🚀 go-pugleaf

Well said.

Roland.

"M Holmes" <fofp@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:da0pjj$g8k$12@scotsman.ed.ac.uk...
> 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
>