Forum menu
You do not HAVE to exploit poor people when you trade with a developing nation. And many companies do not.
You don't HAVE to, but, way, way too many do.
Like I said earlier on, we can only live the lives we live because there are shed loads (literally) of people far away doing things we don't want to.
Like I said earlier on, we can only live the lives we live because there are shed loads (literally) of people far away doing things we don't want to.
Do you think they'd rather be working in a factory on £3 per hour, or scratching in the fields in a subsistence farming agro economy?
As I said earlier, its easy to romanticise when its not us wondering where the next meal is coming from.
Think of it this way - in the UK we regard call centre workers as pretty low down the pecking order - in India its a prestigious well paid job that a great many people would bite your arm off for.
You don't HAVE to, but, way, way too many do.
Agreed. See the fair trade initiative though.
Like I said earlier on, we can only live the lives we live because there are shed loads (literally) of people far away doing things we don't want to.
Yes, but they are often happy to do it because there's either not much work otherwise, or it pays well.
People flock over here from Eastern Europe to pick fruit or some such horrible work - they are happy to because they make tons of money. As long as they don't end up with somoneone exploiting them.
In Spain a while back they decided to crack down on illegal immigrants - who were being paid low wages. They did it successfully. The fruit lay rotting in the fields and lots of people in Eastern Europe were out of a summer job.
Molgrips - worth mentioning that most of those Eastern European workers work like bastards and save their money, so they can sent it back to their families at home. Credit to them!
But we are giving it to them. We can safely give them a lot less than we'd give someone here and it still equates to plenty of money for them. Because they live in poor countries and their living costs are low.They have a fixed resource - 8 hours a day of labour. We can either pay them fairly for it or not. Wealth is still flowing to them, the question is, is ENOUGH wealth flowing to them.
Wealth is not flowing to them. It works like this:
A worker in some third world country produces $11 worth of goods (at our prices).
We pay them $1 - that is $1 into their economy.
So that leaves $10 paid into our economy.
In other words their effort serves only to increase THE DIFFERENTIAL between their economy and our economy.
They will never be able to compete with us in buying resources, because we can always pay more for the things we really want.
However, this is a gross oversimplification due to a few other very big problems in the world.
1) We have finite resources and seem to be on (or beyond) the brink of using many of them.
2) As resources become rare more (not fewer) people will find goods and services beyond their grasp.
3) The US/China situation as mentioned above.
4) Our entire economy is based on debt. It REQUIRES economic growth to function.
In other words their effort serves only to increase THE DIFFERENTIAL between their economy and our economy.
If someone here did the work for $1 then there'd be $11 differential between their wealth and ours, instead of $10.
You're assuming they could make more than $1 elsewhere in their own country OR that they could make a $10 item on their own and that someone in their own country could buy it from them. Neither of which are a given.
Or to put it another way, if it wasn't for us there'd be no market for them to sell stuff, so no manufacturing and no job. (in some things not all).
Do you think they'd rather be working in a factory on £3 per hour, or scratching in the fields in a subsistence farming agro economy?
I think they'd rather be doing neither.
But while we have all the power and only give them those choices it's tough sh1t isn't it?
Monbiot is a simplistic fool. Who are 'the poor'? Are they all the same then? Can you lump them all into one mass and characterise them? Are people who graft the same as those that don't because they have the same income? Is everyone on benefits simply denied a chance? Is every wealthy worker uncaring? Simple caricatures tell you more about the prejudices of the writer than they do about the situation they describe. And its a fundamentally flawed piece of cod psychology. Other than that, no problems with it.
molgrips, you are making my point for me:
if it wasn't for us there'd be no market for them to sell stuff, so no manufacturing and no job
And you think that we take that responsibility seriously?
I agree with you that we have all the power.
My point is that we choose to exploit it ruthlessly.
If you had a brother and you were both on a desert island starving, then someone gave you a shopping trolly full of food. Do you think your brother should be grateful if you decided to let him have a biscuit?
And you think that we take that responsibility seriously?
No I don't!
My point is that we choose to exploit it ruthlessly.
I completely agree.
Hopefully, going forward, we can start to rebalance things a bit. Many major companies will stop using factories that don't meet minimum standards of conduct. IRONY ALERT: This is probably just because of market forces though, in that people don't want to buy from a company with a negative image 🙂
We also have stuff like fair trade, which is good even if it just raises the profile of these issues. Now "everyone knows" that some people are being ruthlessly exploited. A lot don't care, but at least it's common currency. After a while, it'll become commonplace to buy and stock fair-trade.. compare that with the free-range egg story.
And you think that we take that responsibility seriously?I agree with you that we have all the power.
My point is that we choose to exploit it ruthlessly.
If you had a brother and you were both on a desert island starving, then someone gave you a shopping trolly full of food. Do you think your brother should be grateful if you decided to let him have a biscuit?
RPRT - are [b]you[/b] yes [b]you[/b] willing to trade it all in tomorrow?
Get rid of your bike, get rid of your computer, get rid of your comfortable western lifestyle and give three quarters of everything you own to others?
Nope, thought not!
In which case you're going to have to be realistic, accept you're part of the problem, and accept that you cant solve this tomorrow - but that by giving a proportion of our business, trade and wealth to those countries we can gradually improve their lot, to the point where, as I said before, we begin to level the playing field/
So what happens when China and India are the new USA? We look to Africa. Then they become the new Chindia and we have to start getting the penguins in Antarctica to make our washing machines for us...
I've just explained why I think that current arrangements aren't "improving their lot."
And what you refer to as "giving a proprtion of our business" I'm afraid I would characterise more as "taking a proportion of their resources"
The personal stuff is just silly.
Given that, to maintain any sort of generally healthy society, it is necessary to create wealth, the only question is - how is it to be "distributed"?
Not sure I agree re healthy but agree the issue is didtribution
regulate and tax the hell out of them as the list from rprt shows there is almost no depth some companies wont stoop for extra profit...death of people is certainly not one of them.How do you prevent, in a global economy, the wealth creators (owners of capital) seeking the cheapest cost base (wages/taxes/setup/materials) which may well be elsewhere, depriving your exchequer of vital funds?
If you had a brother and you were both on a desert island starving, then someone gave you a shopping trolly full of food. Do you think your brother should be grateful if you decided to let him have a biscuit?
😆 + nail and head
but that by giving a proportion of our business, trade and wealth to those countries we can gradually improve their lot, to the point where, as I said before, we begin to level the playing field
How long will we need to "help "them via trade[or exploitation] before it is level ? We have had capitalism/trade for at least a few centuries but I see little equality nationally or globally.
Yes they are better off for our trade, and to some degree we are all responsible*, but nowhere near as much as the company owners [ often western based.
* if rptpor myself gave up all worldy goods it is difficult to see how the global world is a fairer or better place by this act- I see just one more poor person personally. If we took the FTSE 100 list and the top 10,000 richest folk and made them do it might make a bit more difference to the playing field
I've just explained why I think that current arrangements aren't "improving their lot."
Do you not think their lot has improved over the last 50 years?
And what you refer to as "giving a proprtion of our business" I'm afraid I would characterise more as "taking a proportion of their resources"
Same thing, isn't it? Resources are worthless without a market.
We have had capitalism/trade for at least a few centuries but I see little equality nationally or globally.
We've had capitalism and trade for five thousand years at least. However we've only had global trade on this scale for 50 years or so, more if you consider the British Empire as a trade network.
I think most people in poor countries would want us to take their resources, as long as we give them money in return.
most people in poor countries would want us to take their resources, as long as we give them money in return.
I suspect they would rather keep them for themselves and take our money if they had the money in the first place to use/exploit them themselves. Nike + others do not set up in cheap countries except to make lots of money from them and the profit goes to the rich people in the west. I suspect they would want this money and be better for it. Interesting to know who makes the most money selling the oil or refining it,growing cotton or selling nike stuff for example - dont know the answer but I assume you get my point.
Nike + others do not set up in cheap countries except to make lots of money from them and the profit goes to the rich people in the west.
As far as I understood it, a lot (no idea of the percentage) of our goods are not made in Nike or whatever branded factories, but locally owned and run factories that have just been awarded contracts to make stuff like any other factory. I've read a fair few stories where a company (eg Gap) was accused of using sweat shop labour but they'd acted in good faith and it was the factory owners who'd been screwing their own staff.
We all agree here. They need our business, but we don't always play fair.
yes but we make more than them - what they need is a fair share of the wealth not just a biscuit from our trolley.
Yes, like I said a page ago.
Take the example of oil companies in the Niger Delta - there is loads of money being made, how much of it is going to the local poor do you reckon? Meanwhile the environment there is being completely raped so people can't fish or farm any more without poisoning themselves.
But of course they should be grateful for our kindness in investing in their povvy country in the first place.
For once, I agree with grum.
I think most people in poor countries would want us to take their resources, as long as we give them money in return.
[url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/gallery/2010/mar/05/curse-black-gold-nigeria#/?picture=360077948&index=0 ]Niger Delta photo essay[/url]
by giving a proportion of our business, trade and wealth to those countries we can gradually improve their lot
[url= http://www.edwardburtynsky.com/ ]Photographer Edward Burtynsky has documented (among other things) shipbreaking in Bangladesh - go to the "ships" section to see how we are "gradually improving their lot"[/url]
Standards of living are improving across the developing world
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/14979580@N02/ ]Photographer Sebastiao Salgado documented gold mining in Brazil[/url]
Etc...
For christ's sake.
IN GENERAL Western investment and trade is improving living standards and wealth in poor countires.
THERE ARE MANY EXCEPTIONS which is not good.
How can I put it any simpler? We all agree!
Because some people are screwing the poor, does that mean we should stop dealing with poor countries altogether?
For christ's sake.
Shouldn't think so.
We all agree!
You keep saying this for some reason despite people disagreeing with you
Western investment* and trade is improving living standards and wealth in poor countires....
Because some people are screwing the poor, does that mean we should stop dealing with poor countries altogether?
The raison detre of the investment is to make money for themselves. Imagine how much better there lot would be if they got the trolley and not the biscuit- I cant make it any simpler either. This is not a few all invest to make money- improve their own , the wests ,lot.
*Investment is the commitment of money or capital to purchase financial instruments or other assets to gain profitable returns in the form of interest, income {dividend}, or appreciation of the value of the instrument.[1]
I don't understand what you're trying to say.
Are you saying ALL western investment and trade results in people in developing countries being worse off?
Cos that's clearly not the case.
Btw investments usually work to the benefit of both sides. Buy shares in a company - the company gets capital, you get a stake. Put money in an ISA - you get interest, the bank gets capital etc etc. Build a factory somewhere - you get the goods produced, they get employment.
I don't understand what you're trying to say.
Have you tried reading my posts 😉
Are you saying ALL western investment and trade results in people in developing countries being worse off?
NO it results in us being disproportionally better off from this"investment" than them. biscuit from the full shopping trolley etc. In the past here mill owners fed and housed their workers as did masters with slaves. Were they better off working/enslaved or starving ? Not really sure the system was working fairly for both sides then or now. I am not suggesting it is like slavery [ before you get confused] but lets not pretend it is altruistic or for their benefit.