Exploitation of poor nations

[Baud]

Very interesting discussion, and very well-argumented points. Let's join.

First of all, when we talk about the WTO, I think we should differentiate between the organization and the states that are part of it. The organisation itself if not necessarily a bad thing. After all, it seems that a lot of information you found and used in this thread came from the WTO! It is an organisation which goal is among other things facilitating negociations to achieve free trade. That in itself is not bad. The fact is that the negociations have generally proven unsuccessful these last years, not because of the WTO, but becasue the industrial countries did not agree to make concessions to the poorer countries - and reciprocally. As already said, industrial countries keep higher import tariffs on goods they process themselves, and on agricultural products they produce. It clearly seems unfair to poorer countries...

Why would they do that? Why are there higher import tariffs on precessed goods than on raw material? Simply because the industrialized countries have the means to process to raw material, but don't have the material itself. Without tariffs, as was very rightly siad, the producers of raw material would process it themselves for a much cheaper price. This would mean loss of jobs in industrialised countries. Not only the governments of these countries cannot accept this, but the population generally would not.

And this brings us to what I think is actually the real issue. Yes, a number of "big businesses" are out there to make money. But if trade was suddenly absolutely free, the fact is that lots of jobs would be lost in the West. If governments decided to cancel all trade barriers, they would be met by strong opposition from your/my neighbour, not necessarily from "big business". It is not necessarily that the "big busineses" want to exploit the poorer countries, it is more so that our fellow citizens would not be ready to bear the costs (human and monetary). We should not only look at the "big business" but also at ourselves.

It is not the WTO that keeps unfair trade barriers up, it is the state, and the governments of Western states are elected by us. I don't believe somebody who would come-up and say "let's get the poorer nations the money they deserve, even if it costs us" would get much votes. Unfortunate, but a fact.

Now as far as business making profit... Well, that's what business is for. Let's look at the structure of a corporation. It raises money by selling its shares to investors. Investors are people like you and me, some are rich, but a lot of them are middle-class. The profit of the corporations is usually translated into dividends that go to the sharholders, that means to us. If I invest $1000 in shares of a corporation, I certainly would want it to make a profit, otherwise I might as well use my money to go to the restaurant. It is very true that a number of people abuse their position as managers and controlling sharholders to make so much money for themselves that it becomes disgusting, but this is a minority of investors. Even banks and mutual funds, who are nowadays big investors, are actually investing our money in order to pay us the interests of our savings account and cover their costs. If "big business" would not make any profit, the citizens of Western countries would not either.

Is this fair to the citizens of poorer countries? Probably not. But as was very aptly said before, we tend to think first at our own interests.

Unfortunately, I don't think we can change all this very much, because humans are selfish and lazy a**h**es for the most part. After studying politics for a number of years, I found that this sentence explains quite a lot of what's happening everywhere.

Capitalism creates inaqualities because of the "selfish" part, and communism failed in part because of the "lazy" part.

Also, it is true that salaries are extremely low in developping countries, but this must be compared with the cost of living in these countries. Somebody receiving $100 a months would be a beggar in Europe, but could probably live adequately (although not in the luxury we are used to) in Bengladesh. Generally, even the poorer countries have grown during the last years and have become less poor. The problem is that richer countries have gotten richer quicker, so that the difference has increased. Is it fair? No, but I don't think it is correct to say that the poorer countries are getting poorer. What is correct is that the richer countries (and, as a consequence, we) are getting richer.

Well, I'l stop for now.

Baud

[Anzac]

Thanks for the reply - and I'll continue to do my homework for as long as it takes on the subject (which, I have ). Also, I'm still unsure of the patent/copyright thing, but you're method seems obvious and clear so I'll use it.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

As the genome mapping project unfolds, and specific genes are being identified, there are companies that are (here, I believe "patent" is the correct term, but as you mentioned it can be difficult, it may be "copyright") specific genes in the hope that as manipulation therapies gain acceptance, they can profit from their research. Not casting any form of judgement, that research has cost these companies great sums of money, money that must somehow be recaptured to remain profitable and stay in business.

So firstly, now because you're the first person to categorize a gene you gain all the rights to it? Just because I have the same gene in my body as the one you have spent twenty years and $10,000,000 for means you have thr right to it. I wouldn't mind AS much if they just reserved the rights to it, but it's the fact they request money for it that pushes it too far. It's called paying a tax for being a human and that's a little too far. However, this argument stems a little deeper.
If the patents in Europe mean nothing in the states (which is why you have to do them twice) then how come the US ones are global. Because the scientists patent the device in the US then it applies on the international market. At first glance this wouldn't seem SO bad if the US ones applied globally and there was hefty scrutiny but everything and anything in the states that can be patented - is! If there is a profit to be made then there is always someone on the other end to profit from it - this to me seems to be at the heart of the matter (not just the US, but the rich west - once having their wealth, they refuse to let any of it go).

Originally Posted by juantoo3

The worker who made those shoes perhaps made $2, but the company also has material costs, machine costs, legal costs, exportation costs, building and maintenance costs, etc.

And that isn't exploitation? How much do you earn per hour? (this isn't meant in a derogatory way, this is meant as a rhetorical question). A damn slight more than that worker will. How much would you earn per hour for doing the same work as them in the states or in Europe for that matter? A whole lot more, because of minimum wages and the like. This is why they move all their investments abroad so they can profit more off of it. If they wanted to reduce shipping costs and maintainance then they would build the factory in the west. However, it is proportionally much cheaper to pay your workers little per hour and ship it over than it is to make a factory in the west. The company isn't losing out anything at all by paying foreign workers (child workers more often than not, but that's a different story) and shipping them over - they're profiting.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Now, I am playing the game at the "discount" end of the spectrum, if you happen to be silly enough to pay $100 for those shoes, because of a name tag or something, that is your mistake.

Now people with general common sense and true caring for the world would buy a pair of shoes because they stop their feet from corroding and not because they have a logo on them. I for one buy shoes for that purpose and not for the designer logo. However, it is because the vast majority of the west buys shoes for the logo and not for the shoe that means out of the $100 you pay for your shoes, $2 goes to the worker. Most people should see that they're paying money for fat cat corporations but they continue to buy the shoes because of the social implications not wearing them would create. That's more to do with the west's mind set which in turn means we want shoes with logos on them - because we're told we are. As a result we go out and buy them. At the other end of the scale thousands of people are given jobs - great! Or is it when you work longer hours than any westerners for 1/1000 of the earnings at least! That's really exploitation - moving your industry somewhere else to pay people less to make more money for yourself.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

This imaginary worker would be even farther behind without the influx of foreign investment. And his nation is then able to tax those proceeds, and use those tax monies to develop infrastructure and provide for the common welfare. This, is what you see as "bad?".

Foreign investment is a good idea. Putting back the wealth the west took from their nations several centuries ago, and as a result they have suffered and we have profitted. It seems only fair to put foreign investment back - but what does that really mean? Over time the west has done nothing but sell other countries vast amounts of arms, exploited workers and sent countries into turmoil - don't believe me - then let's look at the examples.

Before World War Two, before everything really went haywire the world situation war very different - the poor were extremely poor and the rich were extremely rich - sorry, did I say things were different? I meant the same (that's more an internal joke than anything else). You have to go back a long way to the root of the problem. The largest area of poverty is China and Africa. China because few people hold all the wealth for such a gargantuan population. However, China has (without foreign aid as Russia provided little to none after the second world war, despite NATO propoganda) managed to crawl it's way back without investment and although the situation is still bad, China has the economic strength to more than rival the US. Japan - totally destroyed during the second world war - look at it now - a corporate powerhouse. Other examples, Germany - but wait, the Marshal Plan? Yes, that was because the US didn't want the Russians to expand their "Evil communism" and by doing so they pumped an absolute fortune of money back into the German economy. As a result Germany is now an economic powerhouse. That's because the US didn't want the money back because it served THEIR OWN INTERESTS. With the developing world the only interest it serves is to make cheap clothes and to get oil from (Kazhakstan...). As soon as it breaks out of this loop then there is no purpose to it and the US loses it's strangehold on the rest of the world's economic power. It is not in US policy to allow the rest of the world to come level with it's economy so it then requests all it's money back, with interest, which these nations cannot afford to pay. As a result their foreign aid consists of old obselete US arms (and huge amounts of Russian and Chinese arms that fuel the advance of even more potent weapons), making the US economy grow by them earing nothing and as a result there is a cycle of civil war.

Now to be fair, this isn't just the US at all. The US has the most influence in the international scene in this respect and they don't want things to change (WTO never really takes off when the African nations walk out because the US refuses to change it's policy...). However, the arms and "aid" package provided by the rest of the west is equally is bad and the amount of money that can be made out of nations that can't afford to feed themselves it phenomenal. To me that seems to be exploitation and not aid. Aid would be to selflessly surrender the thousands and millions of dollars they are sitting on and allow other countries to develop beyond the feudal system.

As for MicroSoft it's not technically true. As Ludwig von Mises describes capitalism: "The more people you please the better for you, to satifsy the consumer it the provider's aim". As the equivalent of Marx to Communism he was a leading authority on the subject. The whole point of capitalism is to provide competition so the better company profits more - hence CAPITALism. However, in the case of MicroSoft there is no feasible alternative (I however, am a profound Linux user) as people have been used to MicroSoft for years and years and refuse to change. Windows, however flawed it is, will continue to be bought and as such they're a lone superpower with no presence as to whether they will be challenged (reminds me of a certain nation-state...)

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Incidentally, didn't Gates bequeath some many millions of dollars to some world charity about a year ago? I don't recall the details, but my point is that he could because he was able. It is nice to want to give to this or that cause, but if you don't have it to give it is only wishful thinking.

There was a very good reason for Mr Gates to do this, as with his billion dollars to underpriviledged college aspirants - the US was threatening to tear the company in two because it had become so large. Straight away he gains popular support by his acts of charity and the company stays whole - more profit for him - a very selfless act of foreign aid.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Communism/Socialism do not work.

And a very good question/statement/conclusion - but why? Because people WANT to profit, want to make more for themselves and couldn't give to hoots about what happens to anyone else. People set out for self preservation alone and nothing more, no matter what anyone says about selfless acts and compassion - it's all meaningless garbage. We, as a "humane" humanity like to see others fail where we prosper, we like to make money and own, possess and be greedy. This is why it never works. If everyone took one moment out and looked at what has become of it - making mistakes in computer programmes so people will buy the replacement, making cars so they rust whereas it is just as cheap to protect against it, cutting corners in health and safety because of profit margins, sitting in a thirty-four house mansion whilst thirty four people go homeless elsewhere because you like your space. That's capitalism. Whilst all very nice and "consumerist" - it isn't really. You're not satifsying people to improve your own profit, you're just out to improve your own profit full stop. People now go into whole 40 year long careers because they can make more money than one they would truly enjoy - is that the benefit of several thousand years of society. Communism - power to the people? It doesn't work, those who wish to seek about changing power take the power from the people and keep it for themselves; a very capitalist act if I do say so myself. The fact that people can't get the power and give it away surely suggests there should be no power in the first place? Then if there was no government the country would collapse! Why? Because those people who were previously capitalists who lose their corporate interests are then fuelled by their own and in turn go out and get as much as they can for themselves regardless of everyone else. Everyone else then panics and does the same, then those that don't have it start killing those that do so they can have some (resources, food or whatever). If you stood back and looked at how stupid that is the you'd understand that as humans we are animals and nothing more. The day we can walk around without fear of being stolen from or without the desire to steal then I will agree that we are truly sentient and humane.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

"as long as I've got mine, who cares about you?".

To me that seems a very capitalist ideological stance rather than a communist one (however, as the left/right spectrum shows, the two are closer than first imagined).

Originally Posted by juantoo3

to reduce the common people to the level of "dog eat dog."

Again, that seems to be a very capitalist stance as that way the bigger dog would win. Not neccessarily (I can never spell that!) the larger physically, but those with more money and more of the resource in question. The idea behind that is to you have what you want but I'll have what I want. In the communist state there is a mentality of "no matter what I do I'll get it anyway - so why bother?". Wrong, again, that's capitalism. REAL AND ACTUAL COMMUNISM isn't commumism. If you read Marx your ideas of communism will be brought to a halt. All Marx says is "The basis of the communist manifesto is the abolition of private property". And that's it. Nothing about equal distribution, nothing about equal pay or anything; these are all social values imposed upon them. All real communists care about is state owned everything (as property in real terms is everything). In order to travel further into what you believe to be communism you must confront socialism as that is in essence what you are looking at.

[Anzac]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

There is common concern to be productive, because the rewards are yours to do with as you please. If you desire to be charitable, you may because you can. In an idealistically pure state, your success is not at the expense of others, mutual success creates a "win-win" atmosphere.

I don't wholeheartedly agree with that statement because in real capitalism, you're not all that productive. If you don't work hard you'll be out on the street fending for yourself with nothing. In that case you need to work to survive in essence. After you've got past surivival it extends into now I've started, I'll make as much for myself as I can. No one stands back and says "that person has nowhere to live now I've evicted them, I'll temporarily put them up in a shelther" - it's "sod them, I'm happy as I am and I'm not surrendering it". That's why when on the TV you see charity adverts and think "what a pity" but how many people run down and lobby/petition their local MP and say "this is an injustice of humanity"? None. You want to keep what you've "earned" and not give any of it to anyone else. Alright, maybe £10 a month or so, is that really significant? Do you actually give thinking that you can go out and make an honest difference to everyone's lives. After all, the clothes on your back, the shoes on your feet were made by them. As soon as the bottom element of the ladder goes out, another one is created as every journey starts with a single step...

To my knowledge the US doesn't have to modern standards what you'd call an empire. As in the "good old days" when Germany and Britain went to war over it as to who had who's then no, it's not one of those. As for the comment on the slave trade - definitely Europe! Which was the first nation to make concentration camps - England! I don't have a vendetta against the US, I don't have a vendetta against anyone. However, I see it as a total micarriage of any form of "justice" that I can sit here and watch people starve day after day live and uncut on my TV whilst I have a TV to watch it from, a computer to complain about and then I can see there are people who are even better off than me, and in turn, better off than them and so on and so on. To me that seems highly feudal for the 21st century.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Not to mention, what "invading" we did was primarily to save Britain's backside.

Well, if we're going down that road there are a few things i'd like to highlight.

1. In BOTH world wars who was selling arms to the Germans prior to them joining the conflict?
2. Who joined several years after the war started and had seen Europe already fall under a spell of conflict.
3. Whilst I am anti-US in terms of the things the nation stands for (i.e. unrestrained capitalism) I'm actually glad they finally joined in as it was a fairly unilateral conflict and "world war" shows the level of involvement.
4. Which country was the only one you asked for all the war loans back despite using the same country as an airbase for the next 60 years?
5. As for the strangehold of Hitler, I'm hardly sure that's fair. More people died in China during the entire of the European conflict (including Russian military and civilians). When was the last time any western nation helped the Chinese in WW2? We fought for ourselves and let their problem sort itself out - despite several times asking for western involvement - even right up to 6 August 1945.

To my other eyes the US has military forces in more than 100 nations across the globe, controls the UN in eventual decisions (then you say Iraq! Iraq! - well who went in and attacked anyway, yet recieved no sanctions, yet at a snap of fingers and Iraq had sanctions for 10 years which indirectly killed 500,000 people). The US is developing what can be collectively known as an empire - and now the age of empires is over there is no superpower left to stop them and so they do whatever they like when they like (look at the Big Brother anti-foreigner policy just invented to protect from terrorism - has no one thought poking the wasp nest would irritate them?)

Originally Posted by juantoo3

All men are not created equal. It is a wonderful platitude to strive for, but by nature and reality equality is not fact.

As you claim to be a capitalist I think it's amazing you can say that (not meant in a sarcastic, cheeky way, I really am). If everyone I knew who thought that capitalism should be used stood up and said that I'd be very proud. It's because people wallow in the misconception that we are created equal that they accept it. However, that isn't to say people can't strive for something better without infringing on another's right as a person.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Anybody who knows anything about the founding of America knows that the Roman system of government was specifically the blueprint from which our style of government was derived. This is nothing profound. At the risk sounding as though I may be bragging, look at what Rome achieved, and then look at what America has achieved. I don't find this an insult, more rather, it is a compliment.

The Romans really were greedy capitalists - look at what they did. Using military force despite inflated bureaucracy they invade other nations and then eventually replace each other as temporary dictator when they get tired and irritated. Enslave populations and watch thousands suffer whilst Rome sits in splendour from all the wealth and prosperity. Eventually Rome fell because of bickering amongst the senators over who had power and who should take power. Then the empire died and wasn't seen again until the Byzantium empire also collapsed beneath the Turks in 1453. Well see how far capitalism and military force coupled with bureaucracy over other nations happens. Not only do I believe the US shouldn't do it, I believe no other nation should as it implies inherent superior/inferiority.

[Anzac]

Sorry about that, had a lot to get off of my chest as I did an exam paper today all about Fairtrade and it sparked up a whole debate about capitalism and so I thought I'd pour my heart out.

[juantoo3]

No problem, glad you got it off your chest! I will have to respond another day however, as I'm pressed for time, I've been on here too long already today.

I will add you have given me some issues to consider. It is very apparent to me you are not one of the "run of the mill" believers, for that I applaud you.

Until next time, kindest regards!

[Anzac]

I'm appreciating what we're discussing in the debate but I think it may be wise to start a different thread on capitalism/communism/political ideology as it's bogging down the whole idea of exploitation of poor nations.

That aside reply when you have time and until then

[juantoo3]

Fair enough, where'd you go?