Direct Action. What'd you think?

You're right. It goes directly to workers and whatnot.

Fact of the matter is, even if China were a democracy, people would still be willing to work for cheap. Sure, not everyone - but there would always be someone that would be willing to do that job for a little bit cheaper.

Mark the low wages as a direct result of Communism. AKA, "Not the United States' fucking fault".

[jet_silver]

Bit of a circular definition problem, Jag -

Poverty: Relative living conditions compared to the first world.

First world lifestyles are supported by third world poverty.

This isn't the point I'm going after, what I'm going to do is attack the term 'supported', but I may as well do a clean job of demolition. If 'shit forgoten name of organisation' has a definition of poverty, would that be acceptable?

[jaguar]

I'm working two jobs atm, i don't have lal the itme in the world to do research which is why i put that so i could come back later and put it in. The UNDP site does have a list but you will have to browse to each individual section.

Circular?
Point?
The high living conditions of one group are sustained by the low wages of another lower group - seems pretty logical to me.

Dhamsaic goddamnit i'm quite sure i'm more cynical abut this than you - i've visited a few of these facories, but eventully it does flow back. Its slow and not what many would define as 'fair' but it does, eventully.

Fact of the matter is, even if China were a democracy, people would still be willing to work for cheap. Sure, not everyone - but there would always be someone that would be willing to do that job for a little bit cheaper.

Erm...Whatever the goverment poor people in poor nations are going to do work for less than wealthy people in wealthy nations (for the more fastidious amoungst ill define that as OECD nations for now) . I'd mark th low wages the result of poverty - not directly the Us's fucking fault (i don't remember blaming the US or for that matter anyone - you're getting more knee-jerk by the day)

Its a kind of global version of the class structure that was so prevalent in the 19th centuary, defined..stratas? of society. The top reliant on thos below to maintain thier opulant conditions. They did this because they had control of the wealth...hm....

I think you misinterpreted some of what I wrote, so let me clarify real quick.

People will always work less if they want the job. Example? If some company comes along and says "look, we got this work that needs to be done. Jaguar said he'd do it for $20/hour. Can you beat that?" - if I'm desperate for money, I'll say "Sure. How's $18/hour sound?" Now, personally, I wouldn't work for $18/hour, but you get the idea. People will outbid each other. Of course some Rwandan dude works for cheaper than I do. What I'm saying is, someone can always jump in and offer to do the job for less. If they need money, they'll do that.

As far as the US and assigning blame - that comes from your numbers of US imports from China. If you had used Australia, I would have said "Not Australia's fucking fault". But we were talking about a specific example - that being China and the United States. I was just submitting my contention that it's the Chinese government that keeps the people there poor, not the first world.

Chill out dude, I'm not ripping on you yet

[jaguar]

Where did i say US imports? i only stated the absolute value of Chinese exports in US dollars...

Its mare than that though - $2 an hour in Vietnam is allot of money for your average peasent, its in first would it wouldn't buy you lunch. Its not a matter of out competing, its a completely different scale.

China keeping its people poor? Hmm...don't think so. THere is an emerging middle class in China thats growing by the day, it does take a long, long itme to raise over 1 billion people from poverty you know. That midlde class also applies to most of these countires - once again vietnam particualry comes to mind as iv'e seenit myself. Why? because of forgin investment generating jobs that eventully are handeled by Vietnamese not forign managers, its simply cheaper for the companies once they've trained them up - thats how it benifits the communities in the long run becasue then that new middle class have more disposeable income to support a new servies industry etcetcetc until you end up with a first-worldish economy. Ah i love macroeconomics.

At the same time the exploitation does still smell pretty iffy - i'm not going to start defending capatilism

[Undertoad]

Don't defend Capitalism? My good sir, you've just correctly pointed out how it can build an entire country up out of nothing! In the long run, I don't think there is any question whatsoever that a free economy is incredibly beneficial for the people in it. That sort of idea could use some defending!

There is a ton of historical economic evidence that trade is always good for both partners. Look at NAFTA, for instance. On the US side it was followed by the longest growth period ever, including the lowest unemployment in thirty years; on Mexico's side, massive cities are emerging on the border, with things they've not had before, like electricity and running water.

Maybe one of our resident Canucks can tell us how the great white north has benefitted, or at least, what portion of benefit is left after paying the many different taxes on it.

And labor is just one more thing to trade.

The problems all come in the short run. Of course, in the long run, we're all dead, so our woes in the present are what interest us. A free economy will cough up injustices and weird temporary economic conditions that throw people for a loop. These conditions are like the weather: arbitrary, unpredictable, and so huge as to be uncontrollable. But the people demand that we attempt to control them, and so "economic stimulus packages" come about. The effect of which is roughly like farting in a tornado.

In the end, I suppose the right thing to say is "Capitalism sucks. It just sucks less than everything else that's come along so far."

[jet_silver]

Circular? Point?
The high living conditions of one group are sustained by the low wages of another lower group - seems pretty logical to me.

Jag, it isn't permissible to frame the definition of one thing in terms of another that points back to the first, like this: A=B; B=A. That is a circular definition. It also is Not Done to illustrate your definition by re-stating your initial point.

That over with, I will be happy to do either of the following:

1)take the definition of the 47 poorest countries shown in http://www.jubilee2000uk.org/databan...s/received.htm, the definition of poverty as shown in http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/copen3.htm, and the mushy definition of 'lifestyle' as a typical list of expenditures by a family of four whose income is $50K US/yr and see whether these 47 countries have -any- impact on it, or

2)point you to the aforementioned http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/copen3.htm and ask why the OECD and the UN president both think -lowering- trade barriers with "developing" countries is a swell idea - the idea to make -more- trade happen, not less, in case that was not obvious. Given that the thesis of your argument is that my lifestyle is somehow owes a debt to the poor in the third world, these organizations seem to be calling for more of the same.

This little exercise has made me profoundly grateful that I stuck with engineering and didn't try any of the pseudosciences, like business administration or sociology.

[jaguar]

Jag, it isn't permissible to frame the definition of one thing in terms of another that points back to the first, like this: A=B; B=A. That is a circular definition. It also is Not Done to illustrate your definition by re-stating your initial point.

So you’re basically saying that poverty is an abstract concept instead of relative. But then you go on to site a list that makes the idea of poverty relative - the 47 poorest? Argh make your mind up already - then again don't bother - i'm setting the definitions.

1)take the definition of the 47 poorest countries shown in http://www.jubilee2000uk.org/databa...es/received.htm, the definition of poverty as shown in http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/copen3.htm, and the mushy definition of 'lifestyle' as a typical list of expenditures by a family of four whose income is $50K US/yr and see whether these 47 countries have -any- impact on it, or

I already stated a source for countries, the UNDP - use it.
As for this definition it is not poverty it is *extreme poverty* not poverty. I made the statement as a result I get to choose the definitions - I’m not going to argue my point inside your structure that’s just plain silly so if you want to talk about poverty use the UNDP that i listed not whater source you choose then try to use that as a basis to attack my statement. As for lifestyle, once again this is very hard ot nail down, forget whatever vague structure and listing you were planning on disecting, its so narrow its irrelavent, try statistics, much more useful.

TO possible give a better picture of the scope of whats in volved you have to think not jsut of what is in your house but the impact on companies and therefore the impact on thier workins and workforce size. If nike had to move its operations of let say 100,000 workers based mostly in indonesia nad VIetnam (very rough estimate) to the US, from between currant hourly income of $.60 - $2 for 10 6 hours a day to the US, with a $5-8 a hour fee - how much would it eat into thier profits? Would they go for automation and therefore leave tens of thousands out of work eventully? Think bigger when it comes to impact.

Since hypertheticals are the order of the day try this - imagien if that happened to every company that curarntly uses labour in these counties - how large would the resulting impact be on our economies, severly reduced profits casuing shareprice slides triggers a possible recesion as thousands are laid off.

2)point you to the aforementioned http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/copen3.htm and ask why the OECD and the UN president both think -lowering- trade barriers with "developing" countries is a swell idea - the idea to make -more- trade happen, not less, in case that was not obvious. Given that the thesis of your argument is that my lifestyle is somehow owes a debt to the poor in the third world, these organizations seem to be calling for more of the same.

I tried to make sense of this but how this was relevant stumped me completely. Of course they want to lower trade barriers, as I’ve stated once or twice before it does benefit the countries involved on both sides - it’s mutually beneficial. Since it doesn't strike me as likely that the hypothetical f the entire third world disappearing overnight then I don't see why more trade shouldn't happen inside my statement.

This little exercise has made me profoundly grateful that I stuck with engineering and didn't try any of the pseudosciences, like business administration or sociology.

I'm glad you liek black and white but reality like this is allll grey.

[jet_silver]

Let's not play games, Jag.

I already stated a source for countries, the UNDP - use it.

*sigh* POINT TO A LIST, not pages you claim are there, somewhere. You're the only one who hasn't got time? Try this little exercise. Go to the UNDP site. Click on 'Africa'. Now, point to the list you state is there. Is it the 'country office websites'? Get serious.

Jag, please provide, or point to, a (single) -list of countries that you say make up the third world-, not some vaporous kit of links you can't bother to show. If this is too much trouble, then you can -define in money terms-, if you wish, what the third world is (e.g. GDP/capita > $Z.) But don't expect me to do your work for you.

you have to think not jsut of what is in your house but the impact on companies and therefore the impact on thier workins and workforce size.

That is what aggregate trade figures are for, to wash out this impact.

as I?ve stated once or twice before it does benefit the countries involved on both sides

Then you -do- see the relevance.

I'm glad you liek black and white but reality like this is allll grey.

Wow. Heavy, like, insight! Are you serious? The comment I took issue with was sanctimonious. This one is too. I'm getting the feeling you've watched a lot of TV programs about what life is like.

[jaguar]

If you went to the UNDP link there is a clear link to each continent on the sidebar. Since that is clearly too hard here is a direct ling ot each reigon.

Asia
Africa
Arab States
Europe
South America
There. Now - click on the down button on the list on countris, viola. No i don't ahve the itme to type them out - clicking on a link isn't that hard is it.

That is what aggregate trade figures are for, to wash out this impact.

Either i'm asleep or i missed something, explain.

Then you -do- see the relevance.

Mutually beneficial and mutually dependant. Moot point.

Wow. Heavy, like, insight! Are you serious? The comment I took issue with was sanctimonious. This one is too. I'm getting the feeling you've watched a lot of TV programs about what life is like.

I haven'twatched tv in about 4 months. Bite me. Well if you're gonna bitch about psuedosciences then ill make sanctimonious comments.

Now i think we can agree that poverty is a relative measure at least. Slow work *sighs*

[MaggieL]

All things considered, I think barak was more entertaining than jaguar is. :-)
I suppose that's nostalgia speaking.

[tw]

Originally posted by MaggieL
All things considered, I think barak was more entertaining than jaguar is. :-)
I suppose that's nostalgia speaking.

I'm still waiting for a response to my posts entitled "Hey Professor" so that he can justify the units of measure in his math. Why did I find a descrepancy and his book editor did not? If only he would respond....

I rather liked the guy - quite entertaining - until he 'cooked' his numbers - a mortal sin.

[jaguar]

Talking of never getting answers maggieL. Or tw.
Anyone care to inform who's oversized shoes i'm aparantly filling?

[MaggieL]

Not to worry. As I pointed out, you're not actually filling them. :-)

barak was resident Cellar troll for a while, back in the Usenet days of the Cellar, when only *local* riff-raff could afford to log in.

"Hire a teenager, while he still knows everything."

[tw]

Originally posted by jaguar
Talking of never getting answers maggieL. Or tw.
Anyone care to inform who's oversized shoes i'm aparantly filling?

Barak clearly let it be known he was black. He loved to bait the "suburban white boys" with a mixture of patronizing and condescending posts expressed in a "doctorial" or "Ivy League" manner. His purpose: I was never really sure. But he quickly tantalized and aggrevated some. It was rather amusing to watch some get so upset over such trivial concepts. There were times when I actually had to agree with Barak - albeit part of a post from time to time.

Recently Undertoad expressed a negative attitude towards the 'Barak experience'. That surprised me since during that time, Undertoad remained quite neutral and detached from the procedings - and they did procede.

However Barak did finally do the unforgiveable. He quoted some numeric conclusions from his book. He was held to define how he obtained those conclusions. The units of measure and the arithmetic, two separate errors as I recall, did not make sense. My "Hey Professor" post was a repeated attempt to have him explain those descrepancies. He never responded to multiple posts and eventually disappearred.

BTW, I don't consider you as a replacement for Barak. That is neither a complement nor an insult. Its just a plain fact that Barak was such an interesting character in that he could so 'bait and switch' others into frustration. Yes, I was amused. Others were not as entertained, as you may have noticed. To this day I don't know what his motives were. Maybe just to have fun? That is one possibility. You would have had to read those posts to appreciate what I mean.