3 ms·

Your argument is fundamentally mercantilist; 'dumping', which is what you are describing, is only harmful to businesses in the industry being undercut, but it h

by nickff 12y ago

Your argument is fundamentally mercantilist; 'dumping', which is what you are describing, is only harmful to businesses in the industry being undercut, but it helps everyone in the country, and to a much greater extent than any harm which may inhere.[1][2] Please consider whether we should allow energy and lighting services to simply be given to the people of these countries for free all day, thus undercutting the utilities, lighting fixture manufacturers, light-bulb makers, utilities, and all the related industries; if you agree that this 'dumping' is bad, we should blot out the sun.[3] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercantilism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercantilism [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumping_(pricing_policy) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumping_(pricing_policy) [3] http://bastiat.org/en/petition.html http://bastiat.org/en/petition.html

krisdol 12y ago
If energy is being provided for free to these countries, then income is immediately opened up as the new power utility (which of course should be owned by the public or its workers) in the form of jobs needed to keep the plant running. It opens up opportunities for all manner of products, jobs, and factories that were previously not possible before -- I mean, light bulb makers are about as useful in a country without electricity as shoe stores are in a country with free shoes. Furthermore, if a country has little-to-no access to electricity, providing it is unlikely to impact anyone negatively. And besides, workers/citizens/the state ought own the utilities; this is the case in most of the world and I've had nothing but crap experiences with the privately owned kind. Are you going to dump seeds and irrigation systems into the same bucket as free shoes too? Sure, choosing what to charitably give without causing more harm than good must be done carefully, I'll give you that, but I'm not following the all-or-nothing extension of that argument.

by nickff 12y ago

krisdol 12y ago

If energy is being provided for free to these countries, then income is immediately opened up as the new power utility (which of course should be owned by the public or its workers) in the form of jobs needed to keep the plant running. It opens up opportunities for all manner of products, jobs, and factories that were previously not possible before -- I mean, light bulb makers are about as useful in a country without electricity as shoe stores are in a country with free shoes. Furthermore, if a country has little-to-no access to electricity, providing it is unlikely to impact anyone negatively. And besides, workers/citizens/the state ought own the utilities; this is the case in most of the world and I've had nothing but crap experiences with the privately owned kind. Are you going to dump seeds and irrigation systems into the same bucket as free shoes too? Sure, choosing what to charitably give without causing more harm than good must be done carefully, I'll give you that, but I'm not following the all-or-nothing extension of that argument.