Re: A sub-point
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm saying just because some of them went to the factory doesn't mean the factory is any kind of improvement. They probably stay because they can get more hours and thus make a little more money.. but the price they pay for working at these places hardly makes it worth it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure they're happy you helpfully determined that it's not worth it for them.

Re: A sub-point
 

[ QUOTE ]
haha so what happens when there aren't any poorer countries for the company to go to? where do they go? congo? somalia? we're running out of the third world!

[/ QUOTE ]

Guess why we're running out of third world?

Re: A sub-point
 

[ QUOTE ]
2. There is clearly something wrong if somebody's admittedly best option is to work in a factory with abhorrent conditions for <$1.00/hr. I think some of the ACists here are underestimating how much this price is affected by State intervention. Most of these workers were better off farming and did own land of some sort, until the government took the land that was rightfully the property of those who worked it (i.e., the workers) and allowed the big multinational corporations to buy it/use it. Not only that, but when these companies like Nike move in, they generally are given (by the country's govt) monopoly rights over a given territory, which of course drives down wages for the workers. Additionally, the workers are generally forcibly stopped from organizing, which takes away what is essentially their last option for making anything resembling a reasonable wage.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with all of this. This is basically where I was going with my "why are the workers chosing to work in sweatshops" - there are only two possibilities: 1) it's better than their other options; 2) someone has removed better options. Nike can't eliminate other options *by themselves*. Nike must either leverage government coercion in order to eliminate the competition or it must make an attractive offer.

There is a positive and undeniable corrolation between increased regulation and increased poverty. In fact, this is the only way to *keep* the third world in third world conditions. Without these regulations, the third world advances, standard of living increases. That's precisely why we're "running out" of third world.

Re: Richest 2% hold half of world\'s assets
 

It's kind of similar to:

casino operators exploit weak-minded fools
Makes Teh Profit
Profit gets taxed
Any minor upticks in the fools' gambling results get taxed too.
Tax gets redistributed back to the fools
the fools go gamble it away at the casino

natedog

Re: Richest 2% hold half of world\'s assets
 

[ QUOTE ]
I imagine many of you are in favor of the process but oppose the results. Are any of you willing to admit that you support both the process and the results?

[/ QUOTE ]

Willing to admit? Yes! I support the process and ESPECIALLY the results. Inequality is a good thing.

However, the process I support is only marginally manifested in the 'capitalism' of the USA. There is no free-market capitalism in existence today, as I'm sure you know. It is mostly a situation where corporations buy off congress to get special favorable business conditions set for them at the expense of their competition.

That process I obviously do not support.

Why? Because I oppose coercion and this kind of capitalism is all about recruiting the coercive power of the state to your advantage.

But I do not care if inequality exists and in fact it is important for inequality to exist. I support it wholeheartedly. One of the worst things that could happen to you would be to wake up in an egalitarian world.

[ QUOTE ]
If so, how bad can the condition of humanity get before your precious capitalist principles become untenable to you?

[/ QUOTE ]

Put down the "workers world united" for a minute and take a breath.

The condition of humanity has been *improving* by almost any measure. You *do* realize that right?

But.. if for some reason the condition of humanity were to actually worsen, I would still support the principles of noncoercion. Free market capitalism is just one of many things that results from this principle of noncoercion.


I support unfettered free-market capitalism NOT because of the results (which are generally good) but because I support allowing individuals to act freely in all respects, short of outright violence against others. This includes freedom to work for, or hire, whoever you like under whatever agreement you both find acceptable.


For a third party to intervene in the free interactions of others due to their personal feelings about "exploitation" is no different for a third party to intervene due to their feelings about "sin".

[ QUOTE ]
Is there any limit at all to your worship of capitalism?

[/ QUOTE ]

I draw the line on personal freedom at the point where you violently infringe on the life and liberty and property of others. Otherwise, no, there is no limit to my support of freedom. Do whatever you like.

natedogg