4 ms·

And this is typically the end game for capitalism and globalisation. Can't see it changing without everyone working together and by nature that isn't going to h

by csmuk 13y ago

And this is typically the end game for capitalism and globalisation. Can't see it changing without everyone working together and by nature that isn't going to happen if capitalism is in place.

LeeHunter 13y ago
To misquote Churchill "Capitalism is the worst possible system, except for all the rest". The problem here is more a lack of strong mechanisms to set and enforce standards along with a host of deeply rooted cultural norms (especially the dowry system) that are easily exploited.
- moo 13y ago
  Because the fat imperialist says capitalism is the best we have to keep it for all time until our star goes supernova? Our rooted first world lifestyle is the strong mechanism enabling these sweat shops.
  - csmuk 13y ago
    Spot on. Churchill was distinctly batshit as well so you can't really actually cite him as a single reliable source.
    - neuralk 13y ago
      >Churchill was distinctly batshit That's simply balderdash. Churchill was not only a brilliant politician, but an extremely witty and accomplished writer, thinker, and artist. He even received the Nobel prize ... for literature[1]. If you'd like to explain why you think he is "batshit" I'd love to hear it. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill
  - VMG 13y ago
    I agree. A better argument is that free trade based on voluntary transactions is the only just and moral system of allocating resources, in theory and in practice.
    - nzp 13y ago
      Without further qualifications, I too agree completely. However, to me it's both sad and funny how twisted the meaning of "free" and "voluntary" become when used to defend (liberal) capitalism. This is a general remark, it's not meant as an attack of how you use these words (I wouldn't really know).
- csmuk 13y ago
  Yes because more laws and control really help...
  - praxeologist 13y ago
    The ability to actually enforce laws and protect girls against fraud (and rape or whatever else) is what I see as the main problem here.
    - csmuk 13y ago
      I'd say a better solution is to encourage people not to be 100% self- interested (sorry I'm a rampant Marxist). They have laws but corruption is rife.
      - praxeologist 13y ago
        What would it even mean to not be 100% self interested? Are people in India never charitable or selfless? No, of course that is not true. When someone acts charitably it is still self interested insofar as the charitable act is taken up in order to meet the end sought after. What you said sounds nice, but I don't see how you really do it. Yes, it is true that India has a culture of corruption and bribery. I wonder if part of these girls' wages are taken for the housing or "company store" type things. There were some stories recently about workers in Dubai who are just lied to about the level of pay and then held hostage with visa or passport paperwork. If it is that type of case here, then it is fraud and the exploitation is due to the faulty legal system, lack of enforcement, culture of misogyny, etc. I don't agree at all with the idea that wage labor by itself is exploitative. Basically the error with Marxist exploitation theory is that it ignores the concept of time preference. Wage laborers with a higher time preference prefer present goods in the form of wages to the process of saving and deferring some of the present enjoyment and then taking up their own entrepreneurial venture. Of course, the state by erecting barriers to entry and other distortions exacerbate the problem.
- nzp 13y ago
  That (mis)quote of Churchill doesn't really mean anything, it's a shallow apology of capitalism, just a catchy formula that superficially seems to make sense if you don't care to think about the possibilities. If you suspend thinking it works on an emotional level because it suggests that yes, the people in power are aware of capitalism's shortcomings, they feel the pain but, alas, there's nothing they could do, so stop complaining you ungrateful somebody... Churchill and the likes are not exactly neutral observers with no interest in preserving the status quo by any means possible, starting with intellectual dishonesty.
- gordaco 13y ago
  That misquote reminds me so much of Stroustrup's C++ (mis?)quote, and the cynical man inside me tells me that it's just that everything getting widespread use shows its dark side. Sometimes that dark side is more conspicuous and/or shows eariler, and sometimes it has more serious consequences, though. Btw, I am much more fond of C++ than capitalism, which, I guess, puts me inside a tiny minority here on HN :). About your second line, I think that the biggest problem about capitalism and developing/underdeveloped countries is that capitalism doesn't break the existing power structures, and, worse, it may reinforce them. There, capitalism is (even) less of a sea of oportunities and more of a new source of oppression mechanisms. The vicious circle associated with poverty isn't any good for people from the lower strata.
- walshemj 13y ago
  And an acceptance of petty corruption and violence a coworker who's of Indian descent commented that his family had had had "several" properties expropriated by "gangsters"
swombat 13y ago
The fairly standard solution that the West developed to these specific problems of capitalism is unions. Based on this article, what seems to be needed is unionisation. Of course, history shows that this is not an easy path. But history also shows that this path works, eventually.
- realo 13y ago
  The problem in India does not have its root cause in Capitalism. It seems to me that what is required here is a deep change of Indian society. Women seem to compete for men with money, which is absurd. Moreover, there is this "caste" thing which, frankly, sounds like feudalism from 1000 years ago. In most of the western world, adolescent males compete for women with their charm, looks, etc... and also the other way around. Flirting is cool. No caste system. How do you change an ancient country's attitude towards women? I don't think you can. Traditions can be much more powerful than laws. Capitalism, in India, is simply one more tool used by the higher castes in order to give strength to some deeply rooted traditions which are totally disconnected from the 21st century Planet Earth.
  - marvin 13y ago
    Just thought I would point out that gender-related socioeconomic phenomena usually have a more complex explanation than "it's absurd". This is also true in the West, with all of our weird dating customs. But it's harder to see the absurdities you are taught from birth. For example, why is it traditionally (and most commonly even today) the guy's responsibility to take the initiative in the courtship process? This article provides a stark alternative which is a very efficient counter-example to the evo-psych explanations a lot of people come up with. I'm not advocating cultural relativism; the reality described in this article sounds really shitty, but it is usually instructive to go deeper and ask why things are this way among poor people in India. With sexual attraction being one of the most powerful drives and varying socioeconomic conditions in the world, it stands to reason that different places will have wildly differing customs. These change over generations, as the conditions that formed them change. For instance, an undersupply of men in the wake of a deadly war could be one force which vastly increases the sexual market value of men, and causes customs like the ones described in this article. Look at China if you want to see a third way this can play out, where the roles are reversed.
Theriac25 13y ago
> this is typically the end game for capitalism and globalisation Say what?

by csmuk 13y ago

And this is typically the end game for capitalism and globalisation. Can't see it changing without everyone working together and by nature that isn't going to happen if capitalism is in place.

LeeHunter 13y ago

To misquote Churchill "Capitalism is the worst possible system, except for all the rest". The problem here is more a lack of strong mechanisms to set and enforce standards along with a host of deeply rooted cultural norms (especially the dowry system) that are easily exploited.

moo 13y ago
Because the fat imperialist says capitalism is the best we have to keep it for all time until our star goes supernova? Our rooted first world lifestyle is the strong mechanism enabling these sweat shops.
- csmuk 13y ago
  Spot on. Churchill was distinctly batshit as well so you can't really actually cite him as a single reliable source.
  - neuralk 13y ago
    >Churchill was distinctly batshit That's simply balderdash. Churchill was not only a brilliant politician, but an extremely witty and accomplished writer, thinker, and artist. He even received the Nobel prize ... for literature[1]. If you'd like to explain why you think he is "batshit" I'd love to hear it. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill
- VMG 13y ago
  I agree. A better argument is that free trade based on voluntary transactions is the only just and moral system of allocating resources, in theory and in practice.
  - nzp 13y ago
    Without further qualifications, I too agree completely. However, to me it's both sad and funny how twisted the meaning of "free" and "voluntary" become when used to defend (liberal) capitalism. This is a general remark, it's not meant as an attack of how you use these words (I wouldn't really know).
csmuk 13y ago
Yes because more laws and control really help...
- praxeologist 13y ago
  The ability to actually enforce laws and protect girls against fraud (and rape or whatever else) is what I see as the main problem here.
  - csmuk 13y ago
    I'd say a better solution is to encourage people not to be 100% self- interested (sorry I'm a rampant Marxist). They have laws but corruption is rife.
    - praxeologist 13y ago
      What would it even mean to not be 100% self interested? Are people in India never charitable or selfless? No, of course that is not true. When someone acts charitably it is still self interested insofar as the charitable act is taken up in order to meet the end sought after. What you said sounds nice, but I don't see how you really do it. Yes, it is true that India has a culture of corruption and bribery. I wonder if part of these girls' wages are taken for the housing or "company store" type things. There were some stories recently about workers in Dubai who are just lied to about the level of pay and then held hostage with visa or passport paperwork. If it is that type of case here, then it is fraud and the exploitation is due to the faulty legal system, lack of enforcement, culture of misogyny, etc. I don't agree at all with the idea that wage labor by itself is exploitative. Basically the error with Marxist exploitation theory is that it ignores the concept of time preference. Wage laborers with a higher time preference prefer present goods in the form of wages to the process of saving and deferring some of the present enjoyment and then taking up their own entrepreneurial venture. Of course, the state by erecting barriers to entry and other distortions exacerbate the problem.
nzp 13y ago
That (mis)quote of Churchill doesn't really mean anything, it's a shallow apology of capitalism, just a catchy formula that superficially seems to make sense if you don't care to think about the possibilities. If you suspend thinking it works on an emotional level because it suggests that yes, the people in power are aware of capitalism's shortcomings, they feel the pain but, alas, there's nothing they could do, so stop complaining you ungrateful somebody... Churchill and the likes are not exactly neutral observers with no interest in preserving the status quo by any means possible, starting with intellectual dishonesty.
gordaco 13y ago
That misquote reminds me so much of Stroustrup's C++ (mis?)quote, and the cynical man inside me tells me that it's just that everything getting widespread use shows its dark side. Sometimes that dark side is more conspicuous and/or shows eariler, and sometimes it has more serious consequences, though. Btw, I am much more fond of C++ than capitalism, which, I guess, puts me inside a tiny minority here on HN :). About your second line, I think that the biggest problem about capitalism and developing/underdeveloped countries is that capitalism doesn't break the existing power structures, and, worse, it may reinforce them. There, capitalism is (even) less of a sea of oportunities and more of a new source of oppression mechanisms. The vicious circle associated with poverty isn't any good for people from the lower strata.
walshemj 13y ago
And an acceptance of petty corruption and violence a coworker who's of Indian descent commented that his family had had had "several" properties expropriated by "gangsters"

swombat 13y ago

The fairly standard solution that the West developed to these specific problems of capitalism is unions. Based on this article, what seems to be needed is unionisation. Of course, history shows that this is not an easy path. But history also shows that this path works, eventually.

realo 13y ago
The problem in India does not have its root cause in Capitalism. It seems to me that what is required here is a deep change of Indian society. Women seem to compete for men with money, which is absurd. Moreover, there is this "caste" thing which, frankly, sounds like feudalism from 1000 years ago. In most of the western world, adolescent males compete for women with their charm, looks, etc... and also the other way around. Flirting is cool. No caste system. How do you change an ancient country's attitude towards women? I don't think you can. Traditions can be much more powerful than laws. Capitalism, in India, is simply one more tool used by the higher castes in order to give strength to some deeply rooted traditions which are totally disconnected from the 21st century Planet Earth.
- marvin 13y ago
  Just thought I would point out that gender-related socioeconomic phenomena usually have a more complex explanation than "it's absurd". This is also true in the West, with all of our weird dating customs. But it's harder to see the absurdities you are taught from birth. For example, why is it traditionally (and most commonly even today) the guy's responsibility to take the initiative in the courtship process? This article provides a stark alternative which is a very efficient counter-example to the evo-psych explanations a lot of people come up with. I'm not advocating cultural relativism; the reality described in this article sounds really shitty, but it is usually instructive to go deeper and ask why things are this way among poor people in India. With sexual attraction being one of the most powerful drives and varying socioeconomic conditions in the world, it stands to reason that different places will have wildly differing customs. These change over generations, as the conditions that formed them change. For instance, an undersupply of men in the wake of a deadly war could be one force which vastly increases the sexual market value of men, and causes customs like the ones described in this article. Look at China if you want to see a third way this can play out, where the roles are reversed.

Theriac25 13y ago

> this is typically the end game for capitalism and globalisation Say what?