4 ms·

> I merely said, in a lot more words, that competitiveness should not be the BE ALL END ALL factor in considering regulation. Who was making that point? > Mor

by smokeyj 13y ago

> I merely said, in a lot more words, that competitiveness should not be the BE ALL END ALL factor in considering regulation. Who was making that point? > Moreover, I said that this kind of "competitiveness" while great for the company that benefits from it, it's not that great for the country that hosts the company and its general population, and it can be a race to the bottom. How do you know? Would countries that employ child labor be slingshotted into the first-world because they adopted effective regulations? I speculate they'd be unemployed and go hungry. > It means that the "benefits of a globalised economy" are mainly for company owners, moguls, managers, golden boys and the like, and more often praised than seen in reality. Again, how do you know? Did Michael Moore tell you? > Samsung (or Apple) can make billions in the US market, but that doesn't mean you get to add those to the GDP and be happy about it. What? How does Apple not affect the GDP? What aren't you happy about?

coldtea 13y ago
>Who was making that point? Lots of people. Including the EasyDNS post, implicitly. >How do you know? Would countries that employ child labor be slingshotted into the first-world because they adopted effective regulations? I speculate they'd be unemployed and go hungry. Only I made the reverse argument: that countries without child labour should not introduce it to compete with those countries. And in general, that countries with higher working standards should not lower them to compete with third world countries, dictatorships etc, in a race to the bottom. But, to also answer your question, I'd rather they go hungry than they use child labor, if that were the two options. Would you be OK with forced labor, ie slavery, if that was their only way to be competitive and not "go hungry"? All this is a false dichotomy you set up anyway. It's not "child labor" vs "hungry". Child labor is not employed because it's their only hope to compete, it's merely employed because they lack the regulations to enforce otherwise. If the employers in that country (and the huge multinationals that contract them) could not take advantage of 12 year old children in sweatshops, they'd pay a little more and employ their parents. It's not a case of "we can compete any other way". It's a case, "Hey, the laws here allow me to fuck over these people for an increased profit, so why not do it?". >Again, how do you know? Did Michael Moore tell you? Well, for one I'm not an American, and I have far wider horizons than Michael Moore. Should I also assume a caricature of you as some Fox News watching foaming at the mouth republican? It would be of similar quality and subtlety to your Michael Moore thing. Quite provincial, are we? Anyway, no Michael didn't tell me. Not being provincial, following world economy news, a quite extensive reading on the matter, and travelling (but not as some naive first world tourist), "told me". > It means that the "benefits of a globalised economy" are mainly for company owners, moguls, managers, golden boys and the like, and more often praised than seen in reality. Again, how do you know? Did Michael Moore tell you? > Samsung (or Apple) can make billions in the US market, but that doesn't mean you get to add those to the GDP and be happy about it. What? How does Apple not affect the GDP? What aren't you happy about?
- smokeyj 13y ago
  > Would you be OK with forced labor, ie slavery, if that was their only way to be competitive and not "go hungry"? You're equating forced labor to slavery. I agree! I also agree taxation is a way of extracting labor via the use of force. So the question is, why do you support slavery so much? Ideologically speaking, I prefer to argue out of principle -- a main one being non-agression. So no, I don't support forced labor in any shape or form. Furthermor, I don't support any relationship that comes from force or the threat of violence. > Should I also assume a caricature of you as some Fox News watching foaming at the mouth republican? Haha, I'd be pretty used to it. The ironic part is republicans think I'm liberal..
  - coldtea 13y ago
    >You're equating forced labor to slavery. I agree! You don't have to agree. That's the definition of slavery. >I also agree taxation is a way of extracting labor via the use of force. So the question is, why do you support slavery so much? Well, I never agreed that "taxation is a way of extracting labor via the use of force", so I don't know who you "also agree with" there. Taxation, in my books, is the voluntary (as decided via the democratic process), transfer of private wealth to the government for use in public works, maintenance of the military defence and such. >So no, I don't support forced labor in any shape or form. Furthermore, I don't support any relationship that comes from force or the threat of violence. Agreed. But isn't the dire need to eat and put a roof above you a kind of violence too? For people threatened with that violence (which can be even more dire and hard than a few slaps or kicks), it's common to be forced to accept unfavourable and backwards working conditions, just because their job is a "buyer's market". Child labor is a blatant case of this, but most sweatshop jobs in the third world also are. As western countries we have set up our standards higher (than, say, Dicken's London, or J.D Rockfeller's miners, paid in company scrip) , we should demand that they are held higher in the third world too, instead of lowering ours to compete with them.
    - smokeyj 13y ago
      > Well, I never agreed that "taxation is a way of extracting labor via the use of force" You don't have to agree, it's empirically evident. Try not paying your taxes and guys with guns will come get it. Now, maybe these guys with guns are justified -- but that's strictly your opinion. > Taxation, in my books, is the voluntary (as decided via the democratic process) By definition, your definition is wrong. Non-democratic governments impose taxes as well. Why do you define "voluntary" relative to the political landscape? You're telling me slavery never really happened in the US, because it was voluntary labor -- as decided by the "democratic process"? Why do you defend slavery with such fervor?

by smokeyj 13y ago

coldtea 13y ago

>Who was making that point? Lots of people. Including the EasyDNS post, implicitly. >How do you know? Would countries that employ child labor be slingshotted into the first-world because they adopted effective regulations? I speculate they'd be unemployed and go hungry. Only I made the reverse argument: that countries without child labour should not introduce it to compete with those countries. And in general, that countries with higher working standards should not lower them to compete with third world countries, dictatorships etc, in a race to the bottom. But, to also answer your question, I'd rather they go hungry than they use child labor, if that were the two options. Would you be OK with forced labor, ie slavery, if that was their only way to be competitive and not "go hungry"? All this is a false dichotomy you set up anyway. It's not "child labor" vs "hungry". Child labor is not employed because it's their only hope to compete, it's merely employed because they lack the regulations to enforce otherwise. If the employers in that country (and the huge multinationals that contract them) could not take advantage of 12 year old children in sweatshops, they'd pay a little more and employ their parents. It's not a case of "we can compete any other way". It's a case, "Hey, the laws here allow me to fuck over these people for an increased profit, so why not do it?". >Again, how do you know? Did Michael Moore tell you? Well, for one I'm not an American, and I have far wider horizons than Michael Moore. Should I also assume a caricature of you as some Fox News watching foaming at the mouth republican? It would be of similar quality and subtlety to your Michael Moore thing. Quite provincial, are we? Anyway, no Michael didn't tell me. Not being provincial, following world economy news, a quite extensive reading on the matter, and travelling (but not as some naive first world tourist), "told me". > It means that the "benefits of a globalised economy" are mainly for company owners, moguls, managers, golden boys and the like, and more often praised than seen in reality. Again, how do you know? Did Michael Moore tell you? > Samsung (or Apple) can make billions in the US market, but that doesn't mean you get to add those to the GDP and be happy about it. What? How does Apple not affect the GDP? What aren't you happy about?

smokeyj 13y ago
> Would you be OK with forced labor, ie slavery, if that was their only way to be competitive and not "go hungry"? You're equating forced labor to slavery. I agree! I also agree taxation is a way of extracting labor via the use of force. So the question is, why do you support slavery so much? Ideologically speaking, I prefer to argue out of principle -- a main one being non-agression. So no, I don't support forced labor in any shape or form. Furthermor, I don't support any relationship that comes from force or the threat of violence. > Should I also assume a caricature of you as some Fox News watching foaming at the mouth republican? Haha, I'd be pretty used to it. The ironic part is republicans think I'm liberal..
- coldtea 13y ago
  >You're equating forced labor to slavery. I agree! You don't have to agree. That's the definition of slavery. >I also agree taxation is a way of extracting labor via the use of force. So the question is, why do you support slavery so much? Well, I never agreed that "taxation is a way of extracting labor via the use of force", so I don't know who you "also agree with" there. Taxation, in my books, is the voluntary (as decided via the democratic process), transfer of private wealth to the government for use in public works, maintenance of the military defence and such. >So no, I don't support forced labor in any shape or form. Furthermore, I don't support any relationship that comes from force or the threat of violence. Agreed. But isn't the dire need to eat and put a roof above you a kind of violence too? For people threatened with that violence (which can be even more dire and hard than a few slaps or kicks), it's common to be forced to accept unfavourable and backwards working conditions, just because their job is a "buyer's market". Child labor is a blatant case of this, but most sweatshop jobs in the third world also are. As western countries we have set up our standards higher (than, say, Dicken's London, or J.D Rockfeller's miners, paid in company scrip) , we should demand that they are held higher in the third world too, instead of lowering ours to compete with them.
  - smokeyj 13y ago
    > Well, I never agreed that "taxation is a way of extracting labor via the use of force" You don't have to agree, it's empirically evident. Try not paying your taxes and guys with guns will come get it. Now, maybe these guys with guns are justified -- but that's strictly your opinion. > Taxation, in my books, is the voluntary (as decided via the democratic process) By definition, your definition is wrong. Non-democratic governments impose taxes as well. Why do you define "voluntary" relative to the political landscape? You're telling me slavery never really happened in the US, because it was voluntary labor -- as decided by the "democratic process"? Why do you defend slavery with such fervor?