lakes, rivers, areas of land; and pollute the hell out of them. They used these areas as waste dumps. Which, in the end, end up hurting us all. Go to any pork farm in NC and have a look around. You'll see first hand what ownership of lands by "the" company does to the land. Living space: how many landlords you know that actually take care of their properties now - without getting their arm twisted?
LekkoscPiwa 13y ago
No, just stay indebted to China forever. Don't be competitve, God forbid. Just be nice to flowers and stuff. Sorry dude, that's not how the greatness of this nation was build. We got lazy, demanding and needy. All financed by China. Which by now gets us by the balls. They own our debt, mind you.
- guiomie 13y ago
  Personally, I think the USA is on the better side of the equation. Id rather be the one defaulting, then the one not get his money back.
  - cnautofan 13y ago
    So now, you are becoming not only lazy but also shameless, WTF, where's your bottom line?
- namdnay 13y ago
  > the greatness of this nation .. We got lazy, demanding and needy What are you talking about?
  - illuminate 13y ago
    American exceptionalism, which amounts to calling America the best because "we're the best", not because of our product.
- encoderer 13y ago
  Groan. Do you have any notion of how small of percentage of our debt they actually own? We owe most of our debt to ourselves.
  - LekkoscPiwa 13y ago
    You are wrong. No, we don't. This used to be the case in the 1980s. Almost 50% of our debt is owned by foreigners: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_of_the_United_States#Foreign_holdings http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_of_the_United_Sta... That's exactly why the current crisis is so dangerous. Because the FED won't be able to simply raise the interest rates. (that would squeeze the capital from the USA to the foreigners). They keep interest rates as low as they are currently - inflation will hit us sooner or later (already at 10% if you use US Government formula for calculating inflation from the Reagan years). The raise interest rates : well, that's akin to credit card holder raising interest they owe to the bank. Foreigners will earn even more from their debt holdings. So, from the two evils to choose from, the FED will choose to print into oblivion because that will be politically more acceptable than repaying obligations to foreigners. BTW, US Treasuries are currently at their all time (almost 300 years time) high. If that's not a bubble then I don't know what is.

by unoti 14y ago

sespindola 14y ago

Regretably, unless some sort of worldwide ethical commerce treaty is established in the near future, a "foxconnified" workforce will be a basic requirement in order to mass produce anything, anwywhere in the world.

krasin 14y ago
I still have a hope for robots. They are behind the sci-fi schedule, but still cheaper&easier to program every year.
- logicallee 13y ago
  I love the sense of entitlement here. "We should have lifechanging robots by now, but even though they're late I still have hope."
  - GFischer 13y ago
    I didn't see any entitlement in the grandparent post, only an expression of hope :) We ARE seeing lifechanging robots (example: Google self driving cars, there are less visible ones, but even my hospital here in Uruguay has one for surgeries). In my visit to BMW's factories, I was amazed by their robots. They just haven't reached the masses yet, there isn't a Microsoft of robots ("one robot in every house"). Note: Microsoft's original vision "a computer on every desk and in every home, running Microsoft software"
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
unoti 14y ago
I have no doubt that this near-slavery condition will always exist, but that doesn't make it right. Confederates before the US Civil War argued in favor of slavery, and some of the arguments weren't far off from that thinking. http://www.ushistory.org/us/27f.asp http://www.ushistory.org/us/27f.asp
- ms4720 14y ago
  not Confederates it was the Democrats that argued it
  - craigyk 14y ago
    if I remember correctly, the Republicans and Democrats swapped places in every way but name not too long after that.
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
    - kyllo 14y ago
      Yeah, after the Reconstruction there was a mass defection of Southern Democrats or "Dixiecrats" (aka unabashedly racist politicians, many of whom were Klan members) from the Democratic to the Republican party.
      - mnutt 14y ago
        The Southern Democrats moved over to the Republican party long after the Reconstruction, starting in the 1960s.
eru 13y ago
Germany does just fine producing stuff.

dpatru 14y ago

Workers get "exploited" when they're poor and have limited options. Government "protections" can only make it worse. For example, many illegal aliens in the US are exploited because they are prohibited by law from getting a job. So they can only get hired by the few employers willing to break the law to hire them. If it were legal for them to work, they would find better jobs. Similarly child labor is only a problem when families are too poor to survive if the children don't work. Minimum wage laws "protect" the least profitable workers from getting legal jobs, forcing them to get illegal jobs or survive on government handouts. To see this, imagine if the minimum wage were set just above your current wage. You would then be out of a job. Environmental destruction happens because government restricts property rights and creates commons which belong to no one. For example, when the river waters belong to no one, people feel free to dump into it. As soon as the waters have an owner, the owner has an incentive to protect them. See http://mises.org/daily/2120 http://mises.org/daily/2120

pyre 14y ago
| As soon as the waters have an owner, the owner has | an incentive to protect them What if the owners don't care? What if it's not possible to police it (it's not like a local stream is monetizable in the way that a section of the Mississippi would be). What if major waterways like the Mississippi were owned? What if a section of the Mississippi were owned by some guy that would only allow people/companies through if they were (e.g.) Christians? What happens when I dump toxic waste on my own property but it seeps into ground water that the entire area (or just my neighbors via pumps) uses for water? What happens when it runs off and onto my neighbor's property? What if my neighbor is a farmer and this wrecks his livelihood?
honestcoyote 14y ago
I think you're correct. If only corporations owned more of this country, there would be less pollution. After all, industry has always taken great care of their own land. Former industrial sites are often prized by their new owners because the land is usually quite pristine.
crag 14y ago
"Environmental destruction happens because government restricts property rights and creates commons which belong to no one. For example, when the river waters belong to no one, people feel free to dump into it. As soon as the waters have an owner, the owner has an incentive to protect them." It's the other way around. When property is owned by all, we take care of it better. Think of parks. There are already companies who own lakes, rivers, areas of land; and pollute the hell out of them. They used these areas as waste dumps. Which, in the end, end up hurting us all. Go to any pork farm in NC and have a look around. You'll see first hand what ownership of lands by "the" company does to the land. Living space: how many landlords you know that actually take care of their properties now - without getting their arm twisted?

LekkoscPiwa 13y ago

No, just stay indebted to China forever. Don't be competitve, God forbid. Just be nice to flowers and stuff. Sorry dude, that's not how the greatness of this nation was build. We got lazy, demanding and needy. All financed by China. Which by now gets us by the balls. They own our debt, mind you.

guiomie 13y ago
Personally, I think the USA is on the better side of the equation. Id rather be the one defaulting, then the one not get his money back.
- cnautofan 13y ago
  So now, you are becoming not only lazy but also shameless, WTF, where's your bottom line?
namdnay 13y ago
> the greatness of this nation .. We got lazy, demanding and needy What are you talking about?
- illuminate 13y ago
  American exceptionalism, which amounts to calling America the best because "we're the best", not because of our product.
encoderer 13y ago
Groan. Do you have any notion of how small of percentage of our debt they actually own? We owe most of our debt to ourselves.
- LekkoscPiwa 13y ago
  You are wrong. No, we don't. This used to be the case in the 1980s. Almost 50% of our debt is owned by foreigners: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_of_the_United_States#Foreign_holdings http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_of_the_United_Sta... That's exactly why the current crisis is so dangerous. Because the FED won't be able to simply raise the interest rates. (that would squeeze the capital from the USA to the foreigners). They keep interest rates as low as they are currently - inflation will hit us sooner or later (already at 10% if you use US Government formula for calculating inflation from the Reagan years). The raise interest rates : well, that's akin to credit card holder raising interest they owe to the bank. Foreigners will earn even more from their debt holdings. So, from the two evils to choose from, the FED will choose to print into oblivion because that will be politically more acceptable than repaying obligations to foreigners. BTW, US Treasuries are currently at their all time (almost 300 years time) high. If that's not a bubble then I don't know what is.