America, the Bankrupt (1427 hits)
Category: PoliticsLabels: ETS_Sociopolitical_Commentary ETS_Essays
Rating: 1.27 on 65 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (View user info) at 2006-02-12 21:08:44 EST
How would you like to make 42 cents an hour? How about $867.47 a year? Cause that's a standard wage for the 16 year old girls making Keds shoes in Kunshan City, Jiangsu Province, China.
In the factory, which employs about 1800 production workers (mostly young women ages 16-25), the toxic glue fumes fill the air as the workers struggle with the only tool they're given, a tooth brush, to make footwear that will be sold to Americans at competative prices. But as bad as these conditions seem, it gets worse...
In 2000, at the Qin Shi Handbag Factory in Guangdong Province, China, workers were being held in indentured servitude making Kathie Lee Gifford handbags for Wal-Mart. They worked 14-hour shifts, 7 days a week, 30 days a month for an average net pay of 3 CENTS PER HOUR! That's $3.10 for a 98 hour work week. Workers are physically and verbally abused, they had their identification documents confiscated, and were allowed to leave the factory for 1.5 hours a day.
Adding insult to injury, the labels of the Kathy Lee handbag line read: "A portion of the proceeds from the sale of this product will be donated to various children's charities."
Under the pressure from public exposure, Wal-Mart stopped making the handbags at the factory, but still sells a heafty percentage of goods made under the same sort of conditions.
Hundreds of American companies are now exporting their labor to China. Devoid of worker rights and labor unions, China is any greedy CEO's paradise. Why should you pay an Americans honest wages when you can have what amounts to slave laborers do it for next to nothing?
Executives will always point to a scapegoat though. They will always have an out in the form of shareholders. "Our shareholders demand we maximize profits. If we don't compete, we can't keep the value of our stock high. The only way to compete in today's market is to export labor to countries such as China."
Convenient, eh? They still get to rake in the money by the thousands of percent above manufacturing cost while maintaining a level of vindication of wrongdoing and ethical piracy...not to mention infractions on human rights.
But guess what! Most of this activity is perfectly legal. The free-trade/small government/laissez faire attitude, while maybe a good idea in the 17th Century, it doesn't do average working people of the world much good here in the 21st Century - Americans, Chinese, or otherwise.
Capitalism vs. Communism. We have two generally accepted politically philosophical extremes at work here. Too much Communism ties up government in restrictive red tape and stifles freedom. Too much Capitalism strips people of their basic human rights and widens the gap between the rich and the poor.
Let's examine this from a layman's perspective for a second. Let's look at what your current President has helped do to the American economy in the last 6 years.
* Cut taxes for the upper class while increasing overall government spending
* Cut social programs such as Medicare to help offset the massive tax cuts
* Promoted a free trade/laissez faire view of economics in the face of massive trade deficits and exportation of American jobs to third world countries with unregulated labor forces
* FAILED TO INCREASE THE MINIMUM WAGE IN 6 YEARS despite escalating cost of living
* Failed to encourage trade restrictions that would keep American jobs safe and the budget shortfall from growing wider
In short, layman terms, this president is doing the equivalent to our country what individuals do who live outside their means...they spend more than they take in. They buy on credit till their credit runs out, then they transfer the balance to another credit card, and so on, till one day they run out of places to turn and their credit is completely shot.
Right now, our trade deficit is being funded by foreign investors, who look at the government's assets and place leins on them. This includes all government land, buildings, equipment, infrastructure, etc. This means that every year we run up the deficit, we're doing this to America: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/3651464.html
Click the above link and consider yourself welcomed to the future of America: no National Parks, at least none publicly owned.
These are the wages of rampant and irresponsible spending. Who do you think will eventually reap the benefits of the natural resources contained within these pristine places? If you think it's the American people, you're still not listening. Do you think private investors are going to care about the importance of this land to our national heritage and geological heritage? Our culture? Our world?
We're going to end up taking all the things that are great in this country and give them away to be sacrificed at the altar of capitalism, and for what? So we can buy a few more pieces of Chinese made home appliances we don't need, or the latest sportswear by name brands who exploit the borderline slave labor of third world and communist nations?
"The U.S. Forest Service has earmarked more than 300,000 acres for sale in 32 states.
In a companion proposal inserted into this week's massive 2007 budget, White House officials directed the U.S. Bureau of Land Management officials to sell off at least $350 million worth of public land, with the funds to go directly to the general treasury."
I think everyone, every American especially, needs to READ THAT! That, my fellow Americans, is sad. I can't express in words the way my heart sinks when I hear that our government has come to the point of selling off our national forests to fund its war machine...to fund its OIL machine! Just so we can continue to burn and consume and feed off the world without giving back.
He who does not live in balance is doomed to fall.
This is an ancient law - a law as old as time, and it's a law we seem to care nothing about.
I'm going to leave you all with a few more figures to mull over, and then I urge you all to PLEASE contact your Senators and Congressmen and tell them you don't want to see our National Parks sold away. Tell them that we've gotten ourselves into this mess, and we shouldn't use the beauty of the American landscape - a landscape that was set aside so that generations of human beings could know what a beautiful natural world we live in - as currency. For, as easy as it might be to become cold and cynical in this ever-deepening pit of greed we call the world, I, for one, happen to believe there are still some things that remain sacred, pure, and holy. And if we extinguish what light they have left to offer us, how dark will our world become? When will it all end?
$725 BILLION dollar trade deficit, people. That's 2005 alone. Since this president has taken over, our total trade deficit has been $3.23 TRILLION dollars. To put that into perspective, the entire decade of the 1990's saw a trade deficit of $1.59 TRILLION. And this president still has two more years to do his handywork.
See for yourself: http://tse.export.gov/MapFrameset.aspx?MapPage=NTDMapDisplay.aspx&UniqueURL=rf3z4j5553tv51j0njv1be55-2006-2-12-20-57-56
What if, as some predictions say, this year's hurricane season is as bad or worse than the last? How will we survive that economically? Who will catch America when she falls?
If I were you, I'd get my money out of the stock market and put it in a foreign currency, because at this rate, the dollar is set to suffer a huge collapse very soon.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4701160.stm
http://www.governmentlandauction.com/
http://www.nlcnet.org/campaigns/archive/chinareport/table_of_contents.shtml
User Reviews
Submitted by webhead (user info) at 2006-02-14 17:57:46 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
"Money is the root of all evil, and yet it is such a useful root that we cannot get on without it any more than we can without potatoes."
Louisa May Alcott
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-14 09:57:29 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by blujnbbyqn (user info) at 2006-02-14 02:01:25 (#)
Ranking: 0
Good points, though played out a bit.
-----------------------
Played out???
This isn't a fucking GAME. I'm not looking for points here.
Submitted by blujnbbyqn (user info) at 2006-02-14 02:01:25 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Good points, though played out a bit.
This may have been mentioned already but... Did you know that Wal-mart, et al, can hire "legal" immigrants (those with green cards) and pay them far below the national minimum wage with no benefits? Until that little known practice comes to a screetching freaking halt, why should any of the big retailers bother to hire anyone for more?
And the sad fact is, 200,000 illegals a year can't all be wrong.
Michelle
Submitted by Viper_04 (user info) at 2006-02-14 01:36:15 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
China couldn't possibly become the world's next superpower. The US wouldn't allow it and could simply block pretty much all its attempts.
China's growth is currently fuelled by 2 main factors. One being the pump-priming of the economy by the Chinese government, which has lead to severe fiscal deficit and cannot possibly be maintained. Second is Foreign Direct Investment (FDI), which is fuelling the Chinese Export industry. The largest source of investment to China is the US, if it were blocked China would fall flat on its face as its economy simply couldn't handle the loss of finance.
Although this would come at great expense to both the American and world economy we know that the US would be more than willing to take such drastic measures to prevent another country from becoming the world's next superpower.
Submitted by munkeypants (user info) at 2006-02-13 21:25:25 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
disgusting
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-13 18:31:54 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-02-13 18:13:42 (#)
Ranking: 0
Hmmm. Trade deficit and budget deficit (in the photo) are two different things. And the budget deficit is different from the national debt.
-------------------------------
They are different, but closely linked.
Do you even know why there was a "surplus" in the 90's?
------------------------------
No, but I'm sure you're going to tell me.
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-02-13 18:13:42 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Hmmm. Trade deficit and budget deficit (in the photo) are two different things. And the budget deficit is different from the national debt. Do you even know why there was a "surplus" in the 90's?
Submitted by JonnyX (user info) at 2006-02-13 16:41:57 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
we'll address this in 2008, during the Olympics time
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-13 15:43:54 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-02-13 15:27:35 (#)
Ranking: 0
Right now the rules are beneficial to me, and for everyone who owns clothes made by that poor schmoe working for a dollar a day.
---------------------
No they're NOT beneficial to you!
The current trade deficit illustrates that!
THAT'S WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT!
I SEEMS good for a while, until the consequences catch up to us. The fact of the matter is, this country's rich is getting richer by exporting their labor overseas, and, while unemployment is still low compared to undeveloped nations, it's still risen from about 4% to about 7% since Bush took office, and furthermore, the jobs that ARE available are service based jobs that cannot be exported and that often pay wages that are practically unlivable when weighed against the cost of living.
When I said the US had to do something about it stands. I will concede that the effort has to be multi-national and would certainly HAVE to include the UN to work...
But everyone who reads this proposal has to know this is the only way to keep the world's largest superpower from being communist China, a country that is suppressive and lax in its concept of human rights.
The time to act is is passing.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-02-13 15:27:35 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
ETS, sorry I don't trip over myself with a parade of +2's. I thought this wasn't good. Your plan in this post has huge fucking holes. I don't have a strong background in economics, and I can see how it will never work. You want a +2 come up with a theory you actually thought through, and can defend, instead of saying "no wait the UN not the US should fix it", after it has been up for a day and a half.
I pointed out where your plan of US not allowing its companies to manufacture in third world countries would not work. The US can't do that and compete in an international Market.
You respoded to that in a reply below, but when you first mentioned it you brought up US legislation which would be worse for everyone in the US. And hurt all the savages working in US factories in other countries. At least your idea about a UN resolution makes some sense, the US trying to do that by itself is laughable, at best.
"You know, Indo, NO COMPANY wants to PAY their employees when it comes right down to it. The ideal situation would be to have the most skilled and productive slaves on the face of the planet, but that's not the way the world economy works. People are payed a wage, and they buy only what they can afford. Necessity plays a role in dictating what is highest on their list of priorities. $125 Nike shoes is not high on that list for people wishing to eat.
Nike only charges $125 a pair for their shoes because it makes the underpriviledged black people think they're getting the epitome of style by owning expensive shoes. It's a way for them to offset the complete economic DECAY that is the reality of their lives. If you really want to get into the psychology of why people BUY this shit, that's a whole 'nuther post for me, one I'll keep in mind for the future. But if you're asking whether or not Nike will survive if it had to cut into its ASTRONOMICAL profit margain to survive as a company, the answer is dependent upon how they sell their product, as always. That would remain entirely up to them. The only thing that will have changed are the rules of the game, which right now are nowhere NEAR beneficial for anyone involved."
Good companies want to pay their people. They want to pay them enough not just to keep them, but to keep them happy.
You think nike makes their money on $125 shoes alone? They have much lower end shoes that are a staple for them, if they went up 10, 20 dollars they would not sell. Did you know they own Cole Haan? I know everything they sell is absurdly expensive, but they do have competitors even for their high end stuff, and if the price for them goes up, the sales still go down. I really don't give a fuck why people buy it, but cost will always be an issue.
Right now the rules are beneficial to me, and for everyone who owns clothes made by that poor schmoe working for a dollar a day.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-13 15:00:00 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Indo, how did I know you'd show up with your '0' parade and your cynical statements...
Have you appointed yourself as my personal devil's advocate or something, because this shit is getting really old.
That being said, I'm going to attempt to answer your questions below. I'm sure none of these answers will be satisfactory to you because you're too used to listening to the bullshit coming from your TV screen at home.
This is going to require you to stop viewing the world as something that has to be complicated. It's going to require you to drop your notion that I'm somehow a pretentious, over-philosophizing teenager who wants to tear down everything, or that my notions of the inner workings of reality are uninformed.
The world is really simple at its core. It is us who have made it complicated. The best way to fix something that's broken is to start with the basics...to start from the beginning and reexamine the fundamentals of what's going on.
That is what I'm doing here. That is what I ALWAYS try to do, in my posts and in life.
Now let me answer your questions...
--------------------
"Would we block foreign shoe companies from selling here if they make shoes in third world countries?"
Yes.
----
"You don't think other ocuntries would retaliate by blocking our products?"
Probably. But considering we BUY more from them than we SELL, it would be their loss, not ours.
---
"This problem is bigger than the US and we can't fix it if we want to compete internationally."
You're right about that and I've just addressed what needs to be done in my last comment concerning the United Nations.
---
"YOu think they want to pay more than minimum wage? Do you think they woud be able to make shoes they sould sell if they had to pay more than minimum wage? What legislation would increase Nike's profits?"
You know, Indo, NO COMPANY wants to PAY their employees when it comes right down to it. The ideal situation would be to have the most skilled and productive slaves on the face of the planet, but that's not the way the world economy works. People are payed a wage, and they buy only what they can afford. Necessity plays a role in dictating what is highest on their list of priorities. $125 Nike shoes is not high on that list for people wishing to eat.
Nike only charges $125 a pair for their shoes because it makes the underpriviledged black people think they're getting the epitome of style by owning expensive shoes. It's a way for them to offset the complete economic DECAY that is the reality of their lives. If you really want to get into the psychology of why people BUY this shit, that's a whole 'nuther post for me, one I'll keep in mind for the future. But if you're asking whether or not Nike will survive if it had to cut into its ASTRONOMICAL profit margain to survive as a company, the answer is dependent upon how they sell their product, as always. That would remain entirely up to them. The only thing that will have changed are the rules of the game, which right now are nowhere NEAR beneficial for anyone involved.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-13 14:26:00 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
You people want to know what needs to happen...
I'll tell you.
The UN needs to be pressured to set labor standards around the world. Non complying countries could not enter into trade with UN member states. In this way, the world market change will be relative.
The only reason we don't do it ourselves is because unless the rest of the developed world went along too and stopped having goods produced in these nations to undercut our export prices, we'd be in deep shit.
This has to come from a coalition of developed nations to put pressure on countries such as China to change their labor laws, and if not, suffer the trade consequences.
There it is in a nutshell.
There is no way anyone can deny that we have a serious problem with the current trade deficit and unless something is done soon, the United States will no longer be the premeire political and economic leader of the world. It's really that simple.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-02-13 14:14:46 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-13 13:30:15 (#)
Ranking: 0
This is an American problem in the sense that our government is doing nothing to stop it.
And, no, you're wrong about Nikes costing $50 more. You are right that no one would BUY Nikes that cost $50 more. This would set the market price for Nikes in the traditional way. The only thing that would DECREASE are the profits for the company itself and subsequently, its shareholders.
This wouldn't necessarily mean the company would go bust, because the legislation would effect ALL parties, including the competition.
Now, if we take into account the rise in American wages and standards of living this would produce in minority communities especially, and considering a large share of Nikes are purchased by minorities, you might actually be able to INCREASE Nike's profits over its competitors through legislation.
------------------------------------------------
Wrong, wrong, wrong. Labor is a big factor, if not the biggest in Nike's production. It would have a huge impact on price if they were made domestically.
How would the legisltaion effect all parties? Would we block foreign shoe companies from selling here if they make shoes in third world countries? You don't think other ocuntries would retaliate by blocking our products? This problem is bigger than the US and we can't fix it if we want to compete internationally.
Even if all the nike factories were moved here it would not raise the wages of people in America. YOu think they want to pay more than minimum wage? Do you think they woud be able to make shoes they sould sell if they had to pay more than minimum wage? What legislation would increase Nike's profits?
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2006-02-13 14:03:50 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
This is an American problem in the sense that our government is doing nothing to stop it.
And, no, you're wrong about Nikes costing $50 more. You are right that no one would BUY Nikes that cost $50 more. This would set the market price for Nikes in the traditional way. The only thing that would DECREASE are the profits for the company itself and subsequently, its shareholders.
This wouldn't necessarily mean the company would go bust, because the legislation would effect ALL parties, including the competition.
Now, if we take into account the rise in American wages and standards of living this would produce in minority communities especially, and considering a large share of Nikes are purchased by minorities, you might actually be able to INCREASE Nike's profits over its competitors through legislation.
Chew on that one. ;)
____________________________________________________
Oh good lord is that feeble.
"This wouldn't necessarily mean the company would go bust, because the legislation would effect ALL parties, including the competition."
You understand that there won't be a brotha out there sporting Nikes when the price goes up by $50, right? Because the price for Lettuce will have also gone up by $50. The price for his television will have gone up $200. The price of his socks and underwear will have gone up $50.
Brotha ain't gonna have two dimes to rub together after the cost of living adjustment resulting from the kinds of changes you are talking about. Hello inflation. It would make the 70's look like a cakewalk.
In short, OH MY GOD SHUTUP!
Submitted by digdug (user info) at 2006-02-13 14:02:51 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Call China and tell them that they should update their labor laws. Fuck Communism.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-13 13:58:32 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Here is a link that contains LOTS of information on the new initiatives surrounding the National Forests: http://wwwnotes.fs.fed.us:81/r4/payments_to_states.nsf/Web_Documents/97086F7F54C972E788256CCC004E36D0?OpenDocument
The President claims there is 'expected' to be no net loss of land protected by the Forest Service, but judging by his track record on environment issues, I take that statement with a serious helping of salt.
Sustaining Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act Payments
To underscore the President's commitment to states and counties impacted by the loss of receipts associated with lower timber harvests on federal lands, the budget includes a legislative proposal that provides $800 million above the current baseline for a five year extension of forest county safety net payments by amending the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self Determination Act. These payments will be targeted to the most affected areas. To provide a funding basis to offset these payments from the U.S. Treasury, the proposal would authorize the conveyance of parcels of forest land that are isolated or inefficient to manage due to location or other characteristics. Because of the Forest Legacy and land acquisition programs, there is no expected net loss of lands protected by Forest Service action.
For more details on the President's budget for the Forest Service, visit www.fs.fed.us. Additional information on the Healthy Forests Initiative is available at http://www.healthyforests.gov.
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2006-02-13 13:49:08 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
You cannot make the argument that we've progressed beyond sweatshops when we're exploiting it even now.
I find it severely hypocritical that American law fails to prohibit such exploitation, both as a protective measure for the foreign worker, and an incentive to keep labor at home.
Let's not make this an 'emo' issue. This isn't just about the developing nations, this is about the state of the American worker as well. This is, as you've pointed out, about our very history as a country.
Our current course is leading us toward financial ruin. I just wanted to shed some light on that so that when it comes time to vote this fall, we can all be a bit more informed about the differences between what people 'SAY' they're doing and what is actually occurring.
Without Congressionally-imposed embargos, there is no way to save the American worker from extinction. Unless we pass laws that prohibit American-based businesses from exporting their labor, only to sell us back the goods, we're fucked.
I don't like BIG GOVERNMENT as a concept any more than the staunchest Republican out there, but in practice, unless we find a balance, we're doing ourselves - and our children - grave damage.
_________________________________________________________-
Yes, I CAN say that we've progressed beyond sweatshops, becuase we don't allow them in THIS country any longer.
If you think that we should enact embargoes against any and all countries that DO allow them, then . . . well, I applaud your idealism, but I don't think you are giving the complexity of that proposition its due consideration. (For starters, you say "prohibit such exploitation" - do you suggest that we should attempt to dictate what level of employee protections other sovereign nations establish? That would sort of ignore that whole "sovereignty" thing, wouldn't it? Or perhaps you are only suggesting economic isolationism. Don't do business with these developing countries unless they have the same employee protections in place that our own incredibly non-competetive industries have. Question. Who will pay N'Gutu to put a sew a sweatshirt together when he's required to receive 23k a year, plus benefits. No one. So, then it's back to the shit farm for poor N'Gutu. Meanwhile, those protected American workers you're worried about are stagnating and becoming big fish in a small pond. Innovation dies because there is no need for it in a captive marketplace. Etc.)
And I beg to differ as to whether or not you are trying to make an emo issue out of this. The emo angle is the only one you've got. You're either wanting people to feel sorry for the poor "exploited" sweatshop worker, or the poor out-competed American worker, all the while ignoring or failing to address the evolutionary path capitalist economies walk. It's the circle of life sweetie. You don't go from fish to monkey in one step.
Also, am I the only one who remembers how Reagan was going to backrupt us?
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-13 13:32:49 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
If you'd be so kind, please take the time to sign the petition: http://www.petitiononline.com/godwood1/petition.html
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-13 13:30:15 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-02-13 12:41:29 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-13 12:30:14 (#)
Ranking: 0
You cannot make the argument that we've progressed beyond sweatshops when we're exploiting it even now.
I find it severely hypocritical that American law fails to prohibit such exploitation, both as a protective measure for the foreign worker, and an incentive to keep labor at home.
------------------------------
How can we compete and not exploit it? Lets say that Nike closed down all its over seas shops and all of the sudden their sneakers cost $50 more, who would buy them? And yeah those people wouldn't be making their 3 cents and hour, but if that was the best job in town than the alternative has to be worse.
Anyway this isn't an "American" problem. Unless you think only Americans wear nike's? Or that all the companies that exploit this are American.
---------------------------
This is an American problem in the sense that our government is doing nothing to stop it.
And, no, you're wrong about Nikes costing $50 more. You are right that no one would BUY Nikes that cost $50 more. This would set the market price for Nikes in the traditional way. The only thing that would DECREASE are the profits for the company itself and subsequently, its shareholders.
This wouldn't necessarily mean the company would go bust, because the legislation would effect ALL parties, including the competition.
Now, if we take into account the rise in American wages and standards of living this would produce in minority communities especially, and considering a large share of Nikes are purchased by minorities, you might actually be able to INCREASE Nike's profits over its competitors through legislation.
Chew on that one. ;)
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-02-13 12:41:29 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-13 12:30:14 (#)
Ranking: 0
You cannot make the argument that we've progressed beyond sweatshops when we're exploiting it even now.
I find it severely hypocritical that American law fails to prohibit such exploitation, both as a protective measure for the foreign worker, and an incentive to keep labor at home.
------------------------------
How can we compete and not exploit it? Lets say that Nike closed down all its over seas shops and all of the sudden their sneakers cost $50 more, who would buy them? And yeah those people wouldn't be making their 3 cents and hour, but if that was the best job in town than the alternative has to be worse.
Anyway this isn't an "American" problem. Unless you think only Americans wear nike's? Or that all the companies that exploit this are American.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-13 12:34:54 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Razor (user info) at 2006-02-13 11:59:06 (#)
Ranking: 0
I didn't read the reviews below me, but I have this comment to offer:
You suggested when comparing communism and capitalism that too much capitalism led to human rights abuses.
Yet, I would argue that between the two systems, the vast majority of human rights abuses over the last fifty years have ocurred in communist countries, not capitalist countries. China, USSR, Korea, etc. Compare that to, say, the things that have occurred in Japan, or Taiwan.
I'm not ignoring African countries and the human rights abuses that occur there, but they are neither capitalist nor communist, those are occuring under dictatorships that have no real economic strategy whatsoever.
------------------
There is a difference between Communist dictatorship and Communist Democracy.
Show me someone who has tried a Communist Democracy where leaders have term limits and government incorporates checks and balances, yet maintains the overall philosophies inherent in communism, where the greater good wins over and hording of wealth is prohibited.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-13 12:30:14 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2006-02-13 10:47:21 (#)
Ranking: 1
No time to get into it, but I'll just throw this out there, see if anyone else is interested in talking about it.
What do you think of the notion that societies evolve?
Sounds pretty reasonable, right? Well, if you look back the road a piece into U.S. history, there was a time when we had our very own sweatshops here. It was fairly common practice. The called it "the Industrial Revolution." When all sorts of people who used to be subsistance farmers moved to the big cities to get jobs making what they considered to be BIG MONEY in factories. So, we had child labor, slave wages (well, SLAVES too for that matter) and horrible toxic working conditions. Over time though, we have progressed beyond that.
So, I tend to look at the conditions in China or India or any other DEVELOPING country as just that, DEVELOPEMENT.
While I can see and understand the desire to cry emo Mother Theresa tears about the injustice and the suffering, exploitation, etc., can you tell me what exactly is UNNATURAL or shocking (when viewed in a historical context) about any of this?
------------------------
You cannot make the argument that we've progressed beyond sweatshops when we're exploiting it even now.
I find it severely hypocritical that American law fails to prohibit such exploitation, both as a protective measure for the foreign worker, and an incentive to keep labor at home.
Let's not make this an 'emo' issue. This isn't just about the developing nations, this is about the state of the American worker as well. This is, as you've pointed out, about our very history as a country.
Our current course is leading us toward financial ruin. I just wanted to shed some light on that so that when it comes time to vote this fall, we can all be a bit more informed about the differences between what people 'SAY' they're doing and what is actually occurring.
Without Congressionally-imposed embargos, there is no way to save the American worker from extinction. Unless we pass laws that prohibit American-based businesses from exporting their labor, only to sell us back the goods, we're fucked.
I don't like BIG GOVERNMENT as a concept any more than the staunchest Republican out there, but in practice, unless we find a balance, we're doing ourselves - and our children - grave damage.
On another note, I've tried to start a petition online, but I can't seem to get it to work right now. It might be blocked by our internal network. I guess the company I work for thinks it's a bad idea to let employees create political petitions from work.
Understandable, I guess.
Submitted by Pentameter (user info) at 2006-02-13 12:16:31 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Aztune (user info) at 2006-02-13 11:58:51 (#)
Ranking: 2
The average, decent American is going to pay the price for a government that is catering to the wealthy minority.
It makes me honestly think of running for office, until I realize that honest people who care about the average American don't get elected to office.
------------
I agree with a lot of what you say, Aztune, but these last two lines are what I'm going to focus on.
The deficit is something that we're ALL going to have to pay back in one way or another. When the government needs more money and they ask the Federal Reserve to print more money, the Federal Reserve prints it and tacks on interest. Since we pay the bills in America, we're going to have to pay this shit back, as well as our children, our grandchildren (and if there is a planet left) their grandchildren. So, if the government needs $1000, the Federal Reserve prints $1000 but expects $1200 back, leaving the $200 to each of us to make up for somehow.
As far as running for office, don't waste your time. I don't think the government could bear to have intelligent people among its ranks.
Submitted by Razor (user info) at 2006-02-13 11:59:06 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I didn't read the reviews below me, but I have this comment to offer:
You suggested when comparing communism and capitalism that too much capitalism led to human rights abuses.
Yet, I would argue that between the two systems, the vast majority of human rights abuses over the last fifty years have ocurred in communist countries, not capitalist countries. China, USSR, Korea, etc. Compare that to, say, the things that have occurred in Japan, or Taiwan.
I'm not ignoring African countries and the human rights abuses that occur there, but they are neither capitalist nor communist, those are occuring under dictatorships that have no real economic strategy whatsoever.
Submitted by Aztune (user info) at 2006-02-13 11:58:51 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
ETS... if you ever get a chance, there is a Robert Heinlein book title, "For Us, the Living" which talks about a form of economics.
I don't really want to get into the details, but it's great reading that makes a lot of sense. Granted, you have to sift through the whole book to get to it, and a lot of the book can be summarized as: "20th/21st century society sucks and here's how it could be improved."
I think America is just fucked up. I lived overseas for a long time. I think it boils down to America being a little boy with a big gun.
European countries are THOUSANDS of years old. America is 230 this year.
We are standing on the shoulders of giants and losing our balance. We haven't grown and developed the maturity to handle the kind of power we have. Too much, too soon, too fast.
The average, decent American is going to pay the price for a government that is catering to the wealthy minority.
It makes me honestly think of running for office, until I realize that honest people who care about the average American don't get elected to office.
Submitted by no_one (user info) at 2006-02-13 11:47:43 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
A key part of this is to acctually have the values we want our government to have. If you want to keep national parks and land protected, you've got to visit it. If you don't want the government to spend more than it has got, you should start with your own finances.
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2006-02-13 11:39:06 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2006-02-13 11:29:58 (#)
Ranking: 0
i don't care.
i like cheap purses.
_________________________________________________
OMG! LOl! Have you seen the new Prada line?! I'm totally going to treat them like Pokemon. I've gotta get them ALL!!
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2006-02-13 11:29:58 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
i don't care.
i like cheap purses.
Submitted by cuberat (user info) at 2006-02-13 11:15:55 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by The_taste_of_Monkeys (user info) at 2006-02-13 11:09:43 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I dont endorse hippieism but as a zoologist i feel it is my duty to do soemthing to help...no, really. im not being sarcastic this time!
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2006-02-13 10:47:21 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
No time to get into it, but I'll just throw this out there, see if anyone else is interested in talking about it.
What do you think of the notion that societies evolve?
Sounds pretty reasonable, right? Well, if you look back the road a piece into U.S. history, there was a time when we had our very own sweatshops here. It was fairly common practice. The called it "the Industrial Revolution." When all sorts of people who used to be subsistance farmers moved to the big cities to get jobs making what they considered to be BIG MONEY in factories. So, we had child labor, slave wages (well, SLAVES too for that matter) and horrible toxic working conditions. Over time though, we have progressed beyond that.
So, I tend to look at the conditions in China or India or any other DEVELOPING country as just that, DEVELOPEMENT.
While I can see and understand the desire to cry emo Mother Theresa tears about the injustice and the suffering, exploitation, etc., can you tell me what exactly is UNNATURAL or shocking (when viewed in a historical context) about any of this?
Submitted by Professional_Peon (user info) at 2006-02-13 10:25:10 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by FilthyAssistant (user info) at 2006-02-12 21:47:36 (#)
Ranking: 2
"I urge you all to PLEASE contact your Senators and Congressmen and tell them you don't want to see our National Parks sold away"
I think you should start a petition.
Submitted by Entaran (user info) at 2006-02-13 09:22:03 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
To drive this one home:
Australian's currency trade over the last 24 months has gone from 1 dollar = 70 odd Euro cents to 1 dollar = 54 Euro cents.
1 dollar = 58 US cents to 1 dollar = 74 US Cents.
The Euro is raping the Greenback and a LOT of companies are now trading in Euro rather than the US Dollar... this includes my own companies.
It will be very interesting from an outside perspective to see what happens when America enters another recession (which is already beginning). At some point the country has to stop and look at what it's done to overstretch.
Submitted by Pentameter (user info) at 2006-02-13 09:15:26 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I've always been a questioner, but you've inspired me to question more often and more deeply.
Thank you.
Submitted by CaptainThorns (user info) at 2006-02-13 09:13:34 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by MandaPanda (user info) at 2006-02-12 22:09:21 (#)
Ranking: 2
ETS, what else, besides posting on Uber, are you doing in regards to these politics?
I admire your values and I think you have your head screwed on right.
If you ever ran for president, you'd have my vote.
Submitted by Viper_04 (user info) at 2006-02-13 06:25:53 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Well I knew nothing of the 14 rate rises, but they were probably to curb the use of debt rather than slow growth.
What the Bush government is doing is not Keynesian, if you want to look at Keynesian then use China as an example. Their pump-priming of their economy is severe government interference, whereas Bush and company are conducting normal fiscal duties. There is no way a government can escape from having to deal with these problems and it's not interference any more than usual.
I hear everyone bitching about how far in debt the US is, but not a word about China's debt problem or their excessive spending. I don't see how people see China as this wonderful glowing economy when all the government is doing is throwing more money than it has. If all FDI was removed from China the economy would fall flat on its face, there is no balance in what they're doing.
Submitted by fried-green-potatoes (user info) at 2006-02-13 05:42:52 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Viper_04 (user info) at 2006-02-13 03:39:28 (#)
Ranking: -2
--Sometimes to correct the imblance, more imbalance is needed. For an economy as large as the US to recover from an economic slowdown (one which would result in debt) an extremely large amount of spending would be required (which would obviously incurr more debt, but boost production and the other factors that produce economic growth); the kind of action that your government has undertaken. So in reality stop the bitching and let the government do what is needed to do to let the economy recover, because simply trying to save money to decrease debt it no way to solve the problem...You've got to spend money to make money.
---
Don't pretend to understand this well but...
Doesn't 14 straight interest rate increases by the Federal Reserve mean that the current U.S. economic stance is anti-inflationary rather than growth-oriented? Doesn't Keynesian-style government involvement in the economy make Bush & company cry, and isn't that what you're describing here?
Submitted by KatHunter (user info) at 2006-02-13 04:27:52 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
"He who does not live in balance is doomed to fall."
+1 just because I'm so very happy that I'm not an American, and our country isn't ruled by a single fucktard. It's ruled by a lot of fucktards, but they spend all the time arguing, not spending all our money on war. (Our total involvement in the "Bush War": 500 soldiers!?)
Submitted by FilthyAssistant (user info) at 2006-02-13 04:19:52 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by MyNameIsTim (user info) at 2006-02-12 22:28:42 (#)
Ranking: -1
the first line was all i was able to read.
===
The word is 'city' - c...i...t..y...and it means a big and important town.
You fucking spod.
Submitted by mikethescottish (user info) at 2006-02-13 03:52:39 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Scary reading.
Submitted by Viper_04 (user info) at 2006-02-13 03:39:28 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Ok now I don't agree with the conditions that many Chinese workers are under, I can't blame the companies for exporting labour. In Australia's case anyway, the minimum wage is much too high for retailers to be able to produce Simply Transfered Manufactures (STMs, such as textiles, plastics, etc) at a competitive price.
What we are seeing in the world is a shift towards sending low-skilled, labour intensive work to nations with cheaper labour (manufactures to china, technological outsourcing to india) while the richer nations (G7 group, etc) focus on the production of Elaborately Transferred Manufactures (ETMs) and other highly-skilled jobs that require education and training that is not readily available in say, China.
And just as a side not, while that minimum wage is low you also have to remember that the cost of living is much lower in China than what it would be in a developed economy and therefore you simply can't compare minimum wages between countries much in the same way you can't compare company profits to a country's GDP (as some people have tried to do).
All this is part of the process of Globalisation, which also makes your trade issue rather irrelevant. Trade is an integral part of any economy, most of which is infulenced by the private sector of the economy. The economist Pitchford put forward the argument that it doesn't matter if the trade deficit is high, as long as the private sector is the largets contributor. If the debt they inccur is used in profit making exercises then eventually the deficit will correct itself.
It is also not such a bad thing to talk about the privatisation of some natural resources as this would place a fair and more realistic value on the 'product'. I can guarantee something like water is severely undervalued, but privatisation would present a true price of the resource and stop the occurance of market failure. Priavte industries would also be more committed to conservation if it meant that it helped retain the value of the resource that they owned.
And by the way, if America were to 'fall' as you suggest it would be China that would pick it back up. China now has a very influential sway on the world economy and it was in fact the low cost of products being exported out of China that helped the global economy recover in 01-02 by keeping world inflation down and promoting spelling. Furthermore not only the American Government is responsible for all this debt that you talk about. The bonds that China purchases to keep its Yuen pegged to the US Dollar have kept your interest rates low which has promoted a credit binge in both the private and public sector, another factor that haleped the US economy recover from its slump in 01-02.
"He who does not live in balance is doomed to fall."
--Sometimes to correct the imblance, more imbalance is needed. For an economy as large as the US to recover from an economic slowdown (one which would result in debt) an extremely large amount of spending would be required (which would obviously incurr more debt, but boost production and the other factors that produce economic growth); the kind of action that your government has undertaken. So in reality stop the bitching and let the government do what is needed to do to let the economy recover, because simply trying to save money to decrease debt it no way to solve the problem...You've got to spend money to make money.
Submitted by BranDo (user info) at 2006-02-13 03:37:18 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
A well written post on a shitty fact once more and I do think you should take it to next level and get out there and try to achieve something. You can't rely on Dick shooting 'em all!
Submitted by polyamorousaj (user info) at 2006-02-13 02:54:02 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Oh Canada...
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2006-02-13 02:48:09 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Don't worry! The Republicans are Fiscal Conservatives....
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHHA
Oh yeah, sorry that you're all fucked. Aus is on the same slide, though we seem to be going much much slower.
Submitted by Flack (user info) at 2006-02-13 02:25:49 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
What is it with you and this fucking propaganda?
Submitted by MrSparkle847 (user info) at 2006-02-13 01:23:07 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
How would you like to make 42 cents an hour? How about $867.47 a year?
________________
Hot diggity, that's more than I make now!
Submitted by Herpes (user info) at 2006-02-13 01:07:28 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
The google ad says "Handbags Import/wholesale"
I should do that. I could get a 600 dollar bag for 19 cents.
Submitted by Tokerson (user info) at 2006-02-12 23:25:14 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I weep for the future.
Submitted by kitchens_closed (user info) at 2006-02-12 22:56:17 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Very educational. Great post.
Submitted by shitfuck (user info) at 2006-02-12 22:52:23 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
'If I were you, I'd get my money out of the stock market and put it in a foreign currency, because at this rate, the dollar is set to suffer a huge collapse very soon.'
True, but the real pro's make money in good times and bad.
Fuck the Bears.
Submitted by a_reader (user info) at 2006-02-12 22:51:52 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by MyNameIsTim (user info) at 2006-02-12 22:28:42 (#)
Ranking: -1
the first line was all i read.
--------------------------------
Ah... apathy. One of the many traits exhibited by my fellow Americans that will solve nothing.
Submitted by MyNameIsTim (user info) at 2006-02-12 22:28:42 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
the first line was all i read.
Submitted by MandaPanda (user info) at 2006-02-12 22:09:21 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
ETS, what else, besides posting on Uber, are you doing in regards to these politics?
I admire your values and I think you have your head screwed on right.
If you ever ran for president, you'd have my vote.
Submitted by The_Yellow_Dart (user info) at 2006-02-12 22:02:28 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
You should get into official politics, or at least do some reputable research and write a formal paper and submit it to an academic journal.
Me? I want to be a sea-turtle.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-02-12 21:53:56 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by RamenNoodle (user info) at 2006-02-12 21:49:32 (#)
Ranking: 2
or we could just wait until oil starts being traded using the Euro as opposed to the dollar, thats going to crush our economy.
===
People who believe that should be punched in the genitals. In order not to get into details, someone made a post about this theory already. You will see in the replies that she ended looking like an idiot: http://www.ubersite.com/m/82451
Submitted by RamenNoodle (user info) at 2006-02-12 21:49:32 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
or we could just wait until oil starts being traded using the Euro as opposed to the dollar, thats going to crush our economy.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-02-12 21:49:16 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
indoninja will -2 this and tell you that everything is going well because the star springled banner is gorgeous and americans are perfect and taht's all it matters
Submitted by FilthyAssistant (user info) at 2006-02-12 21:47:36 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
"I urge you all to PLEASE contact your Senators and Congressmen and tell them you don't want to see our National Parks sold away"
I think you should start a petition.
Submitted by Kale (user info) at 2006-02-12 21:41:26 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by ConorJS (user info) at 2006-02-12 21:33:21 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
mmmm.. too tired to read all 'dat. +2 fer you!
Submitted by bob (user info) at 2006-02-12 21:30:27 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
ETS hits the nail on the head again.
Submitted by forthewin (user info) at 2006-02-12 21:26:35 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Woah, me and Death Metal Dude rated at the exact same time.
Submitted by forthewin (user info) at 2006-02-12 21:25:29 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
The president is a good Christian man. He would never do anything to hurt the environment. Right? ...
RIGHT??
Submitted by Death_Metal_Dude (user info) at 2006-02-12 21:25:29 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by r0fl (user info) at 2006-02-12 21:24:39 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
The only reason this won't make heated is that it's too long for some uber-attention spans.