The WTO/Free Trade Thread - "Let them eat Mud Cakes"

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The WTO/Free Trade Thread - "Let them eat Mud Cakes"

«‹›3 »

-Blackadder-: Jan 2, 2007; Game....Blouses.

Anyone else remember Battle in Seattle?

I suppose the beginning of the movie serves as good an introduction to the issues surrounding the WTO/Free Trade as any. The movie had a big effect on me, and in many ways jump started my political awareness. I was pretty young at the time, though, so I didn't (and honestly still don't) really understand much of what the WTO, Free Trade and NAFTA were save that they were/are bad and Bill Clinton, who I'd often heard described as "the best Republican president" was responsible for NAFTA.

I was wondering where we're currently at as far the fight against the exploitation of the third world as a result of the WTO and Free Trade? Has Free Trade and it's effects changed, gotten better or worse, in the last 20 or so years since NAFTA came into being?

Additionally what are peoples thoughts on Trump's stance on trade and can it be useful to Anti-WTO/Free Trade movements?

Given the sweatshop discussion I'm also including a link to a great, multi-part article The Dark Side of Dubai. Here's a an excerpt:

The Darkside of Dubai posted:

III. Hidden in Plain View

There are three different Dubais, all swirling around each other. There are the expats, like Karen; there are the Emiratis, headed by Sheikh Mohammed; and then there is the foreign underclass who built the city, and are trapped here. They are hidden in plain view. You see them everywhere, in dirt-caked blue uniforms, being shouted at by their superiors, like a chain gang � but you are trained not to look. It is like a mantra: the Sheikh built the city. The Sheikh built the city. Workers? What workers?

Every evening, the hundreds of thousands of young men who build Dubai are bussed from their sites to a vast concrete wasteland an hour out of town, where they are quarantined away. Until a few years ago they were shuttled back and forth on cattle trucks, but the expats complained this was unsightly, so now they are shunted on small metal buses that function like greenhouses in the desert heat. They sweat like sponges being slowly wrung out.

Sonapur is a rubble-strewn patchwork of miles and miles of identical concrete buildings. Some 300,000 men live piled up here, in a place whose name in Hindi means "City of Gold". In the first camp I stop at � riven with the smell of sewage and sweat � the men huddle around, eager to tell someone, anyone, what is happening to them.

Sahinal Monir, a slim 24-year-old from the deltas of Bangladesh. "To get you here, they tell you Dubai is heaven. Then you get here and realise it is hell," he says. Four years ago, an employment agent arrived in Sahinal's village in Southern Bangladesh. He told the men of the village that there was a place where they could earn 40,000 takka a month (�400) just for working nine-to-five on construction projects. It was a place where they would be given great accommodation, great food, and treated well. All they had to do was pay an up-front fee of 220,000 takka (�2,300) for the work visa � a fee they'd pay off in the first six months, easy. So Sahinal sold his family land, and took out a loan from the local lender, to head to this paradise.

As soon as he arrived at Dubai airport, his passport was taken from him by his construction company. He has not seen it since. He was told brusquely that from now on he would be working 14-hour days in the desert heat � where western tourists are advised not to stay outside for even five minutes in summer, when it hits 55 degrees � for 500 dirhams a month (�90), less than a quarter of the wage he was promised. If you don't like it, the company told him, go home. "But how can I go home? You have my passport, and I have no money for the ticket," he said. "Well, then you'd better get to work," they replied.

Sahinal was in a panic. His family back home � his son, daughter, wife and parents � were waiting for money, excited that their boy had finally made it. But he was going to have to work for more than two years just to pay for the cost of getting here � and all to earn less than he did in Bangladesh.

He shows me his room. It is a tiny, poky, concrete cell with triple-decker bunk-beds, where he lives with 11 other men. All his belongings are piled onto his bunk: three shirts, a spare pair of trousers, and a cellphone. The room stinks, because the lavatories in the corner of the camp � holes in the ground � are backed up with excrement and clouds of black flies. There is no air conditioning or fans, so the heat is "unbearable. You cannot sleep. All you do is sweat and scratch all night." At the height of summer, people sleep on the floor, on the roof, anywhere where they can pray for a moment of breeze.

The water delivered to the camp in huge white containers isn't properly desalinated: it tastes of salt. "It makes us sick, but we have nothing else to drink," he says.

The work is "the worst in the world," he says. "You have to carry 50kg bricks and blocks of cement in the worst heat imaginable ... This heat � it is like nothing else. You sweat so much you can't pee, not for days or weeks. It's like all the liquid comes out through your skin and you stink. You become dizzy and sick but you aren't allowed to stop, except for an hour in the afternoon. You know if you drop anything or slip, you could die. If you take time off sick, your wages are docked, and you are trapped here even longer."

He is currently working on the 67th floor of a shiny new tower, where he builds upwards, into the sky, into the heat. He doesn't know its name. In his four years here, he has never seen the Dubai of tourist-fame, except as he constructs it floor-by-floor.

Is he angry? He is quiet for a long time. "Here, nobody shows their anger. You can't. You get put in jail for a long time, then deported." Last year, some workers went on strike after they were not given their wages for four months. The Dubai police surrounded their camps with razor-wire and water-cannons and blasted them out and back to work.

The "ringleaders" were imprisoned. I try a different question: does Sohinal regret coming? All the men look down, awkwardly. "How can we think about that? We are trapped. If we start to think about regrets..." He lets the sentence trail off. Eventually, another worker breaks the silence by adding: "I miss my country, my family and my land. We can grow food in Bangladesh. Here, nothing grows. Just oil and buildings."

Since the recession hit, they say, the electricity has been cut off in dozens of the camps, and the men have not been paid for months. Their companies have disappeared with their passports and their pay. "We have been robbed of everything. Even if somehow we get back to Bangladesh, the loan sharks will demand we repay our loans immediately, and when we can't, we'll be sent to prison."

This is all supposed to be illegal. Employers are meant to pay on time, never take your passport, give you breaks in the heat � but I met nobody who said it happens. Not one. These men are conned into coming and trapped into staying, with the complicity of the Dubai authorities.

Sahinal could well die out here. A British man who used to work on construction projects told me: "There's a huge number of suicides in the camps and on the construction sites, but they're not reported. They're described as 'accidents'." Even then, their families aren't free: they simply inherit the debts. A Human Rights Watch study found there is a "cover-up of the true extent" of deaths from heat exhaustion, overwork and suicide, but the Indian consulate registered 971 deaths of their nationals in 2005 alone. After this figure was leaked, the consulates were told to stop counting.

At night, in the dusk, I sit in the camp with Sohinal and his friends as they scrape together what they have left to buy a cheap bottle of spirits. They down it in one ferocious gulp. "It helps you to feel numb", Sohinal says through a stinging throat. In the distance, the glistening Dubai skyline he built stands, oblivious.

*Couldn't find a WTO/Free Trade Thread so I made this one, if anyone has stuff they want to add to flesh out the OP, feel free to post or PM it to me.

-Blackadder- fucked around with this message at 20:55 on May 14, 2017

# ? May 14, 2017 01:02

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 4, 2024 05:09

Condiv: May 7, 2008; Sorry to undo the effort of paying a domestic abuser $10 to own this poster, but I am going to lose my dang mind if I keep seeing multiple posters who appear to be Baloogan.

With love,
a mod

-Blackadder- posted:

Anyone else remember Battle in Seattle?

I suppose the beginning of the movie serves as good an introduction to the issues surrounding the WTO/Free Trade as any. The movie had a big effect on me, and in many ways jump started my political awareness. I was pretty young at the time, though, so I didn't (and honestly still don't) really understand much of what the WTO, Free Trade and NAFTA were save that they were/are bad and Bill Clinton, who I'd often heard described as "the best Republican president" was responsible for NAFTA.

I was wondering where we're currently at as far the fight against the exploitation of the third world as a result of the WTO and Free Trade? Has Free Trade and it's effects changed, gotten better or worse, in the last 20 or so years since NAFTA came into being?

Additionally what are peoples thoughts on Trump's stance on trade and can it be useful to Anti-WTO/Free Trade movements?

*Couldn't find a WTO/Free Trade Thread so I made this one, if anyone has stuff they want to add to flesh out the OP, feel free to post or PM it to me.

your links come up as "video not available" for me op.

as for if exploitation of workers has improved: i'd say no. the push towards more and more subcontracting leaves companies ignorant (willfully so) as to the conditions of labor in the sweatshops that make their products. i posted an article from truth-out from 2013 in the dems are a waste thread that interviewed a number of women that worked in the textile sweatshops of haiti. they described an environment where sex with your supervisor was practically a must to get a job and keep working:

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/16279-haitian-sweatshop-workers-speak-sub-poverty-wages-and-sexual-coercion

quote:

�In the factories, there�s a system that we call �give to me and I�ll give to you.� It means that you have to agree to have sex with the supervisor or that person can blacklist you or get you fired. My supervisor was trying to seduce me, but I said no because I had a husband. So he fired me.

�What I was getting paid didn�t help me with my kids and the things we needed, anyway. All I could do with my salary was buy my food and pay for transportation to the factory.

�In 2009, I heard that people were protesting so the workers could have a salary of 200 gourdes [at the time, US$5]. I don�t know if it passed. [Ed. note: The raise only went into effect last year.] But the salary can�t do anything for people with their economic problems. People have to pay for transportation, they have to eat, they have to pay rent, if they have children they have to pay for school, which is very expensive.

�If they would think about this and give workers a salary that could respond to their needs, it would be better. If they had more factories in this country it would be better for poor people, but the salary they�re paying has to change.�

quote:

�I had a child who didn�t have a father, and I didn�t have any family or anyone who could help me. I was starving, I couldn�t eat or sleep, and my child was hungry and crying all the time. When I asked a man for a job [in the factory], he said, �Okay, but you have to have sex with me.� I told him, �If I was looking for sex, I wouldn�t be talking to you about this job.�

�He gave me the job even though I didn�t have sex with him. But once I was on the job, I wasn�t safe because there were a lot of men [supervisors] who were always looking to have sex with the women and do violence to them. Finally, so I wouldn�t lose my job, I had sex with one of the men. I had a child to feed, and I had no choice.

�I made do. They say the little people always get the worst and the bigger ones always get the best.

�Instead of factories, we could create businesses among ourselves. We could make products and go abroad to sell them. We could find patrons and show them the beautiful work that Haiti is doing and tell them that we want to work but we can�t. They could finance our work. If our products sell well, we could make profits.�

these exploitative conditions are frequently excused as a necessary evil and proponents of sweatshops frequently defend them as uplifting the countries that host them. but that is not the reality of the situation:

quote:

�The workers leave their houses at 5:00 in the morning; they can get home at 8:00 at night. Then when they get home, they have to go out to see if they can find water. They have to sweep, wash the dishes, help their children study, wash the children�s uniforms, make up the children�s lunch boxes. They race out to the market because here you live hand-to-mouth: you can only buy what you need for that day. They have to give their children some food if they can.

�They�re always struggling to see how they�re going to make ends meet. They might have to go to a loan shark. When they get paid each payday, they already owe all of it.

�We each need the other: bosses need workers, workers need bosses. We need the work they�re sending us from other countries because without it, this country can�t advance. So many people are looking for work and you know there�s not a lot.

�But the jobs there can�t be based on the exploitation of people. They need to respect the rights and human dignity of people and raise the wages. We need security and to be treated as human beings.

�We have to join forces, but it�s so hard. We need strong, courageous women to enter into the struggle, then things could change. That�s what�s going to get the bosses to respect the rights of workers.�

in haiti, the minimum wage is $5 a day. eating at the cafeterias attached to these sweatshops costs half that by itself. sweatshops use every trick unregulated us capitalism used to pull in workers without having to pay them appropriately. they employ child labor, indentured servants, and frequently don't even have clean drinking water for workers

india for example has been called the world capital for child labor by the UN:

quote:

McDougall talked with a worker, Amitosh, who was only 10 years old and had been working for a Gap contract in India. According to the UN, India has become the world capital for child labor, employing over 55 million children aged everywhere from 5 to 14. Amitosh was sold into bonded labor by his family and now works 16 hours per day, hand-sewing clothing for Gap.

�The men came looking for us in July. They had loudspeakers in the back of a car and told my parents that, if they sent me to work in the city, they won�t have to work in the farms. My father was paid a fee for me and I was brought down with 40 other children. I am working for free. The supervisor has told me because I am learning I don�t get paid. It has been like this for four months.�

The corridor in which Amitosh works with a dozen other children is smeared in filth and has a flooded toilet. Alongside of him works Jivaj who is 12 years old. Jivaj spoke to the Observer with tears streaming down his cheeks, ��Last week, we spent four days working from dawn until about one o�clock in the morning the following day. I was so tired I felt sick. If any of us cried we were hit with a rubber pipe. Some of the boys had oily cloths stuffed in our mouths as punishment.�

nothing about these workplaces are "helping" these children.

i mentioned earlier that haiti had garment workers making $5 dollars a day. after travel expenses and food, they frequently only have $1 left. this is with them working long hours, 6 days a week at least.

quote:

David�s cost of living analysis was backed up by other Haitians I talked with. In 2011, the AFL-CIO-supported Solidarity Center conducted a study estimating the living wage for apparel workers in Port-au-Prince. Factoring in the costs of necessities like food, housing, cooking fuel and child care, the Solidarity Center estimated a living wage for an adult with two dependents to be 1,152 gourdes (about $29) per day.

why do they put up with wages so low it doesn't even cover rent, but consumes all of their time? they have 80% unemployment. frequently pro-sweatshop people point to this and claim they're helping people by giving them these sweatshop jobs. but that's not the reality of the situation:

quote:

Haiti certainly needs economic development, but there are other models to pursue, including agricultural practices the Haitian people successfully followed for generations. Separate from the often-dysfunctional government, rural Haitians adhered to the lakou system of property management that divided former plantations into small plots and yielded crops that supported the extended families living there. Haiti met its own food needs and exported to other countries.

But heavy-handed U.S. policies destroyed that legacy. Beginning in the 1970s and 1980s, the IMF, with the U.S. as its largest shareholder and dominant voice, forced Haiti to dramatically reduce tariffs on imported staples. The Haitian tariff on rice, for example, was dropped from 50 percent to the current rate of 3 percent, compared to a regional average of 20 percent. Haitian farmers can no longer compete with food imports from the U.S. and other countries, where crops are highly subsidized by their governments. As a result, hundreds of thousands of Haitians have migrated from the countryside to Port-au-Prince, where they compete to provide cheap labor for garment-assembly companies under harsh conditions.

the reality of the situation is that countries like haiti are being preyed upon by countries like the US. it has long had us-friendly puppet leaders and dictators, who've implemented extreme austerity (a neoliberal favorite) and crushed workers rights. and when workers have risen up to even establish a minimum wage of $5, the us has stepped in to sabotage their efforts.

you might note that not all of my sources were talking about foreign countries...

that's right, we have sweatshops in america! and with the DoL so severly weakened they're becoming more and more prevalent.

the simple fact of the matter is that sweatshops are exploitative of and harmful to their host population. we must fight against them wherever they show up, and a big part of that is ending the US's economic imperialism and punishing/nationalising companies that use exploitative sweatshop labor.

Condiv fucked around with this message at 11:44 on May 14, 2017

# ? May 14, 2017 11:35

asdf32: May 15, 2010; I lust for childrens' deaths. Ask me about how I don't care if my kids die.

-Blackadder- posted:

Anyone else remember Battle in Seattle?

I suppose the beginning of the movie serves as good an introduction to the issues surrounding the WTO/Free Trade as any. The movie had a big effect on me, and in many ways jump started my political awareness. I was pretty young at the time, though, so I didn't (and honestly still don't) really understand much of what the WTO, Free Trade and NAFTA were save that they were/are bad and Bill Clinton, who I'd often heard described as "the best Republican president" was responsible for NAFTA.

I was wondering where we're currently at as far the fight against the exploitation of the third world as a result of the WTO and Free Trade? Has Free Trade and it's effects changed, gotten better or worse, in the last 20 or so years since NAFTA came into being?

Additionally what are peoples thoughts on Trump's stance on trade and can it be useful to Anti-WTO/Free Trade movements?

*Couldn't find a WTO/Free Trade Thread so I made this one, if anyone has stuff they want to add to flesh out the OP, feel free to post or PM it to me.

Trump got elected on a nationalist populist anti-globalist platform which is clearly a good thing for the anti-trade left a short hop away across the horseshoe.

As far as ending exploitation goes this is bad of course - economic isolationism is clearly bad for poor countries.

# ? May 14, 2017 14:01

Bates: Jun 15, 2006

asdf32 posted:

As far as ending exploitation goes this is bad of course - economic isolationism is clearly bad for poor countries.

Yeah you'd think hundreds of millions people being lifted out of poverty is something the left would be pretty stoked about but somehow nostalgia for the economically privileged position of the West in the mid-20th century is more important.

# ? May 14, 2017 17:29

mila kunis: Jun 10, 2011

Bates posted:

Yeah you'd think hundreds of millions people being lifted out of poverty is something the left would be pretty stoked about but somehow nostalgia for the economically privileged position of the West in the mid-20th century is more important.

The two great things I love over posts like these is blithely skipping over the horrific conditions experienced by third world labor in service of first world capital, like detailed just two posts above this one, and the transition from 'a rising tide lifts all boats' to 'you should be grateful for the loss of your livelihoods because we've reduced our cost centres!!'.

It's such a blatantly amoral lie, because if all these loving free market liberals honestly gave a poo poo about third world labor, why haven't they pursued worker rights, supported collective bargaining and enforcing stricter labor laws in these very same countries with the same vigor with which they've supported free trade agreements?

# ? May 14, 2017 18:01

Great Metal Jesus: Jun 11, 2007; Got no use for psychiatry
I can talk to the voices
in my head for free
Mood swings like an axe
Into those around me
My tongue is a double agent

Bates posted:

Yeah you'd think hundreds of millions people being lifted out of poverty is something the left would be pretty stoked about but somehow nostalgia for the economically privileged position of the West in the mid-20th century is more important.

So why don't you tell us how much systemic rape we should condone in the process?

# ? May 14, 2017 18:13

Bates: Jun 15, 2006

tekz posted:

The two great things I love over posts like these is blithely skipping over the horrific conditions experienced by third world labor in service of first world capital, like detailed just two posts above this one, and the transition from 'a rising tide lifts all boats' to 'you should be grateful for the loss of your livelihoods because we've reduced our cost centres!!'.

It's such a blatantly amoral lie, because if all these loving free market liberals honestly gave a poo poo about third world labor, why haven't they pursued worker rights, supported collective bargaining and enforcing stricter labor laws in these very same countries with the same vigor with which they've supported free trade agreements?

I agree there should be strong labor protections but how is getting rid of free trade going to accomplish that? Neoliberal free trade or laissez-faire capitalism, or whatever you want to call it, may be bad but then let's focus on that and not free trade generally because that doesn't make sense. Imposing tariffs is not going to make sweatshops go away - unless you promise to remove them when better labor protections are enacted but then you're just using free trade as a reward.

# ? May 14, 2017 18:25

asdf32: May 15, 2010; I lust for childrens' deaths. Ask me about how I don't care if my kids die.

tekz posted:

The two great things I love over posts like these is blithely skipping over the horrific conditions experienced by third world labor in service of first world capital, like detailed just two posts above this one, and the transition from 'a rising tide lifts all boats' to 'you should be grateful for the loss of your livelihoods because we've reduced our cost centres!!'.

It's such a blatantly amoral lie, because if all these loving free market liberals honestly gave a poo poo about third world labor, why haven't they pursued worker rights, supported collective bargaining and enforcing stricter labor laws in these very same countries with the same vigor with which they've supported free trade agreements?

And you're blatantly misunderstanding reality. Sweatshops don't crop up where there there used to be economic prosperity so if you think they exist where people have lost their livelihoods its because you've bought into anecdotal propaganda aimed at the naive.

Trade agreements do peruse workers rights and are the main real life mechanism for doing that. The TPP had rights and reform clauses which are going to be replaced by nothing after the TPP's demise.

# ? May 14, 2017 20:48

Condiv: May 7, 2008; Sorry to undo the effort of paying a domestic abuser $10 to own this poster, but I am going to lose my dang mind if I keep seeing multiple posters who appear to be Baloogan.

With love,
a mod

asdf32 posted:

And you're blatantly misunderstanding reality. Sweatshops don't crop up where there there used to be economic prosperity so if you think they exist where people have lost their livelihoods its because you've bought into anecdotal propaganda aimed at the naive.

actually foreign governments typically inflict poverty on target countries for sweatshops to help force workers into sweatshops. sweatshops don't show up to relieve poverty, and instead cause impoverishment in their host countries.

quote:

Trade agreements do peruse workers rights and are the main real life mechanism for doing that. The TPP had rights and reform clauses which are going to be replaced by nothing after the TPP's demise.

they are completely toothless too. from human rights watch:

quote:

A major concern about the TPP�s labor chapter is that it can only be enforced by governments. The TPP empowers member countries to bring legal disputes against other member countries for violating the labor chapter�s terms. But while unions, labor advocacy groups, and trade federations could lobby or petition the US or other governments to take formal action to enforce the TPP�s provisions, they will not be able to file a complaint under the agreement. This contrasts sharply with investors and corporations, who can bring dispute settlement proceedings against member countries under the agreement�s provisions on Investor-State Dispute Resolution (ISDR) mechanisms.

the US gov, which has fought against places like haiti having a minimum wage isn't going to be enforcing the labor chapters of the TPP and NAFTA. so they are effectively worthless. even if a labor friendly government came in and started enforcing, you'd scream bloody murder cause it'd be the equivalent of economic sanctions against the noncompliant govs.

again from human rights watch:

quote:

The United States typically files labor complaints only after trade unions or advocacy groups have filed formal petitions, followed by significant lobbying from such groups to take action. Dozens of labor complaints have been brought under various trade agreements since 1991, mostly under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). However, because of procedural hurdles, lengthy delays, opposition from US business interests, or lack of political will, United States action on workers� rights complaints in existing trade agreements has been slow and inadequate.

The example of Guatemala, which ratified the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) in 2006, highlights these problems. In 2008, Guatemalan and United States labor groups began petitioning the United States to bring a trade tribunal case against Guatemala for its failure to uphold core standards in CAFTA�s labor chapter. Seven years later, in 2015, the United States finally did so. This was the first and only time it has ever brought a case against another country for a labor chapter violation under a free trade agreement. According to labor groups, more than 70 union organizers have been killed in the decade since Guatemala signed the agreement, yet it will likely take years for the Guatemala case to be decided. In the interim, all CAFTA benefits remain in effect.

In the absence of United States action, enforcement of the TPP labor chapter is highly unlikely to occur. No other member of the TPP has ever been known to bring legal trade cases to enforce labor chapters in other economic agreements.

Condiv fucked around with this message at 22:32 on May 14, 2017

# ? May 14, 2017 22:22

asdf32: May 15, 2010; I lust for childrens' deaths. Ask me about how I don't care if my kids die.

Condiv posted:

actually foreign governments typically inflict poverty on target countries for sweatshops to help force workers into sweatshops. sweatshops don't show up to relieve poverty, and instead cause impoverishment in their host countries.

And this is literally propaganda for dumb people. Not strictly false, but wrong in a "welfare queen" style way where it's anecdotally true but on a scale that makes it ultimately irrelevant to this discussion.

quote:

they are completely toothless too. from human rights watch:

the US gov, which has fought against places like haiti having a minimum wage isn't going to be enforcing the labor chapters of the TPP and NAFTA. so they are effectively worthless. even if a labor friendly government came in and started enforcing, you'd scream bloody murder cause it'd be the equivalent of economic sanctions against the noncompliant govs.

again from human rights watch:

Of course you chose the dumbest possible argument since nonexistent is worse than toothless and that's undoubtedly what you wanted but also from your source:

quote:

The United States negotiated separate labor side agreements with Vietnam, Malaysia, and Brunei that are a unique and significant step in efforts to protect labor rights in trade agreements. These Consistency Plans require the three governments to implement specific legislative and regulatory reforms and increase enforcement capacity before they can enjoy TPP trade benefits with the United States. Unfortunately, no such Consistency Plans were negotiated with other TPP members, such as Mexico and Peru, even though each has been subject to complaints under NAFTA and the US-Peru Free Trade Agreement.

So there is beneficial content in agreements like this and again in their absence nothing replaces them. In the case of the demise of the TPP which was designed to increase US influence countries now left out will turn more towards China which gives far less of a poo poo about working conditions of its trade partners (understatement) and/or probably your favorite option: unemployment or death by grinding but noble non-capitalist subsistence farming.

# ? May 15, 2017 01:58

Fojar38: Sep 2, 2011; Sorry I meant to say I hope that the police use maximum force and kill or maim a bunch of innocent people, thus paving a way for a proletarian uprising and socialist utopia

also here's a stupid take
---------------------------->

The TPP should have happened, but its demise isn't going to somehow cause the region to economically shift to China. TPP was valuable for Asia because it increased market access to wealthy countries such as the USA, Canada, and Japan, three of the world's largest targets for export economies. China can't fill that void because China is not a particularly large or wealthy market for consumer goods and its appetite for raw materials is declining rapidly, despite the bizarre hype as of late.

The thing about globalization is that its not really based on some notion of fundamental international equality. Countries that have benefited the most from it are countries with large export-based economies, an economic strategy that only works if there is a large, wealthy, open market to sell to. This is why the West in particular turning away from free trade is such a big deal. There isn't any replacement for western markets and there won't be for the foreseeable future.

This is probably why the global economy is slowing so intractably by the way. The West is becoming less willing and less able to absorb the exports of the rest of the world.

Fojar38 fucked around with this message at 02:07 on May 15, 2017

# ? May 15, 2017 02:04

TROIKA CURES GREEK: Jun 30, 2015; by R. Guyovich

Great Metal Jesus posted:

So why don't you tell us how much systemic rape we should condone in the process?

None, but the picture many on the left paint about free trade is often completely at odds with actual reality. The poorest countries today have better life expectancy and per capita income (ppp adjusted) than the richest countries 200 years ago. The average chinese person is massively better off than they were just 30 years ago. Billions have been lifted out of extreme poverty in the past 50 years. Etc etc etc.

The people hurt by free trade are the poor / middle classes of rich countries, by objective measures it has been very good for the global poor. Just look at the data.

As an example, when companies move production to mexico that sucks for the town who had the factory in the US but when they move to Mexico they often offer wages and working conditions that are really good relatively.

TROIKA CURES GREEK fucked around with this message at 04:43 on May 15, 2017

# ? May 15, 2017 04:37

Condiv: May 7, 2008; Sorry to undo the effort of paying a domestic abuser $10 to own this poster, but I am going to lose my dang mind if I keep seeing multiple posters who appear to be Baloogan.

With love,
a mod

asdf32 posted:

And this is literally propaganda for dumb people. Not strictly false, but wrong in a "welfare queen" style way where it's anecdotally true but on a scale that makes it ultimately irrelevant to this discussion.

nice assertion. now back it up. i've already demonstrated that the US and sweatshops are preying on haiti, which is not so small a sample as to be "on a scale that makes it ultimately irrelevant to this discussion".

quote:

Of course you chose the dumbest possible argument since nonexistent is worse than toothless and that's undoubtedly what you wanted but also from your source:

, the consistency plans are also toothless, and if you had half a brain and had considered what i'd posted, that'd be obvious to you. but i'll quote from another source that makes the issues with them more directly addressed:

quote:

But the committee isn�t confident that the plans are even all that useful.The Vietnam consistency plan, for example, gives the country a five-year grace period to allow workers at the factory level to unionize. Even if Vietnam does not implement the changes by the fifth year, the process for hashing out tariff reductions is so convoluted that they might not even happen, said Cathy Feingold, the director of the International Department at the AFL-CIO. Once the U.S. allows companies to access the benefits of the TPP, it�s very unlikely that the government would withhold those benefits should it come across labor abuses, Feingold said.

The plans for Brunei and Malaysia have similar flaws, the committee says. The Brunei agreement �fails to provide for labor courts or other structures free from the political influence of the Sultan,� the report says. And though Brunei is supposed to implement labor reforms before it joins the TPP, there is no independent evaluation mechanism, just the governments of the U.S. and Brunei.

so the same toothless enforcement mechanism from NAFTA is still around with the TPP. if the labor laws required from these consistency plans are repealed, ignored, etc. it's on the US to take action against the offending nation. and the US has not once shown willingness to do so, even when they were trying desperately to pass the TPP.

quote:

So there is beneficial content in agreements like this and again in their absence nothing replaces them. In the case of the demise of the TPP which was designed to increase US influence countries now left out will turn more towards China which gives far less of a poo poo about working conditions of its trade partners (understatement) and/or probably your favorite option: unemployment or death by grinding but noble non-capitalist subsistence farming.

i find it highly laughable that you think the same country that worked to prevent a minimum wage in haiti and thought building more rapey sweatshops was an earthquake relief plan is supposed to give a poo poo about workers this time. the fact of the matter is these trade agreements are not beneficial, and are just economic imperialism from an imperialist nation

Condiv fucked around with this message at 09:32 on May 15, 2017

# ? May 15, 2017 08:49

9-Volt Assault: Jan 27, 2007; Beter twee tetten in de hand dan tien op de vlucht.

I just love people who say ''but global poverty is decreasing'' because those same people always forget why countries suffered from crippling poverty. Europe and the US kept countries poor for centuries, now those countries get a tiny scrap of the pie because it suits European and US interests and people go ''look! capitalism works just fine!''.

The best time in Europe was when all common lands got enclosed by the wealthy and farmers got kicked out of their lands and told to move to a city to work in a factory. But hey, you got some coins in exchange for working 14 hours a day so you were ''lifted out of poverty''!

# ? May 15, 2017 10:14

asdf32: May 15, 2010; I lust for childrens' deaths. Ask me about how I don't care if my kids die.

My mistake is forgetting the golden age of agricultural peasantry. And how could I when it was so quaint and noble.

# ? May 15, 2017 14:52

Ardennes: May 12, 2002

Yeah, life expectancy in industrial cities actually fell during the early period of industrialization in Britain, it wasn't exactly a picnic.

I think the biggest issue if anything that system of trade, largely established on geopolitical grounds, ran its course and something obviously new needs to happen since there isn't a large wealthy middle class out there to produce the growing demand it once it.

Also, in all honesty, I think the working class/lower middle class in the First World has a right to ask questions about this entire project especially since the well-being of third world workers seems extremely tangential.

# ? May 15, 2017 15:06

Great Metal Jesus: Jun 11, 2007; Got no use for psychiatry
I can talk to the voices
in my head for free
Mood swings like an axe
Into those around me
My tongue is a double agent

TROIKA CURES GREEK posted:

None, but the picture many on the left paint about free trade is often completely at odds with actual reality. The poorest countries today have better life expectancy and per capita income (ppp adjusted) than the richest countries 200 years ago. The average chinese person is massively better off than they were just 30 years ago. Billions have been lifted out of extreme poverty in the past 50 years. Etc etc etc.

The people hurt by free trade are the poor / middle classes of rich countries, by objective measures it has been very good for the global poor. Just look at the data.

As an example, when companies move production to mexico that sucks for the town who had the factory in the US but when they move to Mexico they often offer wages and working conditions that are really good relatively.

Iunno man, from my experience the left isn't saying "no trade ever" or anything like that (or at least most of them aren't). It's more that trade shouldn't be carried out in such a way that promotes rape sweatshops. But most of my experience with globalization comes from anthropology classes where the attitude was basically that globalization is inevitable, how do we work to make it as beneficial for everyone involved as possible?

# ? May 15, 2017 16:19

Bates: Jun 15, 2006

Ardennes posted:

Yeah, life expectancy in industrial cities actually fell during the early period of industrialization in Britain, it wasn't exactly a picnic.

I think the biggest issue if anything that system of trade, largely established on geopolitical grounds, ran its course and something obviously new needs to happen since there isn't a large wealthy middle class out there to produce the growing demand it once it.

Also, in all honesty, I think the working class/lower middle class in the First World has a right to ask questions about this entire project especially since the well-being of third world workers seems extremely tangential.

Sure but a direct solution to a dwindling middle class would be better labor protections, social programs, education and increased redistribution of wealth. It's not obvious how restricting trade is going to accomplish it. China for instance mainly exports low tech goods to the US so getting a piece of that pie might yield some Iphone assembly plants and plastic toy factories but you'll also lose some high tech exports - jet airliners, medical equipment etc. Is exchanging high tech for low tech manufacturing jobs a viable path to prosperity for the American middle class?

# ? May 15, 2017 16:31

Condiv: May 7, 2008; Sorry to undo the effort of paying a domestic abuser $10 to own this poster, but I am going to lose my dang mind if I keep seeing multiple posters who appear to be Baloogan.

With love,
a mod

Bates posted:

Sure but a direct solution to a dwindling middle class would be better labor protections, social programs, education and increased redistribution of wealth. It's not obvious how restricting trade is going to accomplish it. China for instance mainly exports low tech goods to the US so getting a piece of that pie might yield some Iphone assembly plants and plastic toy factories but you'll also lose some high tech exports - jet airliners, medical equipment etc. Is exchanging high tech for low tech manufacturing jobs a viable path to prosperity for the American middle class?

Labor protections for third world countries are considered restrictions on trade. That's how restricting trade will help the middle class too

# ? May 15, 2017 16:58

Ardennes: May 12, 2002

Bates posted:

Sure but a direct solution to a dwindling middle class would be better labor protections, social programs, education and increased redistribution of wealth. It's not obvious how restricting trade is going to accomplish it. China for instance mainly exports low tech goods to the US so getting a piece of that pie might yield some Iphone assembly plants and plastic toy factories but you'll also lose some high tech exports - jet airliners, medical equipment etc. Is exchanging high tech for low tech manufacturing jobs a viable path to prosperity for the American middle class?

It may be but the question is how much can actually be accomplished under our current political system. There is maybe some hope there can be selective restrictions on trade, everything else you mentioned...not so much.

Also, it may be worth exchanging jobs depending on what you are getting out of it, there is always give and take.

# ? May 15, 2017 17:20

Ytlaya: Nov 13, 2005

asdf32 posted:

And you're blatantly misunderstanding reality. Sweatshops don't crop up where there there used to be economic prosperity so if you think they exist where people have lost their livelihoods its because you've bought into anecdotal propaganda aimed at the naive.

It's possible for something to technically improve conditions for people while also being blatant exploitation and deeply immoral. For example, if a super rich man found some homeless, destitute people and had them work for him in exchange for food and board (but just enough for them to survive and get by), he would still be a bad person for not paying them a better wage for their work.

The key point is that wealthy individuals/organizations begin from a position of power, so it is still immoral for them to exploit super poor people by making them slightly less poor and pocketing most of the money they earn for them. This isn't some fair exchange between equal parties; destitute people in the developing countries are in such a situation that even sweatshop labor and wages are often an improvement, so wealthy businesses can easily take advantage of them.

All this being said, I'm not really against trade and think that protectionism isn't really a productive direction for leftists to go. I think it's better to focus on forcing domestic businesses to only do business with foreign companies that provide good wages/conditions to their workers. Given the complexity of modern supply chains this would be difficult, but it's still better to attempt to enforce such rules.

(It's also worth considering the negative long term effect it can have on a country for its economy to focus on cheap labor for wealthy developed nations. That topic is complex enough that I don't feel comfortable discussing it myself, but it's important to understand that, for some countries, structuring their economy like this might stunt any greater future growth. Countries like China are an exception, because it's a very large nation with immense material and labor resources, but for many smaller nations the "cheap labor for developed nations -> becoming a developed nation themselves" pathway probably doesn't exist.)

# ? May 15, 2017 17:39

Nude Bog Lurker: Jan 2, 2007; Fun Shoe

9-Volt Assault posted:

I just love people who say ''but global poverty is decreasing'' because those same people always forget why countries suffered from crippling poverty. Europe and the US kept countries poor for centuries, now those countries get a tiny scrap of the pie because it suits European and US interests and people go ''look! capitalism works just fine!''.

The best time in Europe was when all common lands got enclosed by the wealthy and farmers got kicked out of their lands and told to move to a city to work in a factory. But hey, you got some coins in exchange for working 14 hours a day so you were ''lifted out of poverty''!

'you're better off than you used to be but its not fully automatic luxury space communism now so it's actually bad'

middle-class internet 'radicals' really are the worst

# ? May 15, 2017 21:28

NewForumSoftware: Oct 8, 2016; by Lowtax

"You're better off than you used to be" Nude Bog Lurker smirks as he throws half a package of raw bacon down to the family he keeps locked in his basement

# ? May 15, 2017 21:46

Private Speech: Mar 30, 2011; I HAVE EVEN MORE WORTHLESS BEANIE BABIES IN MY COLLECTION THAN I HAVE WORTHLESS POSTS IN THE BEANIE BABY THREAD YET I STILL HAVE THE TEMERITY TO CRITICIZE OTHERS' COLLECTIONS

IF YOU SEE ME TALKING ABOUT BEANIE BABIES, PLEASE TELL ME TO

EAT. SHIT.

Ytlaya posted:

It's possible for something to technically improve conditions for people while also being blatant exploitation and deeply immoral. For example, if a super rich man found some homeless, destitute people and had them work for him in exchange for food and board (but just enough for them to survive and get by), he would still be a bad person for not paying them a better wage for their work.

The key point is that wealthy individuals/organizations begin from a position of power, so it is still immoral for them to exploit super poor people by making them slightly less poor and pocketing most of the money they earn for them. This isn't some fair exchange between equal parties; destitute people in the developing countries are in such a situation that even sweatshop labor and wages are often an improvement, so wealthy businesses can easily take advantage of them.

All this being said, I'm not really against trade and think that protectionism isn't really a productive direction for leftists to go. I think it's better to focus on forcing domestic businesses to only do business with foreign companies that provide good wages/conditions to their workers. Given the complexity of modern supply chains this would be difficult, but it's still better to attempt to enforce such rules.

(It's also worth considering the negative long term effect it can have on a country for its economy to focus on cheap labor for wealthy developed nations. That topic is complex enough that I don't feel comfortable discussing it myself, but it's important to understand that, for some countries, structuring their economy like this might stunt any greater future growth. Countries like China are an exception, because it's a very large nation with immense material and labor resources, but for many smaller nations the "cheap labor for developed nations -> becoming a developed nation themselves" pathway probably doesn't exist.)

The thing is, if you would mandate that companies have to treat workers abroad same as local ones, there would be absolutely zero reasons for >99% of overseas production. By employing overseas/non-American population you are introducing quality issues, possibility of cultural/linguistic misunderstandings, have less-educated workforce which is thus much more error-prone and less productive, introduce communication issues with the workers, add costs for managing overseas operations, etc., etc. Humans do have differing values to the global economy as workers, and as it happens that value in developed countries is far higher.

What you propose would be one of the most comprehensive ways to ensure that nothing, or at least nothing which doesn't absolutely have to be, is produced in less-developed countries at all, plunging them into utter destitution and poverty. Even things for their domestic consumption would almost certainly be produced under better conditions in America if you take out wages from the equation. Quite often they are even now anyway, for at least a part of the supply chain.

It probably wouldn't be so bad for the developed countries though. Good job saving the world from exploitation there.

e: Also, as someone who was born in a post-soviet country, I can tell you that people relish massively the increase in living standards in the last 25 years, even if they are in relative poverty compared to most of the US. (talking about a relatively well-off one for the region here) Perhaps it's hard to understand when you look at living standards and go all :lol:

I'd never, ever, put up with that, but for a lot of people in other countries those are hard-won positions, in some countries even having access to regular food and clothing is easily worth working 10 hours a day for.

e2: As a second point it's ludicrous to say that countries whose economy is growing often several times faster than the ones in the US don't benefit. Yes even with that growth they have decades or centuries to go, but that's just how it is, economic development is an incredibly lengthy process.

Private Speech fucked around with this message at 23:20 on May 15, 2017

# ? May 15, 2017 22:44

Ytlaya: Nov 13, 2005

Private Speech posted:

The thing is, if you would mandate that companies have to treat workers abroad same as local ones, there would be absolutely zero reasons for >99% of overseas production. By employing overseas/non-American population you are introducing quality issues, possibility of cultural/linguistic misunderstandings, have less-educated workforce which is thus much more error-prone and less productive, introduce communication issues with the workers, add costs for managing overseas operations, etc., etc. Humans do have differing values to the global economy as workers, and as it happens that value in developed countries is far higher.

What you propose would be one of the most comprehensive ways to ensure that nothing, or at least nothing which doesn't absolutely have to be, is produced in less-developed countries at all, plunging them into utter destitution and poverty. Even things for their domestic consumption would almost certainly be produced under better conditions in America if you take out wages from the equation. Quite often they are even now anyway, for at least a part of the supply chain.

It probably wouldn't be so bad for the developed countries though. Good job saving the world from exploitation there.

e: Also, as someone who was born in a post-soviet country, I can tell you that people relish massively the increase in living standards in the last 25 years, even if they are in relative poverty compared to most of the US.

Nah, labor could still be significantly cheaper in other countries. Living wage in many countries is less in terms of US dollars than it is in the US, so even if you require decent wages it still would end up being cheaper to employ people in many developing nations. I'm not saying that you would require overseas firms (that domestic firms work with) adhere to US minimum wages or whatever. They would just have to provide wages that provide a reasonable quality of life in the country in question.

edit: And that's not even considering the fact that the labor markets are different in different countries. The amount US workers would want to be paid for X job might be greater than the amount workers in another country would ask to be paid for that same job, even if both amounts are greater than a reasonable living wage (i.e. US workers might be unwilling to do a job for less than $20/hr, while foreign workers would be okay doing it for the equivalent of $15/hr).

Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 23:20 on May 15, 2017

# ? May 15, 2017 23:17

Private Speech: Mar 30, 2011; I HAVE EVEN MORE WORTHLESS BEANIE BABIES IN MY COLLECTION THAN I HAVE WORTHLESS POSTS IN THE BEANIE BABY THREAD YET I STILL HAVE THE TEMERITY TO CRITICIZE OTHERS' COLLECTIONS

IF YOU SEE ME TALKING ABOUT BEANIE BABIES, PLEASE TELL ME TO

EAT. SHIT.

Ytlaya posted:

Nah, labor could still be significantly cheaper in other countries. Living wage in many countries is less in terms of US dollars than it is in the US, so even if you require decent wages it still would end up being cheaper to employ people in many developing nations. I'm not saying that you would require overseas firms (that domestic firms work with) adhere to US minimum wages or whatever. They would just have to provide wages that provide a reasonable quality of life in the country in question.

edit: And that's not even considering the fact that the labor markets are different in different countries. The amount US workers would want to be paid for X job might be greater than the amount workers in another country would ask to be paid for that same job, even if both amounts are greater than a reasonable living wage (i.e. US workers might be unwilling to do a job for less than $20/hr, while foreign workers would be okay doing it for the equivalent of $15/hr).

That's still the same thing, except on a smaller scale. The key thing is that investment decisions are not about the cost of living in other countries, but rather the profitability of employing foreign workers. Not to mention that cost of living correlates fairly closely with wages, even on a regional level, so there's not even any practical way to maintain such a scheme.

Foreign countries wouldn't actually let overseas companies invest in them out of goodness of their hearts if it damaged their economy. And before you go all - oh it must be corruption then, there are quite significant controls on corruption for American companies, and in any case the corruption there is is nowhere as overt as it would have to be for something like that.

World loving sucks and is poor as hell.

Private Speech fucked around with this message at 23:30 on May 15, 2017

# ? May 15, 2017 23:23

Ytlaya: Nov 13, 2005

Private Speech posted:

That's still the same thing, except on a smaller scale. The key thing is that investment decisions are not about the cost of living in other countries, but rather the profitability of employing foreign workers. Not to mention that cost of living correlates fairly closely with wages, even on a regional level.

Foreign countries wouldn't actually let overseas companies invest in them if it damaged their economy, out of goodness of their hearts. And before you go all - oh it must be corruption then, there are quite significant controls on corruption for American companies, and in any case it's nowhere as overt as that would require.

Yes, none of this means that requiring certain labor standards and reasonable (for the region in question) wages would somehow mean that most overseas labor comes back to the US. Labor markets in different countries are different, exchange rates are different - there are many reasons why corporations would still find it more profitable to hire overseas labor (or contract with overseas businesses).

# ? May 15, 2017 23:30

Private Speech: Mar 30, 2011; I HAVE EVEN MORE WORTHLESS BEANIE BABIES IN MY COLLECTION THAN I HAVE WORTHLESS POSTS IN THE BEANIE BABY THREAD YET I STILL HAVE THE TEMERITY TO CRITICIZE OTHERS' COLLECTIONS

IF YOU SEE ME TALKING ABOUT BEANIE BABIES, PLEASE TELL ME TO

EAT. SHIT.

Ytlaya posted:

Yes, none of this means that requiring certain labor standards and reasonable (for the region in question) wages would somehow mean that most overseas labor comes back to the US. Labor markets in different countries are different, exchange rates are different - there are many reasons why corporations would still find it more profitable to hire overseas labor (or contract with overseas businesses).

You keep saying that, but what are those reasons? The only real reason I know of for the vast majority of production in less-developed countries is low cost of labour.

e: And we're talking even things like pharmaceutical research, software development, advanced manufacturing, etc. Developed countries have a huge amount of advantages in terms of technology, infrastructure and education which make their population more productive.

e2: The only way to solve the problem of globalisation without causing more misery would be to initiate massive wealth transfers from the developed countries to the developing ones, bringing everyone on the same level. For obvious reasons nobody living in the developed countries is very keen on this though.

Private Speech fucked around with this message at 23:42 on May 15, 2017

# ? May 15, 2017 23:32

Ytlaya: Nov 13, 2005

Private Speech posted:

You keep saying that, but what are those reasons? The only real reason I know of for the vast majority of production in less-developed countries is low cost of labour.

e: And we're talking even things like pharmaceutical research, software development, advanced manufacturing, etc. Developed countries have a huge amount of advantages in terms of technology, infrastructure and education which make their population more productive.

e2: The only way to solve the problem of globalisation without causing more misery would be to initiate massive wealth transfers from the developed countries to the developing ones, bringing everyone on the same level. For obvious reasons nobody living in the developed countries is very keen on this though.

Like I said, workers in developing countries may be more willing to do certain work for lower pay than workers in developed countries. Even if you require reasonable pay and working standards, that doesn't mean that workers in different countries will suddenly be asking for the exact same wages. Just like it costs more or less to hire different types of employees in different parts of the US, the same is even more true in different countries.

And probably the most obvious thing is what I mentioned about costs of living and exchange rates being different. How strong or weak a currency is relative to another foreign currency influences how competitive products manufactured in a country are compared with the other country. If firms from developed countries (or the foreign businesses that contract with them) increase pay and standards, it's not going to suddenly cause the dollar-equivalent cost of living to be the same as in the US or other developed nations. While increased pay will increase cost of living somewhat, it's certainly not going to become the same as it is in Western developed nations (or at least not for many, many years).

To look at things from the other side and further illustrate why what you're saying doesn't make sense, we already make some attempt to crack down on stuff like literal slavery or particularly egregious labor violations. There's no reason to think that raising that bar will suddenly make all outsourced labor equally competitive with US labor.

Jobs in fields like software development, etc aren't even the sorts of jobs we're generally discussing, since we're talking about outsourced jobs that don't pay a reasonable wage and maintain reasonable safety standards, etc. Those sorts of skilled jobs, even if they might pay less in India or whatever, still usually pay enough for someone to make a reasonable living given the cost of living in those countries.

# ? May 16, 2017 04:42

Xae: Jan 19, 2005

Ardennes posted:

Yeah, life expectancy in industrial cities actually fell during the early period of industrialization in Britain, it wasn't exactly a picnic.

I think the biggest issue if anything that system of trade, largely established on geopolitical grounds, ran its course and something obviously new needs to happen since there isn't a large wealthy middle class out there to produce the growing demand it once it.

Also, in all honesty, I think the working class/lower middle class in the First World has a right to ask questions about this entire project especially since the well-being of third world workers seems extremely tangential.

Cities were a net population sink until sanitation. There was a few exceptions in the western or classical world, but it wasn't until the 1700-1800s that cities started producing more people than they killed. Cities always sucked. There was different degrees of suck, but the suck was always there.

Cities were a place that the surplus population of the countryside went to die. When this changed during industrialization it caused a huge amount of social upheaval.

# ? May 16, 2017 05:59

Ardennes: May 12, 2002

Private Speech posted:

You keep saying that, but what are those reasons? The only real reason I know of for the vast majority of production in less-developed countries is low cost of labour.

e: And we're talking even things like pharmaceutical research, software development, advanced manufacturing, etc. Developed countries have a huge amount of advantages in terms of technology, infrastructure and education which make their population more productive.

e2: The only way to solve the problem of globalisation without causing more misery would be to initiate massive wealth transfers from the developed countries to the developing ones, bringing everyone on the same level. For obvious reasons nobody living in the developed countries is very keen on this though.

The issue is anything needs to be ideological change, not necessarily to " full communism" (although one can always debate it) but away from the completely short-sighted way globalization has been managed. In order for those workers in the developing world to have a job, they need a large and stable middle class in the First World. In addition, there is the constant threat of automation which is constantly putting pressure on wages everywhere.

While probably the most direct route would be wealth distribution in some form, the most solution that means to be even marginally allowed is trade policy. The question is are workers in the developing world better off if there is a longer and more stable transition or that the first world collapses into far-right authoritarianism because that is the only "out" for workers in the developed world?

# ? May 16, 2017 08:04

Ardennes: May 12, 2002

Ardennes posted:

The issue is anything needs to be ideological change, not necessarily to " full communism" (although one can always debate it) but away from the completely short-sighted way globalization has been managed. In order for those workers in the developing world to have a job, they need a large and stable middle class in the First World. In addition, there is the constant threat of automation which is constantly putting pressure on wages everywhere.

While probably the most direct route would be wealth redistribution in some form, the most solution that means to be even marginally allowed is trade policy. The question is are workers in the developing world better off if there is a longer and more stable transition or that the first world collapses into far-right authoritarianism because that is the only "out" for workers in the developed world?

# ? May 16, 2017 08:06

Lightning Lord: Feb 21, 2013; $200 a day, plus expenses

If the total far right collapse happens there will probably be a ton of resource grabbing by force so that's no solution either

# ? May 16, 2017 11:34

Private Speech: Mar 30, 2011; I HAVE EVEN MORE WORTHLESS BEANIE BABIES IN MY COLLECTION THAN I HAVE WORTHLESS POSTS IN THE BEANIE BABY THREAD YET I STILL HAVE THE TEMERITY TO CRITICIZE OTHERS' COLLECTIONS

IF YOU SEE ME TALKING ABOUT BEANIE BABIES, PLEASE TELL ME TO

EAT. SHIT.

Ardennes posted:

While probably the most direct route would be wealth distribution in some form, the most solution that means to be even marginally allowed is trade policy. The question is are workers in the developing world better off if there is a longer and more stable transition or that the first world collapses into far-right authoritarianism because that is the only "out" for workers in the developed world?

So basically your message is: workers of the less-developed world, you'll have to get hosed again because some of our poor people got their feefees hurt living in better conditions than majority of your population, and we are the ones in power so bend over and take it?

Real stirring stuff

# ? May 16, 2017 12:47

Private Speech: Mar 30, 2011; I HAVE EVEN MORE WORTHLESS BEANIE BABIES IN MY COLLECTION THAN I HAVE WORTHLESS POSTS IN THE BEANIE BABY THREAD YET I STILL HAVE THE TEMERITY TO CRITICIZE OTHERS' COLLECTIONS

IF YOU SEE ME TALKING ABOUT BEANIE BABIES, PLEASE TELL ME TO

EAT. SHIT.

Ytlaya posted:

Jobs in fields like software development, etc aren't even the sorts of jobs we're generally discussing, since we're talking about outsourced jobs that don't pay a reasonable wage and maintain reasonable safety standards, etc. Those sorts of skilled jobs, even if they might pay less in India or whatever, still usually pay enough for someone to make a reasonable living given the cost of living in those countries.

no, skilled workers still live like utter poo poo compared to workers in the developed world.

quote:

To look at things from the other side and further illustrate why what you're saying doesn't make sense, we already make some attempt to crack down on stuff like literal slavery or particularly egregious labor violations. There's no reason to think that raising that bar will suddenly make all outsourced labor equally competitive with US labor.

There's cracking down on slavery and labour violations, and then there's rolling back global trade because, I dunno, life outside the developed world loving sucks. No poo poo it does, it's because there's no money or infrastructure, not because of the evil people in the US buying things made there.

e: sorry for the double post

Private Speech fucked around with this message at 13:28 on May 16, 2017

# ? May 16, 2017 13:26

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

Private Speech posted:

Foreign countries wouldn't actually let overseas companies invest in them out of goodness of their hearts if it damaged their economy.

Pffffttt ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

# ? May 16, 2017 13:33

Private Speech: Mar 30, 2011; I HAVE EVEN MORE WORTHLESS BEANIE BABIES IN MY COLLECTION THAN I HAVE WORTHLESS POSTS IN THE BEANIE BABY THREAD YET I STILL HAVE THE TEMERITY TO CRITICIZE OTHERS' COLLECTIONS

IF YOU SEE ME TALKING ABOUT BEANIE BABIES, PLEASE TELL ME TO

EAT. SHIT.

rudatron posted:

Pffffttt ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

Laugh all you want. Do you think other countries are not sovereign and have no agency and ability to implement economic policy leading to sustained and rapid growth? Some aren't granted, but most are.

It's just that there's a really long way to go. Taking away outward export opportunities will do nothing but harm that growth.

e:

Private Speech fucked around with this message at 13:48 on May 16, 2017

# ? May 16, 2017 13:35

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

A lot of these poor countries are indebted to organizations like the IMF. As part of the the loan 'restructuring' agreements, they have to adopt pro-investor policies, privatize services and such, regardless of whether or not it's a good thing for the country.
Poor, smaller countries need access to the world markets, and the largest markets like the US, if they're are to develop. But the US/EU/such use that dependency to enforce unfair trade deals to their benefit, i,e. strict patent rules, and 'free trade' agreements that still have the US subsidizing agriculture.
The reduction in world poverty is 100% due to china, and china has been very careful to not adopt free trade policies, and indeed, has been pretty aggressive when it comes to foreign investors calling the shots. They have a lot more restrictions than most of these other countries, the one's we're talking about.

rudatron fucked around with this message at 13:53 on May 16, 2017

# ? May 16, 2017 13:48

Private Speech: Mar 30, 2011; I HAVE EVEN MORE WORTHLESS BEANIE BABIES IN MY COLLECTION THAN I HAVE WORTHLESS POSTS IN THE BEANIE BABY THREAD YET I STILL HAVE THE TEMERITY TO CRITICIZE OTHERS' COLLECTIONS

IF YOU SEE ME TALKING ABOUT BEANIE BABIES, PLEASE TELL ME TO

EAT. SHIT.

rudatron posted:

A lot of these poor countries are indebted to organizations like the IMF. As part of the the loan 'restructuring' agreements, they have to adopt pro-investor policies, privatize services and such, regardless of whether or not it's a good thing for the country.
Poor, smaller countries need access to the world markets, and the largest markets like the US, if they're are to develop, but the US/EU/such use that dependency to enforce strict patent rules and 'free trade' agreements that still have the US subsidizing agriculture.
The reduction in world poverty is 100% due to china, and china has been very careful to not adopt free trade policies, and indeed, has been pretty aggressive when it comes to foreign investors calling the shots. They have a lot more restrictions than most of these other countries, the one's we're talking about.

That's all great, but the major real concern of those countries is not to be as poor as they are. If you compare historical rates of development to the ones post-1960 it's easy to see how much they've benefited.

Austerity is essentially a sideshow. I don't see why it has to be connected to globalisation at all. Also yes it's dumb? But the IMF debts are due to internal corruption and economic mismanagement, they have not been caused by global trade.

e: Also the protectionist measures of EU and US are the very opposite of free trade, if anything they are an argument as to why protectionist measures by the developed world are majorly damaging to the developing one.

There's no magic wand to fix developing countries by ending their exploitation. What they need is money, resources, education, etc. to reduce their misery. I don't think you appreciate just how poor most places in the world are, and I think there's a degree of otherisation going on - many people on the left are really only concerned with poverty in their own nations, and merely pay lip service to the developing world.

There's certain wilful ignorance regarding that. What the left should be concerned about is how to reduce poverty in developing nations, rich countries should essentially be mostly irrelevant to the discussion.

And I can't see a single way that stopping the flow of investment and resources into developing nations would help.

Private Speech fucked around with this message at 14:03 on May 16, 2017

# ? May 16, 2017 13:53

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 4, 2024 05:09

NewForumSoftware: Oct 8, 2016; by Lowtax

Private Speech posted:

What the left should be concerned about is how to reduce poverty in developing nations, rich countries should essentially be mostly irrelevant to the discussion.

Why should the left care about reducing poverty in developing nations when there are hungry children here? If we can't equitably distribute resources in our own country there's no reason to be worrying about places thousands of miles away. Why don't we just try not bombing some developing countries, maybe that will help.

# ? May 16, 2017 14:08

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The WTO/Free Trade Thread - "Let them eat Mud Cakes"

«‹›3 »