The free market will correct unethical business practices.

[Hydesland]

So you disagree with all economists. Clearly some dude on the internet is smarter than left, right, centrists etc economists agreeing on a particular issue.

What issue?

[Sibirsky]

I'm just thinking that the market would be more competitive, there would be fewer barriers to entry, things like that.

But the richest would be unrestrained by their otherwise far higher taxes.

They would spend more on some of the things the taxes provide.

[Sibirsky]

So you disagree with all economists. Clearly some dude on the internet is smarter than left, right, centrists etc economists agreeing on a particular issue.

What issue?

Sweatshops in the third world. I doubt there is actually a unanimous agreement, but they generally agree, regardless of their broader view.

[Sibirsky]

So you disagree with all economists. Clearly some dude on the internet is smarter than left, right, centrists etc economists agreeing on a particular issue.

What issue?

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=91607&p=4489864&hilit=support+poverty#p4489864

[Hydesland]

Sweatshops in the third world. I doubt there is actually a unanimous agreement, but they generally agree, regardless of their broader view.

What about it? They may agree that banning outsourcing or raising tariffs wont actually help the situation, that doesn't they think it's caused by governmental intervention , or that it's a good thing.

[The Parkus Empire]

But the richest would be unrestrained by their otherwise far higher taxes.

They would spend more on some of the things the taxes provide.

Not really. Most of the taxes on the rich pay for the benefits of the poor and middle classes. If the rich only had to foot the bill for themselves, as far a law enforcement, fire department, transportation, medical, ect., it would be a helluva lot cheaper for them. Do you realize how much of the taxes come from the top 20%?

[Gthanp]

Oh, I understand the situation perfectly. The argument I believe is thus:
"Ya got to let us get away with unethical behaviour guys! It's only right! I mean, in the future, they'll totally be better off."

And it's complete crap. People don't become better off, with better wages and reasonable hours because of anything done for them by the businesses in question; rather, people's situations improve because they realize they've been taken advantage of and they're fucking pissed off about it. We see this happen again and again throughout history and if corporations could prevent their oppressed workers from wiseing up to the jig, they would. Take Wal-mart for example- it's very, very difficult if not impossible for workers to unionise- and Wal-mart has opposed laws that would have made it easier, and has engaged in PR campaigns against unions. In a ancap situation, the PR campaign would be replaced with a PDA campaign, and Wal-mart would bribe private courts to favour them.

There is no excuse for enslaving people in third world countries, none.

So you disagree with all economists. Clearly some dude on the internet is smarter than left, right, centrists etc economists agreeing on a particular issue.

Also, you did not read the entire post.

How About Joseph Stiglitz http://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2010 ... -approves/

Also if you read Krugman more you will find that some of his positions on this issue have changed based upon evidence we all see in the world today.

[Xomic]

So you disagree with all economists. Clearly some dude on the internet is smarter than left, right, centrists etc economists agreeing on a particular issue.

Also, you did not read the entire post.

Here's the brilliant irony of your post: First quote noted that it's only "some" left economists are agreeing on that point. The second quote essentially argues that since this girl knows nothing better, sweatshops are all right, and the third one is meaningless to my point.

But let's assume, for the moment, that all economists do support this point; they're still wrong because it is still immoral. The notion that we ought to submit people to horrors before they're allowed decent wages is an unbelievably corrupt and immoral position.

[Sibirsky]

They would spend more on some of the things the taxes provide.

Not really. Most of the taxes on the rich pay for the benefits of the poor and middle classes. If the rich only had to foot the bill for themselves, as far a law enforcement, fire department, transportation, medical, ect., it would be a helluva lot cheaper for them. Do you realize how much of the taxes come from the top 20%?

No idea. However the top 25% of income earners (that make 67.38% of income) pay 86.34% of income taxes.

Yes, they would save money. But there would be an easier way for the middle class and poor to open their own businesses. IIRC 67% of millionaires are business owners.

[The Parkus Empire]

Not really. Most of the taxes on the rich pay for the benefits of the poor and middle classes. If the rich only had to foot the bill for themselves, as far a law enforcement, fire department, transportation, medical, ect., it would be a helluva lot cheaper for them. Do you realize how much of the taxes come from the top 20%?

No idea. However the top 25% of income earners (that make 67.38% of income) pay 86.34% of income taxes.

Yes, they would save money. But there would be an easier way for the middle class and poor to open their own businesses. IIRC 67% of millionaires are business owners.

They would save a shitload of money. And the poor and middle class would have to foot that shitload, which would be a mighty big burden. All-in-all, I don't see how that would make opening businesses easier for the middle-class or the poor.

[Sibirsky]

So you disagree with all economists. Clearly some dude on the internet is smarter than left, right, centrists etc economists agreeing on a particular issue.

Also, you did not read the entire post.

Here's the brilliant irony of your post: First quote noted that it's only "some" left economists are agreeing on that point. The second quote essentially argues that since this girl knows nothing better, sweatshops are all right, and the third one is meaningless to my point.

But let's assume, for the moment, that all economists do support this point; they're still wrong because it is still immoral. The notion that we ought to submit people to horrors before they're allowed decent wages is an unbelievably corrupt and immoral position.

The notion that legislation will improve these people's lives is silly. Increased production will. And, as Krugman said, it;s an important first step.

[Sibirsky]

No idea. However the top 25% of income earners (that make 67.38% of income) pay 86.34% of income taxes.

Yes, they would save money. But there would be an easier way for the middle class and poor to open their own businesses. IIRC 67% of millionaires are business owners.

They would save a shitload of money. And the poor and middle class would have to foot that shitload, which would be a mighty big burden. All-in-all, I don't see how that would make opening businesses easier for the middle-class or the poor.

Those services would be more efficient and cheaper. There would be some support in the form of charities.

[EnragedMaldivians]

Oh, I understand the situation perfectly. The argument I believe is thus:
"Ya got to let us get away with unethical behaviour guys! It's only right! I mean, in the future, they'll totally be better off."

And it's complete crap. People don't become better off, with better wages and reasonable hours because of anything done for them by the businesses in question; rather, people's situations improve because they realize they've been taken advantage of and they're fucking pissed off about it. We see this happen again and again throughout history and if corporations could prevent their oppressed workers from wiseing up to the jig, they would. Take Wal-mart for example- it's very, very difficult if not impossible for workers to unionise- and Wal-mart has opposed laws that would have made it easier, and has engaged in PR campaigns against unions. In a ancap situation, the PR campaign would be replaced with a PDA campaign, and Wal-mart would bribe private courts to favour them.

There is no excuse for enslaving people in third world countries, none.

So you disagree with all economists. Clearly some dude on the internet is smarter than left, right, centrists etc economists agreeing on a particular issue.

Also, you did not read the entire post.

Sirbisky is right on this issue Xomic; sweatshops are a necessary evil - and their alternatives to employment are much much worse. Anyone well informed on this issue agrees - read any economic sources you want, or heck, even Nicholas Kirstoff.

The practical effect is more important than any abstract moral stance you take.

[Ordo Drakul]

The free market will remove unethical behavior only if enough consumers are interested enough to boycott instances of unethical behavior. However, the average consumer isn't interested in ethics so much as the quality of the end product.
To expect an economic system is going to spread morality is terribly naive-I mean, honestly, did communism make Mao Tse-Tung or Stalin better people?
The free market is simply the best means of creating wealth across a spectrum of society-it democratizes but nothing else.

[Hydesland]

The notion that we ought to submit people to horrors before they're allowed decent wages is an unbelievably corrupt and immoral position.

That's not really what anybody says. The basic arguments come from the fact that pretty much every empirical case study of proactive measures in the western world against outsourcing didn't actually help matters. A banning of outsourcing or punitive raising of tariffs had the effect of putting these institutions in the third would out of business, putting their workers into impoverished unemployment, often causing them to resort to child prostitution or to join criminal gangs. That's not to say that anyone thinks the situation is fundamentally good, just that reforms need to be made on their side, rather than the western side punishing their already struggling economy and trade relations until they can comply (which is often impossible).

[The Parkus Empire]

They would save a shitload of money. And the poor and middle class would have to foot that shitload, which would be a mighty big burden. All-in-all, I don't see how that would make opening businesses easier for the middle-class or the poor.

Those services would be more efficient and cheaper. There would be some support in the form of charities.

Not that much cheaper--not even close. It could be half as much and not be close. And charities sure as fuck wouldn't cover it, unless you're talking the wealthy giving half their income to charity.

[Xomic]

The notion that legislation will improve these people's lives is silly.

Real shame history disagrees with you. As I said, all sweatshops do is piss workers off, and that is what leads to better working conditions, nothing corporations themselves do, and nothing they wouldn't stop if they could.

[The Parkus Empire]

Sirbisky is right on this issue Xomic; sweatshops are a necessary evil - and their alternatives to employment are much much worse. Anyone well informed on this issue agrees - read any economic sources you want, or heck, even Nicholas Kirstoff.

The practical effect is more important than any abstract moral stance you take.

Minimum wage and child labor laws in sweatshop countries would be a better alternative.

[Sibirsky]

So you disagree with all economists. Clearly some dude on the internet is smarter than left, right, centrists etc economists agreeing on a particular issue.

Also, you did not read the entire post.

Sirbisky is right on this issue Xomic; sweatshops are a necessary evil - and their alternatives to employment are much much worse. Anyone well informed on this issue agrees - read any economic sources you want, or heck, even Nicholas Kirstoff.

The practical effect is more important than any abstract moral stance you take.

I'm merely seeing a consensus of economists that do not agree to such a large degree on most issues. Therefore they must be right. And their view is supported by common sense.

[Gthanp]

The notion that we ought to submit people to horrors before they're allowed decent wages is an unbelievably corrupt and immoral position.

That's not really what anybody says. The basic arguments come from the fact that pretty much every empirical case study of proactive measures in the western world against outsourcing didn't actually help matters. A banning of outsourcing or punitive raising of tariffs had the effect of putting these institutions in the third would out of business, putting their workers into impoverished unemployment, often causing them to resort to child prostitution or to join criminal gangs. That's not to say that anyone thinks the situation is fundamentally good, just that reforms need to be made on their side, rather than the western side punishing their already struggling economy and trade relations until they can comply (which is often impossible).

Would part of that include recognizing worker's rights to organize, collectively bargain, and strike?

[Hydesland]

Would part of that include recognizing worker's rights to organize, collectively bargain, and strike?

I suppose so, yes.

[Sibirsky]

Those services would be more efficient and cheaper. There would be some support in the form of charities.

Not that much cheaper--not even close. It could be half as much and not be close. And charities sure as fuck wouldn't cover it, unless you're talking the wealthy giving half their income to charity.

No, they don't need to. However, charity would be cheaper than having to deal with crime. They'd also be more likely to provide jobs instead of charity. Lower crime and make money at the same time.

[Bosiu]

That's not really what anybody says. The basic arguments come from the fact that pretty much every empirical case study of proactive measures in the western world against outsourcing didn't actually help matters. A banning of outsourcing or punitive raising of tariffs had the effect of putting these institutions in the third would out of business, putting their workers into impoverished unemployment, often causing them to resort to child prostitution or to join criminal gangs. That's not to say that anyone thinks the situation is fundamentally good, just that reforms need to be made on their side, rather than the western side punishing their already struggling economy and trade relations until they can comply (which is often impossible).

Would part of that include recognizing worker's rights to organize, collectively bargain, and strike?

As long as they respect the employer to hire, fire and lay-off.

[Farnhamia]

That's not really what anybody says. The basic arguments come from the fact that pretty much every empirical case study of proactive measures in the western world against outsourcing didn't actually help matters. A banning of outsourcing or punitive raising of tariffs had the effect of putting these institutions in the third would out of business, putting their workers into impoverished unemployment, often causing them to resort to child prostitution or to join criminal gangs. That's not to say that anyone thinks the situation is fundamentally good, just that reforms need to be made on their side, rather than the western side punishing their already struggling economy and trade relations until they can comply (which is often impossible).

Would part of that include recognizing worker's rights to organize, collectively bargain, and strike?

And what part recognizes the jobs lost in the West when companies outsource? Western workers are not immune to the effects of becoming unemployed.

[Sibirsky]

Sirbisky is right on this issue Xomic; sweatshops are a necessary evil - and their alternatives to employment are much much worse. Anyone well informed on this issue agrees - read any economic sources you want, or heck, even Nicholas Kirstoff.

The practical effect is more important than any abstract moral stance you take.

Minimum wage and child labor laws in sweatshop countries would be a better alternative.

Only if they are ready.