🚀 go-pugleaf

In ed.general Just zis Guy, you know? <norfolk.inspam@dev.null> wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 11:50:18 +0000 (UTC), M Holmes
> <fofp@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:

>>> Due in no small part to the developed world taking as much of the
>>> small amount of money they do generate as we can possibly manage.

>>The whole point of earning money is that you get to spend it. We get the
>>money by *trading* with them. Inasmuch as it's voluntary, trade benefits
>>both parties.

> Allegedly. 

There's no allegedly about it. If free trade doesn't benefit one party
then they don't volunteer for the trade and therefore it doesn't happen.

> Although there's precious little evidence of it benefiting
> the average Nike sweatshop worker.

A common fallacy. Usually the Nike worker is better off with the wage
than he was before, and therefore he turns up to work voluntarily.
Middle class wankers in the First World then try to impose minimum wages
on Nike. The Nike worker gets the sack because it's now unprofitable to
hire him, and he can't now afford to write to the MCW's to thank them
for their efforts on his behalf.

> If Western companies offered Western levels of employee rights in the
> third world,

...even more of the Third World would be unemployed.

> I would find your point a lot more compelling.  What they
> actually do, in many cases, is exploit cheap labour.

Note that in India wages in call centres have now risen so much that the
call centres are decamping to China. Reckon those Indians would rather
you're brand of economic idiocy had shortcut the process and put them on
the dole?

> Guy
> -- 
> May contain traces of irony.

Does contain traces of idiocy.

FoFP