Home | Community | Message Board


Reliable Spores
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: PhytoExtractum Kratom Powder for Sale   Left Coast Kratom Premium Bali Kratom Powder   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Bridgetown Botanicals CBD Edibles

Jump to first unread post. Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | Next >  [ show all ]
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 6 years, 3 months
Re: When You Say You Hate Corporate America... [Re: sir tripsalot]
    #1135016 - 12/12/02 11:19 AM (18 years, 4 months ago)

sir tripsalot writes:

You're a cold SOB.

Why do you say that? I personally think it is a shame that the best life people in these countries can find for themselves is to work under those conditions. I wish it were otherwise.

But the fact of the matter is that for those 200 million migrant workers in China as mentioned in the article Echovortex provided, such a life, difficult as it is, is better than anything else available. Without those factory owners (regardless of what you or I or anyone else may think of their practices) many of those people would die of starvation. Literally.

The 800 pound gorilla sitting in the corner that all the Statists in this thread are deliberately ignoring is that the poverty in these countries is a direct result of the government policies of those countries. Nike and Hasbro Toys didn't create the conditions in the villages in China, but they do offer a way to ameliorate that poverty; something the Chinese government is apparently incapable of doing.

Your compassion for these people is warranted, but your anger is misdirected. Don't blame foreign corporations, blame the government.

There government ignoring the law probably has a lot to do with money going in their pocket fromm the corporation.

Gee, ya really think so? Why make a law if it is to be ignored by those responsible for enforcing it? If the laws are merely for show, why have laws at all? For that matter, why have government at all?

Hence my declaration that I would rather have more corporation, less government.

pinky


--------------------


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 6 years, 3 months
Re: When You Say You Hate Corporate America... [Re: hongomon]
    #1135141 - 12/12/02 11:57 AM (18 years, 4 months ago)

hongomon writes:

Let me guess, you're opposed to any "union" activity among nations.

I am unclear as to precisely what you mean by union activity "among nations". I am certainly not opposed to workers organizing and joining unions. When I was young I was once a shop steward in the Canadian Union of Postal Workers. My only excuse for this lapse in judgement is youthful ignorance.

Face it, there are some very poor nations in the world which provide labor and resources to the U.S. and other developed nations.

Correct. Why are they poor?

I'm all for international pressure against corporations who exploit.

Governmental pressure? Or boycotts by consumers? For what it's worth, I have never knowingly bought a product manufactured in the People's Republic of China. This is VERY hard to do living in the Dominican Republic, because the hardware stores are FULL of Chinese goods, and nothing BUT Chinese goods. Whenever I return from a vacation in Canada I have kilos and kilos of padlocks, tools, kerosene lanterns etc. for which I cheerfully pay overweight charges. I willingly pay higher prices for the goods, PLUS Canadian sales taxes, PLUS $5.00 per kilo overwight charges, in order not to contribute to a communist regime.

I know you think that when a destitute individual accepts employment to stave off death the negotiations are automatically fair and square...

An employer needs employees. He makes job offers. The terms and conditions of the offer comply with the laws in place at the time. Potential employees decide whether or not the offer is acceptable to them. A contract is (or isn't) signed. At some point, some of the employees may regret their decision and quit. The employer then makes new job offers to other potential employees, perhaps (or perhaps not) more attractive offers. The cycle continues.

Please explain to us at which point during this continuing cycle the employer is violating anyone's rights?

What a shame you feel so protective of your ideology that you must defend exploitation of children as "a cultural thing".

Whoa! Who said anything about exploitation? I merely pointed out (accurately) that the age at which an individual begins his working life differs from culture to culture.

If you weren't using the culture issue in such an absurd way, it would be worth discussing. I agree that cultural and social factors need to be considered in the matter of child labor. But it ain't the trump card you seem to want to think.

Who said anything about a trump card? I asked you if it was the poor working conditions that upset you or the fact that individuals whom Westerners consider to be children were working. I then pointed out (correctly) that the age at which an individual begins his working life differs from culture to culture.

Now, here I'm confused: As a laissez-faire capitalist, what exactly is your take on the U.S. government's foreign policy?

It is incompatible with Laissez-faire Capitalism.

There are no ten-year-old goldmine workers carrying 30 kg bags of rock and mud.
I want to know how you're so sure.

Until I see a report from a reputable source, I will stand by my assertion.

I went to Ouro Preto, and I went to a mine. Maybe I'm lying through my teeth, or maybe I dreamed it all, but I'll be damned if those bags didn't weigh 30 kg.

I have no doubt there were bags in that mine that weighed that much. The question is did you see anyone who appeared to be ten years old carrying those bags?

If you choose not to believe me, fine--there are plenty of documented cases of similar problems elsewhere.

Then it should be a fairly simple matter to:

1) point me to a site supporting your contention that ten year old kids in Brazil lug around 30 kilogram bags of rock in mines that are owned by non-Brazilian corporations.

2) point me to a site which explains (preferrably in English, my Portuguese is non-existent) at which age a Brazilian is legally allowed to work in a mine.

That is a much more reasonable application of cultural sensitivity to the issue. Tell me, though, about Brazillian culture. At what age do they expect their youth to begin? What types of employment are acceptable? What age/types are considered exploitative?

I have no idea. I presume you asked those questions of the Brazilians you met while you were there. What did they tell you?

Sorry for enticing you to take that comment out of context. The bottom line, I should have stated, is that poverty, not culture , is why children work.

Gee, ya think? All that I am saying is that, poverty or no poverty, some cultures believe a human should start his working career at an earlier age than others. I have no doubt that these cultural beliefs get bent or even discarded in areas where extreme poverty trumps traditional customs. But, as I have made abundantly clear in numerous posts in this thread, the Western factory owners did not create that poverty.

I'm sure you'll see a starting-age difference between economic classes within just about any culture. In fact, can you find one where this isn't so?

I probably can't. How does that make unilateral government coercion preferrable to mutually-agreed upon contracts of employment?

pinky


--------------------


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: When You Say You Hate Corporate America... [Re: Phred]
    #1135145 - 12/12/02 11:58 AM (18 years, 4 months ago)

Don't blame foreign corporations, blame the government.

Don't blame the americans for installing and propping Suharto for 25 years? Are you insane?


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 6 years, 3 months
Re: When You Say You Hate Corporate America... [Re: Xlea321]
    #1135158 - 12/12/02 12:01 PM (18 years, 4 months ago)

Don't blame the americans for installing and propping Suharto for 25 years? Are you insane?

Who "installed" and "propped up" Suharto for 25 years? Are you claiming it was American corporations or the American government?

pinky


--------------------


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineRonoS
DSYSB since '01
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/26/01
Posts: 16,259
Loc: Calgary, Alberta
Last seen: 3 months, 1 hour
Re: When You Say You Hate Corporate America... [Re: Phred]
    #1135170 - 12/12/02 12:04 PM (18 years, 4 months ago)

They are one and the same...


--------------------
"Life has never been weird enough for my liking"


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: When You Say You Hate Corporate America... [Re: Phred]
    #1135242 - 12/12/02 12:19 PM (18 years, 4 months ago)

Who "installed" and "propped up" Suharto for 25 years?

American government at the behest of the corporations. Here's a little background:

http://www.motherjones.com/east_timor/comment/chomsky.html

There are three good reasons why Americans should care about East Timor. First, since the Indonesian invasion of December 1975, East Timor has been the site of some of the worst atrocities of the modern era -- atrocities which are mounting again right now. Second, the US government has played a decisive role in escalating these atrocities and can easily act to mitigate or terminate them. It is not necessary to bomb Jakarta or impose economic sanctions. Throughout, it would have sufficed for Washington to withdraw support and to inform its Indonesian client that the game was over. That remains true as the situation reaches a crucial turning point -- the third reason.

President Clinton needs no instructions on how to proceed. In May 1998, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright called upon Indonesian President Suharto to resign and provide for "a democratic transition." A few hours later, Suharto transferred authority to his handpicked vice president. Though not simple cause and effect, the events illustrate the relations that prevail. Ending the torture in East Timor would have been no more difficult than dismissing Indonesia's dictator in May 1998.

Not long before, the Clinton administration welcomed Suharto as "our kind of guy," following the precedent established in 1965 when the general took power, presiding over army-led massacres that wiped out the country's only mass-based political party (the PKI, a popularly supported communist party) and devastated its popular base in "one of the worst mass murders of the 20th century." According to a CIA report, these massacres were comparable to those of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao; hundreds of thousands were killed, most of them landless peasants. The achievement was greeted with unrestrained euphoria in the West. The "staggering mass slaughter" was "a gleam of light in Asia," according to two commentaries in The New York Times, both typical of the general western media reaction. Corporations flocked to what many called Suharto's "paradise for investors," impeded only by the rapacity of the ruling family. For more than 20 years, Suharto was hailed in the media as a "moderate" who is "at heart benign," even as he compiled a record of murder, terror, and corruption that has few counterparts in postwar history.

Suharto remained a darling of the West until he committed his first errors: losing control and hesitating to implement harsh International Monetary Fund (IMF) prescriptions. Then came the call from Washington for "a democratic transition" -- but not for allowing the people of East Timor to enjoy the right of self-determination that has been validated by the UN Security Council and the World Court.

The UN Security Council ordered Indonesia to withdraw, but to no avail. Its failure was explained by then-UN Ambassador Daniel Patrick Moynihan. In his memoirs, he took pride in having rendered the UN "utterly ineffective in whatever measures it undertook" because "[t]he United States wished things to turn out as they did" and "worked to bring this about." As for how "things turned out," Moynihan comments that, within a few months, 60,000 Timorese had been killed, "almost the proportion of casualties experienced by the Soviet Union during the Second World War."

The massacre continued, peaking in 1978 with the help of new arms provided by the Carter administration. The toll to date is estimated at about 200,000, the worst slaughter relative to population since the Holocaust. By 1978, the United States was joined by Britain, France, and others eager to gain what they could from the slaughter. Protest in the West was minuscule. Little was even reported. US press coverage, which had been high in the context of concerns over the fall of the Portuguese empire, declined to practically nothing in 1978.



--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblesir tripsalot
Administrator

Registered: 07/10/99
Posts: 6,486
Re: When You Say You Hate Corporate America... [Re: Phred]
    #1135347 - 12/12/02 12:54 PM (18 years, 4 months ago)

the Western factory owners did not create that poverty

No but they are exploiting it. Would ypu aprove of someone wandering around downtown and ofering homelss people a dollar if they would eat a piece of shit? Sure seems like you would....


--------------------

"Little racoons and old possums 'n' stuff all live up in here. They've got to have a little place to sit." Bob Ross.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblesir tripsalot
Administrator

Registered: 07/10/99
Posts: 6,486
Re: When You Say You Hate Corporate America... [Re: sir tripsalot]
    #1135367 - 12/12/02 12:58 PM (18 years, 4 months ago)

ex?ploit ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ksploit, k-sploit)
n.
An act or deed, especially a brilliant or heroic one. See Synonyms at feat1.

tr.v. ex?ploit?ed, ex?ploit?ing, ex?ploits (k-sploit, ksploit)
To employ to the greatest possible advantage: exploit one's talents.
To make use of selfishly or unethically: a country that exploited peasant labor . See Synonyms at manipulate.
To advertise; promote.


Even the folks at dictionary.com know whats up.


--------------------

"Little racoons and old possums 'n' stuff all live up in here. They've got to have a little place to sit." Bob Ross.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleBuddha5254
addict
Registered: 04/23/00
Posts: 532
Re: When You Say You Hate Corporate America... [Re: sir tripsalot]
    #1135427 - 12/12/02 01:22 PM (18 years, 4 months ago)

The United States supported Pol Pot who killed millions. Yea


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblesir tripsalot
Administrator

Registered: 07/10/99
Posts: 6,486
Re: When You Say You Hate Corporate America... [Re: Buddha5254]
    #1135512 - 12/12/02 02:02 PM (18 years, 4 months ago)

Not sure what you are talking aobut.


--------------------

"Little racoons and old possums 'n' stuff all live up in here. They've got to have a little place to sit." Bob Ross.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineEchoVortex
(hard) member
Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 859
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
Re: When You Say You Hate Corporate America... [Re: Phred]
    #1135563 - 12/12/02 02:25 PM (18 years, 4 months ago)

Pinky writes:
"Note that she was not 10 years old. She was not working 36 hours. She received at least 12 cents an hour (note that Alex123 has yet again revised his wage figure downwards for his mythical 10 year old girls -- they now get 10 cents for a 36 hour shift. Tomorrow it will be 8 cents), more than that once she had worked nore than 10 hours in a given day. Some months she received as much as $53 (double what the average worker in her home village accumulates in an entire year) after deductions for the room and board provided by the company."

I didn't post this to corroborate Alex's figures. These figures are bad enough, and this is only one example of many.

"Not in my eyes. Corporations are just as capable of doing unethical and illegal things as are individuals. In a Capitalist (or even quasi-capitalist country) society, such corporations are subject to an objective code of laws. Apparently, such is not the case in Communist countries."

It is not the case anywhere except where the people have the power to oversee their own government. In a Capitalist country extreme amounts of wealth would accrue to certain corporations and individuals. This is already the case in quasi-capitalist nations such as the United States. Extremely wealthy individuals and corporations would be just as free in a Capitalist as in a Communist nation to bribe officials. "An objective code of laws" means nothing whatsoever when the people charged with enforcing them are themselves corrupt. In previous threads you have argued that in a Capitalist society it doesn't matter HOW those in government power are selected: heredity, picking lots, whatever. This is patently absurd. There is one and only one check on excessive government power: democratic representation.

"The workers are not to blame for the fact that they were born into poverty. Neither are Western corporations."
Western corporations are not to blame for the fact that the workers were born into poverty. Correct. They ARE, however, to blame for keeping them in poverty. Western corporations have the CHOICE to maintain humane working standards both in their own factories and to demand the same from their subcontractors. Making such a CHOICE (they, unlike the workers, are free to choose) may in fact cut into their profits. If they're on the verge of bankruptcy they may not have a such a choice. But that is not the case with most of these corporations: they have healthy bottom lines, they reward their executives handsomely (very often excessively, in fact) so taking an ETHICAL STAND would not exactly drive them under. They choose however to maximize profit at the expense of human decency. They ARE to blame for making that choice.

The Chinese owner of the factory is also immoral. There is no question about that. So are the bribed government officials who do not enforce their own laws. No question about that, either. But your argument is of the "everyone's doing it, why can't we?" variety. The immorality of others is not an excuse or a justification for our own.

"Despite the tragedy of her sister's death, Li Mei is willing to risk the same fate. Ask yourself why that might be."

Once again, because she has no choice. Either die immediately or die slowly. Western corporations, however, have the power to ameliorate these working conditions somewhat, without causing themselves any terrible hardship. They choose not to do so.

In any event, your contention that Capitalism would magically solve all of these problems has no basis. As long as there are people rich enough to bribe them, those who are responsible for overseeing the laws can be bribed, and laws, no matter how "objective," become a farce. The only way to control this situation is for the the people to oversee the overseers. This is what representative government, what democracy, was designed for. It was also designed in recognition of the fact that laws must often be renegotiated--i.e., legislated--because they may no longer be appropriate for current realities. None of the Founding Fathers, Jefferson least of all, believed there could be an "objective" set of laws that should stand for all time.

Quote:

"Let us provide in our constitution for its revision at stated
periods. What these periods should be nature herself indicates.
By the European tables of mortality, of the adults living at any
one moment of time, a majority will be dead in about nineteen
years. At the end of that period, then, a new majority is come
into place; or, in other words, a new generation. Each generation
is as independent as the one preceding, as that was of all which
had gone before. It has then, like them, a right to choose for
itself the form of government it believes most promotive of its own
happiness; consequently, to accommodate to the circumstances
in which it finds itself that received from its predecessors; and it
is for the peace and good of mankind that a solemn opportunity
of doing this every nineteen or twenty years should be provided
by the constitution; so that it may be handed on, with periodical
repairs, from generation to generation, to the end of time, if
anything human can so long endure." --Thomas Jefferson to
Samuel Kercheval, 1816. ME 15:42



Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 6 years, 3 months
Re: When You Say You Hate Corporate America... [Re: Xlea321]
    #1136244 - 12/12/02 06:23 PM (18 years, 4 months ago)

American government at the behest of the corporations. Here's a little background:

Chomsky, eh?

Where does he say that Suharto was "installed" by the US government (at the behest of American corporations or no)? All I could find about his rise to power in that article is:

... in 1965 when the general took power, presiding over army-led massacres that wiped out the country's only mass-based political party (the PKI, a popularly supported communist party) and devastated its popular base in "one of the worst mass murders of the 20th century."

pinky



--------------------


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 6 years, 3 months
Re: When You Say You Hate Corporate America... [Re: sir tripsalot]
    #1136276 - 12/12/02 06:31 PM (18 years, 4 months ago)

sir tripsalot asks:

Would ypu aprove of someone wandering around downtown and ofering homelss people a dollar if they would eat a piece of shit?

Would I approve of people like that? Nope.

What's your point? Are you trying to claim that offering people a job in a factory which not only allows them to support themselves but also allows them to help support others (i.e. their family back home in the starving village) is equivalent to giving people a lump of shit and a dollar for some sick thrill?

pinky


--------------------


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 6 years, 3 months
Re: When You Say You Hate Corporate America... [Re: sir tripsalot]
    #1136291 - 12/12/02 06:35 PM (18 years, 4 months ago)

sir tripsalot writes:

I suppose you find those bumb fight videos harmless since these homeless people were only being enticed to do illegal things.

I have no idea what a bumb fight video is. Explain, please.

pinky


--------------------


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblesir tripsalot
Administrator

Registered: 07/10/99
Posts: 6,486
Re: When You Say You Hate Corporate America... [Re: Phred]
    #1136308 - 12/12/02 06:41 PM (18 years, 4 months ago)

Bumb fight videos are along the same lines. Paying them to tatooe "bumbfight" across their forehead for a small amount of money. And to do stupid stunts for pathetic fees cause it is fast cahs for the homeless.
Address Echovortexs or Hongoman post why dontcha? Instead of digging up old comments by me that you origianally skipped over and then going right to Alex123 to say how much his posts are wrong.


--------------------

"Little racoons and old possums 'n' stuff all live up in here. They've got to have a little place to sit." Bob Ross.


Edited by sir tripsalot (12/12/02 06:44 PM)


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: When You Say You Hate Corporate America... [Re: Phred]
    #1136511 - 12/12/02 07:33 PM (18 years, 4 months ago)

Would I approve of people like that? Nope.

Strange, bumfights sound right up your street, as you yourself say:

An employer needs employees. He makes job offers. The terms and conditions of the offer comply with the laws in place at the time. Potential employees decide whether or not the offer is acceptable to them. A contract is (or isn't) signed. At some point, some of the employees may regret their decision and quit. The employer then makes new job offers to other potential employees, perhaps (or perhaps not) more attractive offers. The cycle continues.

Why are you so skittish of bumfights?


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblecarbonhoots
old hand

Registered: 09/11/01
Posts: 1,351
Loc: BC Canada
Re: When You Say You Hate Corporate America... [Re: Phred]
    #1136589 - 12/12/02 08:00 PM (18 years, 4 months ago)

.
In reply to:

An employer needs employees. He makes job offers. The terms and conditions of the offer comply with the laws in place at the time. Potential employees decide whether or not the offer is acceptable to them. A contract is (or isn't) signed. At some point, some of the employees may regret their decision and quit. The employer then makes new job offers to other potential employees, perhaps (or perhaps not) more attractive offers. The cycle continues




Where in this cycle is the acknowlegement that people NEED money to live. A job isn't a hobby or some other trivial pursuit, an income is essential. Like air. Some greedy hellbound fucks exploit this situation because they know in some environments, people will put up with a lot of shit.

The compliant from us socialist types is this...the rulers (owners) do not care about what is fair, or what can be accomplished socially. They (with exeptions of course) care only for thier own profit, and will squeeze to the breaking point to increase it, EVEN IF THEY ARE ALREADY FILTHY RICH. I find that discusting. Jesus Christ would find that discusting.


--------------------
  -I'd rather have a frontal lobotomy than a bottle in front of me

CANADIAN CENTER FOR POLICY ALTERNATIVES


Edited by carbonhoots (12/12/02 08:03 PM)


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 6 years, 3 months
Re: When You Say You Hate Corporate America... [Re: EchoVortex]
    #1136664 - 12/12/02 08:37 PM (18 years, 4 months ago)

EchoVortex writes:

I didn't post this to corroborate Alex's figures.

I realize that. But since Alex's "figures" are figments of his own overheated imagination, I thought it best to address yours instead.

In a Capitalist country extreme amounts of wealth would accrue to certain corporations and individuals.

Different people have different ideas of what constitutes "extreme", but that is certainly a probability in a Laissez-faire Capitalist society, yes.

Extremely wealthy individuals and corporations would be just as free in a Capitalist as in a Communist nation to bribe officials.

Correct.

"An objective code of laws" means nothing whatsoever when the people charged with enforcing them are themselves corrupt.

Correct.

In previous threads you have argued that in a Capitalist society it doesn't matter HOW those in government power are selected: heredity, picking lots, whatever.

Presuming those occupying the government posts (cops, judges, prosecutors, miltary officers) obey their oaths to abide by the constitution of that society, also correct. You're on a roll.

There is one and only one check on excessive government power: democratic representation.

But judges and district attorneys are democratically elected in America, and jurors aren't even officials -- they are selected more or less randomly from the populace. Are you saying that no democratically elected American judge or prosecutor or juror has ever taken a bribe?

They ARE, however, to blame for keeping them in poverty.

Poverty and wealth are relative terms. The girl who was the subject of that story (even though she was the lowest-paid employee in that factory and was cheated out of much of what she did earn) was wealthier than any two dozen people combined in the village from where she came. So wealthy, in fact, that even though she was clearly a frugal person she chose to buy a nice dress and "squander" some of her savings on a stack of pictures, each of which cost an entire week's earnings back home. You and I consider her poor. Do the villagers back home?

Far from "keeping" her in poverty, that corporation made it possible for her to increase her net worth enormously, despite blatantly violating pretty near every one of China's labor laws.

Note that the journalist who wrote that article chose (understandably) to report on one of the worst foreign factories, not one of the best, and to write about the lowest paid worker rather than the higher paid ones, so we are discussing a worst-case scenario here. The other workers in that factory, much less the workers in less illegal factories, are even less poor than she was.

Western corporations have the CHOICE to maintain humane working standards both in their own factories and to demand the same from their subcontractors.

Correct. The factory in your example was Korean-owned. For the sake of this discussion are we to consider Korea to be a Western nation?

Let's take this down the chain. You seem knowledgeable enough to realize that the pieces manufactured in the Chinese subcontractor's factory and then sold to the Korean factory (corporation number one) would typically then be sold to a distributor (corporation number two) with distribution rights for the Pacific rim, who then sold it to an American distributor (corporation number three) who then sold it to an American retail store such as Toys 'r' Us (corporation number four) who then sold it to your neighbor.

You are saying that Toys 'r' Us has an obligation to spend enough time and money to trace it back and verify (I mean REALLY verify, not just take the word of corporations one through three, who may be lying) that everything they purchase from corporation number three has had every component in it manufactured under humane conditions. It further follows that Toys 'r' Us has the obligation to ensure that every worker who was involved in extracting, packing and shipping of all the materials (including the miners who dug the ore and the workers in the refinery if the toy has metal parts and the drillers on the oil rigs if the toy has plastic parts, the dock workers who loaded it onto the ship, the seamen on the tramp steamer, etc.) used in the manufacture of that toy at every stage of its construction were treated humanely. If they fail to do so, they are guilty of exploitation.

Further, Toys 'r' Us must apply the term "humane" as understood by current American labor codes, not the labor codes of the countries of origin.

Am I misrepresenting your position?

But that is not the case with most of these corporations: they have healthy bottom lines, they reward their executives handsomely (very often excessively, in fact) so taking an ETHICAL STAND would not exactly drive them under.

If Toys 'r' Us were to take all the steps I have outlined above, and refuse to buy any toys that failed to meet all of the above tests, how much do you think that would impact their bottom line?

They choose however to maximize profit at the expense of human decency.

Maybe they don't see it that way. Maybe they feel that by buying toys manufatured in China, they are increasing the likelihood of many Chinese families surviving. After all, the people of that girl's village say the only way they can survive is for some of them to travel vast distances and work in foreign-owned factories. Why should Toys 'r' Us assume those villagers are lying? Toys 'r' Us kills two birds with one stone -- they achieve their selfish end of increasing their own profit while simultaneously achieving the altruistic end of literally saving someone (actually MANY someones) from death by slow starvation.

The immorality of others is not an excuse or a justification for our own.

Correct. But who determines what is moral and what is not? We both agree that the factory owners in this case were acting immorally. We have yet to establish that ALL foreign factory owners in China do so.

Let's assume that Greedhead Inc, incorporated in Delaware, buys permission to set up a widget factory in China. Greedhead Inc. scrupulously adheres to all existing Chinese labor codes, even though the Chinese inspectors never do anything more than visit the front office every now and then to extort a bribe or two.

Is Greedhead Inc. acting immorally? If so, why?

Once again, because she has no choice. Either die immediately or die slowly.

Wait a minute. Are you now claiming that all the workers in those factories are fated to die slowly? The girl in that article died. I must have missed the part where all her co-workers did.

In any event, your contention that Capitalism would magically solve all of these problems has no basis.

Well, we certainly know that in the case of China at least, Communism hasn't been particularly successful at solving those problems either. What politico-economic system would you recommend China adopt?

As long as there are people rich enough to bribe them, those who are responsible for overseeing the laws can be bribed, and laws, no matter how "objective," become a farce.

This is true in any society, Capitalist or non-Capitalist, with officials who are elected through the will of the majority or appointed by a King. This has been true since man invented the concept of government. The only solutions I can come up with to the bribery issue are:

1) Massive government redistribution of wealth so that no one in the society has any more wealth than anyone else. No more rich people, no more bribes. Of course, there have been recorded cases of officials being bribed with some pretty small sums of money -- sums even an assembly-line worker could afford. Someone prone to take one bribe is prone to take another. Each bribe may be small, but they add up over an entire career, don't they? Lots of crooked cops amassed tidy little retirement packages this way. As well, bribes need not be monetary -- there are more than a few individuals who would be willing to pull a string or two if bribed sexually. Bribes can be of a negative nature too, i.e. blackmail. In the case of blackmail, no money need change hands at all. "If you rule in my favor, judge, your nasty little secret STAYS secret."

I'm sure you can think of others. So, now that I come to think of it, option 1) is really no solution to the bribery issue at all, is it? That leaves us with:

2) No government. It stands to reason that if there are no officials to bribe, bribery is a non-issue. Of course, that opens up a whole other can of worms.

pinky


--------------------


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 6 years, 3 months
Re: When You Say You Hate Corporate America... [Re: sir tripsalot]
    #1136671 - 12/12/02 08:45 PM (18 years, 4 months ago)

sir tripsalot writes:

Address Echovortexs or Hongoman post why dontcha?

Scroll back and check the order of my replies I addressed hongomon's post before I addressed yours. I addressed Alex's post first because it was quick. EchoVortex's reply required more time. I was unaware I had to answer posts in chronological order of their appearance. My apologies.

pinky


--------------------


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 6 years, 3 months
Re: When You Say You Hate Corporate America... [Re: Xlea321]
    #1136677 - 12/12/02 08:52 PM (18 years, 4 months ago)

Why are you so skittish of bumfights?

Now that I know what they are, I can comment on them.

I would neither pay someone to do something like that nor would I pay money to watch a video of people doing that.

However, some people choose to make their livings in strange ways -- circus geeks, for example. If someone wants to accept money to have "bumbfight" tattooed on his forehead, what gives me (or anyone) the right to prevent him from doing so? It's his choice, not mine.

pinky


--------------------


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: PhytoExtractum Kratom Powder for Sale   Left Coast Kratom Premium Bali Kratom Powder   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Bridgetown Botanicals CBD Edibles

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
13,548 topic views. 2 members, 0 guests and 15 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Print Topic ]
Search this thread:
Edabea
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2021 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.028 seconds spending 0.006 seconds on 15 queries.