Kindest Regards, Anzac,
I want to be clear I am not proselytizing. I am not out to extol the virtues of business and convert the "unbelievers." As a business major, I am biased, and have a vested interest in my bias. I also have a faith, and I must try to balance the two. If they conflict, there is a fault in the philosophy of my faith. Faults raise doubts. So I approach this issue from the vantage of "my" philosophy.
I must commend you on doing your homework, that is more than I can say for most that broach this subject.
First, I'm not certain how things work elsewhere, but the difference between patent and copyright is little more than semantic. I believe I understand what it is you mean. For clarification, patents deal with things, copyrights deal with intellectual properties. A song/book/movie is copyrighted, gadgets/gizmos/thingamajigs are patented.
There has also been a case (as I mentioned earlier) of copyrighting a certain gene (I think it was an animal of some kind but again, as soon as I dig out all the information I'll pass it on) which meant that any time the animal was culled then the US (although this time it might have been the UK) profited from a portion of the cuts.
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. I am still not familiar with the other case in question, and something about it does not sound right (correct), at least not with what has been presented so far. I also have to consider the motivations and biases behind such "reports", as is too often the case in matters of debate, information tends to be slanted in favor of the side presenting. I admire Amnesty International for their intent and motivations, but I also understand their work necessarily requires a slanted view in their propaganda. Much the same can be said for other organizations that have a vested interest in their positions.
As for exploitation - I feel it's the right word to use. For instance I sit here on the internet every day wearing my clothes which cost well over 200% of what the workers "earned".
OK, let us try to briefly consider this. Besides the cost of wages, the company producing those clothes has many other intrinsic costs that are not figured in your assessment. So do the wholesalers and retailers. For illustration, I'm going to pretend your sneakers (tennis shoes, or whatever they may be called) cost you $30 US. 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. The wholesaler purchases those shoes (in bulk) for perhaps $7, now he must add transportation costs, storage costs, wages, legal costs, import fees, building and maintenance costs, etc. The retailer purchases those shoes from the wholesaler for perhaps $15 a pair, and now has to add all of his related and associated costs, and he lists them for $40. And no one buys, so he must reduce the price until they sell, finally, at $30. He sometimes only breaks even, but if he continues to only break even, he will go out of business. So he must try very hard to turn a profit, which is his reward for taking the risk of doing business (the same is true of the manufacturer and the wholesaler).
If there is no profit, what incentive is there for the company to conduct business? Simply because you need shoes? Why should he give you shoes if it is not worth his while to do so? Altruism costs money, and if he has no money, why should he be altruistic? 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. If, on the other hand, those same shoes were produced in a developed country that pays higher wages, perhaps the transportation and some of the related import/export type fees would be lowered or non-existent, but the offset in higher wages and attendant benefits creates a $50 pair of shoes, at the discount level (wages shoot from $2 to $12, plus benefits which offset the adding shipping and import/export fees). In order to remain competitive at the price (consumer) level, manufacturers are required in the unfolding nature of globalism to seek out their best interests, which means in very simplistic terms, lowest wages. This is not 100% accurate, but for this demonstration will serve.
Please consider also, that prior to the introduction of manufacturing in many of these areas, there were no real (spelled: legal) ways for common worker level people to gain any "dollars." So while what they earn is miniscule by developed standards, it is very much more than they are accustomed to. To look at the issue from $12 to $2, yes, it seems exploitative. Try looking at the issue from $0 to $2. In that sense, wealth is trickling down. 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?"
Microsoft could buy most of Western Africa (and actually has enough money to physically buy South Africa and the surrounding smaller nations).
I am not a huge fan of Bill Gates (personally, I think MicroSoft practices the worst of the practices the "robber barons" ever did in dealing with his competitors), but I would have to say the evidence speaks highly of his business model. People vote with their money, if you will. If they do not like your product, they will not buy, you will bankrupt and go out of business. If they like your product, they will buy, and you will profit and stay in business. That is a simplistic explanation, but it is essentially how the whole thing works.
Truly crooked businesses do not stay in business for long, as a rule. There are exceptions, but that is because they became crooked
after they became wealthy. If they become known for being crooked, they also stand to loose and are eventually driven from the market by the lack of consumer "votes." 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.
contrary to what Susma Rio Sep says; I am against big businesses and conglomerate governments for this reason, it does show and yes it does make me prejudiced - but there is strong visible evidence in our everyday world that collaborates this evidence and as such I believe that there is a serious flaw in it
Very well, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. So I come back to my earlier question, what would you do to change things? Communism/Socialism do not work. They do not work because they do not create wealth. If there is no wealth created, there is none to disburse or distribute amongst the masses. What we have in existence now are hybrids, there are no truly fully Communistic or Socialistic nations. The experiments in nationalized industries proved that running business with no profit is a pipedream, hence the divestiture of industries in virtually all segments by every nation with a lick of sense. In rare instances, certain segments are subsidized for common welfare, because they cannot stand alone in a competitive market. Amtrak, the US passenger rail service, comes to mind as an example. They consistently operate at a deficit, left to their own, there would be no interstate passenger rail service in the states because they would bankrupt.
The most telling component in my view in the comparison between "pure" capitalism and "pure" communism, is the psychology of the masses. In a pure communist state, the people have an attitude of "gimme, I'm entitled!" There is no concern about creating wealth, because there is no reward for doing so. There is no incentive to be productive (unless there is a gun pointed at their head, which entails an entirely different discussion). The attitude is "as long as I've got mine, who cares about you?" There is no brotherly concern or compassion fostered, in the purest sense religious expression is anathema and/or illegal. It tends in a very real sense to reduce the common people to the level of "dog eat dog." The people remain on the bottom rungs of Maslow's hierarchy.
By contrast, capitalism produces a common psychology of "let's get out and do!" If one expects to eat tonight, then they had better (and in a pure state, willingly) earn their supper. The concern is in creating wealth, because that wealth is yours to enjoy. 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. If I help you to succeed, and you are successful, then your success continues and furthers my success. Concern (for others) and compassion, while not "mandated", are also not discouraged. The people are not reduced to an animal level, they are provided with the means and ability to achieve the higher levels of Maslow's hierarchy.
Bear in mind, this was an exercise in extremes. Neither capitalism nor communism nor socialism operate in ideal circumstances. That's just the world we live in. But of the three methods so far espoused by the developed world, I think I'll stick with capitalism. It may have its faults, but it provides an outlet for any who make the effort to rise above their misery. But it is not a free ride, nor should it be. I will make this concession, there are those who are not able, legitimately (that is, physically or mentally incapacitated), to participate. They, and only they, should be assisted.
(if you wish to question this just look at European empires, the slave trade and the US invading just about every country in the world for oil, gun sales and coal in the last century).
Isn't this just a bit exaggerated? US had no empire, certainly not in the sense here implied. While the US did engage in slave trade, whom did they learn it from, and who stood to profit by it (both coming and going)? "Invading just about every country?", I think the exaggeration here speaks for itself. Not to mention, what "invading" we did was primarily to save Britain's backside, and eventually release Europe from the stranglehold of Hitler. We have no need to import coal.
What I will acquiesce to, is that as global politics have evolved post WWII, we have had to engage most (if not all) of the nations of the world politically. That hardly means "invasion." (Unless one wishes to engage discussion of the Cold War, which entailed the Korean war through to the first round in Iraq, although it could plausibly be argued that the current situation in Iraq is but a continuation from that time). Especially post WWII, when the bulk of Europe was in economic ruin, we did step in and take some advantage of the situation, hence we emerged as the premier nation financially and economically, which didn't seem to be an issue so long as the dollar was backed by gold. Once national currencies were allowed to float against each other, some of that advantage shifted, and Europe saw the benefit in establishing their own common currency, hence the Euro. As foreign capital spread east from the states into Japan and then China and SE Asia, it bolstered their economies and created the Asian Tigers. And a predominant portion of all of this was driven by the American consumer, without which the business behind it could not thrive to make it happen. So should Americans be biased in favor of such?, you tell me. I am less surprised that other nations, particularly those in Europe, would view such unfavorably, particularly since it appears to be at their expense. But no one else, post WWII, was in a financial situation to do anything constructive about it. Methinks your protest is much like biting the hand that feeds.
I think you will find that things are changing. It is gradual, which is economically a good thing (there's no need to create another 1929 global economic crash). But there is a shift developing as nations finally get their feet back under them after the economic disaster that emerged post WWII.
All men are not created equal. It is a wonderful platitude to strive for, but by nature and reality equality is not fact. Nations that are lower on the scale will probably remain there unless some dramatic shift in natural resource value occurs. But overall, the
potential to elevate living standards for the more destitute is not only possible, it is (albeit slowly) happening.
After all, look at the only other civilized nation to exist - Rome. Built on an enormous slave trade run by an inflated bureacracy and invaded countries on a whim (remind you of anyone equally "civilized").
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.
