My Question for Lou Dobbs
I occasionally (not too often) force myself to watch Lou Dobbs just in the interest of maintaining a diverse news/opinion diet. I would love to have the opportunity to challenge him on his protectionism and, specifically, his implicit argument that outsourcing offshore is evil. Primarily, I'd like ask Lou if he thinks it's evil for a U.S.-based company with U.S. operations to acquire new manufacturing equipment or information technology that enables it to conduct its operations with fewer employees. If not, then why is offshore outsourcing evil when it accomplishes the same purpose with the same impact on American workers, while also providing an opportunity for desperately poor people elsewhere to escape (or diminish) hunger and utter deprivation (which is why they'll work for far less compensation)?
Outsourcing is, on balance, a very good thing on a number of levels. First, it enables efficient capitalism, which means -- in the aggregate -- maximum productivity, optimal allocation of resources (generally speaking, with some exceptions), minimum prices of goods and services for consumers, moving jobs to people who need them most, the freeing of resources to where they are best applied (e.g., what economists call "comparative advantages" among nations -- for example, poor, low-cost labor countries producing labor-intensive products and more affluent, educated, tech-savvy countries producing high-tech or high value-added products) and as a result of all of the above, a higher material quality of life -- again, in aggregate. There is also the pragmatic point that we cannot wall ourselves off from the global economy (or at least not without tremendous price increases across much of the economy, lost jobs from our inability to export -- due to lower competitiveness and tariff wars -- and other negative consequences), so we cannot try to defy market forces and force U.S. companies to be less and less competitive.
Needless to say, some individuals suffer from outsourcing, as they do from open markets in general and even more broadly from capitalism (as opposed to pure socialism in which employment and compensation are guaranteed regardless of market forces -- at least until the whole system starts to deteriorate). I do believe that a society has some obligation to cushion the sufferring of those who are temporarily displaced, to ease the pain to a reasonable degree (e.g., unemployment benefits) and to aid in their transition to different jobs that hopefully fit better with what they can provide competitively in a global economy.
So, as I alluded to above, arguments against outsourcing are, for the most part, really arguments against capitalism. In other words, it values protection of particular jobs over a more efficient economy with all the benefits it provides for quality of life in the aggregate (i.e., for the population as a whole). The only twist is a presumed moral imperative to choose the protection of particular types of American jobs over the benefits to much poorer foreigners of shifting those jobs to them. And I would argue that, even leaving aside the moral argument that we should indeed care about a desperately poor person who happened to have the bad fortune of not being born here, forcing a substantial reduction in outsourcing (by legislation or public pressure) would harm most Americans for reasons I've explained above.
One exception to what I said above: If another country is clearly irresponsible in environmental policy or clearly, greatly abusive of labor (i.e., abusing their labor force in ways that artificially reduce wages), some exceptions are legitimate. However, labor unions and others against open markets and outsourcing often put forth exaggerated claims in these areas as a smokescreen for the unrealistic, harmful standard they are really seeking: making trade and outsourcing contingent upon foreign workers in poor countries being paid the same as American workers.
Full disclosure: I'm a management consultant and some of my clients outsource offshore (outsourcing is not the primary focus of my work, but I do occasionally advise on offshore outsourcing decisions). So there is the chance of inadvertent bias on my part. But I truly believe the opinion I’ve expressed above for the reasons I’ve given.
- B Rational's diary
- Login or register to post comments
Comments :
Your full disclosure is unnecessary
Supporting outsourcing...or better put, stating that outsourcing is good for the economy and a ridiculously utterly healthy and unequivocal net gain for nearly all Americans...is not a matter of bias, it's a matter of acknowledgment.
Sorry for my bluntness but it can't be stated enough.
And while my following disclosure is also unnecessary, I'll say it anyway as a preemptive formality:
Yes, it is sad for those who lose jobs because of outsourcing and there are things we can and should do to help them. However, in most cases, even this act of goodwill is overstated and overdone.
Truth be told, jobs lost to outsourcing account for a very small fraction of total jobs lost every year due to domestic competition, turnover and obsolescence.
Seen in this light, the extra attention to outsourcing losses is laughable.
And yes, Dobbs is a total moron and diametrically opposed to me is virtually every way. But I'm sure I can find some basic and bland points of agreement with him.
Re outsourcing I see it as
inevitable given our entrepreneurial economy, so that part of Lou Dobbs argument does not appeal to me.
However, I am in tune with his case that massive illegal immgration is costing us alot in terms of gov't services and (some) competition for jobs at the lower end of the economic scale.
name the enemy, win the war
Come on now, Sandbox...
Overblown and misleading...if not mainly untrue.
You really think illegals are exacting a big cost in government services? Most illegals don't even have access to services like welfare and related services. And even ones that are slipping thru the cracks are dwarfed in every way imaginable, quantifiable and measurable by legal citizens. Look inward. It's Smith and Jones, not Rodrigez and Rivera. Their impact is a glass of water in an Olympic-size swimming pool.
As for competition for jobs, considering our employment numbers, that's also not a strong case to make...neither is downward pressure on wages. The most charitable numbers put it at 8% lower wages on the bottom of the barrel jobs....I'm talking those taken drop outs and teenagers. Again, there's no there there. Really.
But, this bias goes is no different from Dobbs making a big fuss about the less than 1 in 10 jobs per year that are due to outsourcing. Seen against the other 9+, it's incredibly insignificant.
Think about it.
I am thinking of healthcare and education
services. Many illegal workers and their families use emergency room services, pushing hospitals to the limits. I understand and don't want us to turn sick people away from the hospitals--I'm just saying there is a big cost.. Th cost to local school districts is likewise very high for children of illegals.
Dobbs portrays the situation as out of control. I tend to agree. BTW this can be a major issue in the Pres campaign.
name the enemy, win the war
I agree
This could be an issue. Illegal immigration is brought up a lot in relation to almost every political issue.
I just heard a called on CSpan claim that illegal immigrants started the California fire out of resentment for the rich.
I'm only half stupid
Ummm...Think twice about that...
"Infrastructure and immigration?
That’s an odd couple. Immigration policy has been debated for years, but the debate usually focuses on border security, amnesty, and whether illegal alien workers are really needed to do the jobs that Americans “won’t do.”
Immigration’s impact on public infrastructure is rarely discussed.
Until the past few months, infrastructure policy was itself on the back burner, surfacing only when a bridge or levee collapsed, but generally of interest only to civil engineers and policy wonks.
How things change! Today, infrastructure spending is widely seen as a key lifeline for a sinking economy. The lion’s share of President-elect Obama’s stimulus package will fund road and mass transit projects, school construction, port expansions, and alternative energy projects."
Very interesting, read more here
...
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
a propos...a great article
click
RE: Outsourcing
AS a CTO of an internet company, I've found attempts of outsourcing software development to indian and south american developers to be a complete waste of time. You get what you pay for. We've always had to go back and redo the useless crap produced by such efforts. Maybe outsourcing of skilled software labor is feasible on a grand economies of scale, but not in my case, with a smaller company.
The problem with Dobbs is that he is misplaced in his criticism. The extent of the exporting of the manufacturing base and skilled labor in the US is actually the direct result of the US Dollar being artificially propped up us the reserve currency of the world. The more we import, e.g, China, the weaker our currency should become in a free-floating exchange market, which would therefore make foreign labor sources more expensive. But the US Dollar being the reserve currency of the world creates this situation where we can import at will and yet export an increasingly skilled job base at will as well. Overall, it actually makes us a richer a country to be able to take advantage of this scenerio, however, this scenerio combined with our tax code results in a more inqeuitable distribution of wealth, especially with respect to the tilting of the tax code with respect to health insurance and other benefits to employment.
Like always, the government mucks it all up.
every single time I watch Lou Dobbs
it's the same mantra on immigration and American jobs. Amnesty this and workers that. Non stop. I do watch him on occasion and I agree with the need to secure our borders but his protectionist garbage is annoying and grating.
Overall though he is an asset against pro-illegal immigration Democrats. Which has nothing to do with outsourcing but everything to do with security. Well yes it does have to do with doing menial work for low wages which is good and efficient as well, but that can be accomplished through worker visas and a much more regulated and safe approach.
He is a blowhard though.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
OT, but about Lou Dobbs--
I happened to tune him in on Tuesday (I think) and he looked and sounded terrible-- his speech was slurred, he stumbled over words, and altogether appeared drunk or high on some sort of drugs. Besides his speech, he was erratic, and berated Chad Myers, the weatherman, over Dobbs' perceived failings of longterm hurricane forecasts. It was a very bizarre scene.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
My take
Seeing as my career choice went from "guaranteed six figures" to "have fun working at McD's", offshoring puts me in a mood not unlike the one Ayn Rand puts me in.
I'll give a little bit because some of the downturn has to do with the tech bubble bursting, but everyone telling you that you'll have a minimum of 10 job offers out of college turning into being unemployed for 5 months and having to work at UPS for temp work in the winter doesn't exactly make me warm and fuzzy.
I could go into more detail and get a bit more on topic, and perhaps I will at a later date, but I put myself in a bad mood again. :-)
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
After the tech bubble burst in 2002--
I couldn't find work as a web developer and ended up going back to school and working as a CSR for Medco, taking people's mail-order prescription orders & so forth, which was a mind-numbing job, and then after I quit that because I couldn't take it anymore, I took a job doing on-site oil changes and routine maintenance for Southwestern Bell work trucks and vans, which was sort of fun if not lucrative. I make too many mistakes for that kind of work though-- I backed a truck into a pole once, spilled enough oil to make the Exxon Valdez captain envious, including drenching my boss with oil once, failed to tighten a thumb-screw on a jack handle in an incident that ended up with us having to drive a workvan off of a jack (noisily), and generally proved myself incompetent many times over.
I think it's the nature of the 21st century that a large percentage of workers will have to take different jobs at times to get by during slow patches in the economy. My attitude was that my job does not define me, and that I can have fun even if I'm not maxing out in my professional career every day of my life.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Kristof on sweatshops
Nick Kristof, a columnist I greatly respect, has column in today's NYT that relates to my first diary here on SC (the one above) from back in October, 2007, and which I believe supports a major part of my argument. (elipses mine)
Very insightful...
....great article.
It is based on truth though, and therefore will be too esoteric I'm afraid for our current crop of liberals to hear or tolerate.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Perhaps moderates and even
Perhaps moderates and even liberals who do not reflexively toe the union line will listen to Kristof. Sadly, they probably wouldn't listen to a conservative wrote the same column. If they bothered to read it, they'd either disregard it or express outrage at either some a supposed self-serving bias or (more likely) evil, exploitative capitalist propoganda. But Kristof is not a conservative and has a well-earned reputation as someone greatly concerned with human suffering, so hopefully he'll get a listen.
On another blog, someone
On another blog, someone noted that Kristof's column reminded him of an old (1997) column by left-of-center economist and columnist (now a fellow columnist of Kristof's at the NYT) Paul Krugman http://www.slate.com/id/1918
Krugman's column is also excellent, and it's good to see coming from a liberal. I wonder if he'd say the same today, though, now that he has a fan base on the left. I should do some searching to see if he's opined on Third World / developing world labor standards in the last couple of years.
Sweatshops
I think it's pretty clear that working in a sweatshop is better than scavenging a giant heap of trash or dying of starvation, but I think you might be slightly mischaracterizing the effort to "eliminate sweatshops." I don't think the anti-sweatshop faction is trying to close sweatshops, they are trying to improve them. I think you are creating a false dichotomy - either have sweatshops, or have nothing.
Perhaps the better dichotomy is: have more sweatshops or have better sweatshops. Completely free, no-strings-attached trade agreements would lead to more sweatshops, while trade agreements with labor law requirements would lead to better sweatshops. You may want to argue that more sweatshops is better, and you may even be right. I'm not sure myself. But I think that is the true argument. More sweatshops would certainly employ more people, but probably with much less chance of actually breaking out of any kind of poverty cycle. Better sweatshops might be better at helping people truly improve their lives, educate their children, etc, but there would probaly be less people helped, certainly less in the short term. What's better?
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
That's a worthwhile point to
That's a worthwhile point to consider, but my intuitive sense of the economics (the magnitudes involved in the trade-off between the number employed vs. the income level and of those that are employed), when applied to my morals, leads me to the same conclusion as Kristof and Krugman -- that on balance, even if relatively few would be better off if higher wages and other labor standards were artificially raised (that is, above market equilibrium), a much larger number would be significantly worse off in terms of deprivation. And remember, when speaking of "breaking out of any kind of poverty cycle" that "poverty" is a relative term.
You may very well be right
As I said, I don't really know what is a better strategy. To play a bit of devil's advocate vs. your ideas, though, isn't it good to develop a local population that has it's own capital, as opposed to a pure labor force, as far as long term economic growth is concerned? With a whole mess of sweatshops, virtually all the profit is being made by multinational corporations, not the local community, so I don't see a lot of potential for long term growth there.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
The question is: Sweatshops
The question is: Sweatshops as opposed to what? If the policy question is whether or not to (via various means) pressure employers to pay more and raise labor standards vs. "sweatshop" wages and conditions, what is the result (in conjunction with other policies, conditions, trends, etc.)?
Is there some threshold of wages above which upward mobility for large numbers of people ramps up dramatically (e.g., due to capital formation) and below which a population is stuck at some level, even if marginally better off than they were or would be with lower ("sweatshop") wages? Perhaps, although I don't know how much difference in capital formation or other key dynamics would be brought by paying sweatshop workers a bit more (or the same for fewer hours). In any case, you raise a worthwhile question, and we'd need to lean on economics to determine the magnitudes involved, and once we understood any trade-offs that exist, we'd have to apply our morality to those options. Again, I'm inclined to think as Kristof and Krugman do on this issue. But you raise at least theoretical counter-arguments that are worth researching and considering (although I won't be devoting time to researching it at the moment -- I'd be interested in anything you come up with as far as what economists and other policy experts have written).
Why would you make tennis shoes in...
Malaysia if the economic incentives are built out of it?
For years I made products in the Philippines, China, Indonesia, and Mexico, and the free market works, as business comes, they compete for the best workers through pay, working conditions, or whatever is important to that group of workers in particular, the workers lives improve, it works.
You must quit trying to imply your sense of what is fair and just on those who would just like to move their family off that steaming $h!t pile for now.
They are happy to have the opportunity to work, and your thinking will just governmentize and mandate and bureaucratize them right out of the best thing that ever happened to them.
Let the people there manage their own lives, and like peoples elsewhere have, evolve through the economic chain of life.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Economic incentives
No one is saying (or at least, I'm not saying) that Malaysians, for example, should be paid the same amount as New Yorkers working at a similar job. But I don't think corporations should be able to shop around for the most exploitable work force so they can increase their profits. Surely such things as a livable wage and reasonable working conditions are not such terrible things to require of an employer.
Sure, the "free market" may eventually get there. Company A is making heaps of money paying some poor population a bowl of gruel a week, so within a year or two, Company B comes in and offers a bowl of gruel and a shiny penny, and so on and so on. Why not jumpstart it with reasonable regulations?
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
That comment was, IMHO, less
That comment was, IMHO, less sensible than the questions you raised in your exchange with me. We have to ask what the reality is and what the real trade-offs would be, and the reality is that if you pressure or force companies to pay significantly higher wages in poor countries, it will mean (generally speaking) fewer jobs there (and more people left with inferior options such as scavenging in garbage dumps). That's the whole point that Krugman and Kristof (and RW and I) are making. It is at least theoretically possible that wages and labor conditions could be improved in at least some cases to at least some extent without so much job loss that the net result would be undesirable per my -- and your -- morals. But my general sense, again, is that much more harm than good would be done if the type of regulatory policies you are (apparently) advocating were adopted, and that's Kristof's and Krugman's point.
Disagree
If the jobs are available to be had (if the demand for the product exists), then the companies will have to employ someone. If they can't employ someone for a bowl of gruel, then they will employ someone for a bowl of gruel and a shiny penny, losing that shiny penny in profit, but still making a profit.
If they truly can't make a profit without exploiting a desparate population, that should tell you something about their product,
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
You are not understanding the
You are not understanding the reality and not ackowledging (at least in your comments in this sub-thread) the real world trade-offs involved, the ones of which Kristof and Krugman (not to mention lesser beings such as RW and I) are speaking. If employers are going to pay above market wages (i.e., more than market equilibrium -- the wages determined by supply and demand in a free market) if they produce in Country X, which is poorer and offers lower market wages, as they would in Country Y, which is not as poor and may offer other advantages, such as better infrastructure or a more productive workforce or lower cost shipping or fewer beuacratic or logistical headaches, they will be less likely to establish or maintain production in Country X than they would if they were able to benefit from the lower market wages. That's just Economics 101.
They'll take their ball and go home
Let's put this down to an opinion, which you are free to consider an irrational opinion, that multi-national corporations should not be the ones deciding what rules and regulations that they have to abide by. I understand that in your perfect free market scenario, that the poorest, most exploitable populations are the most attractive to corporations, and that being exploited is better than starving. I'm just uncomfortable having the world be ruled by the almighty dollar, which is what this seems like to me.
I also have to wonder why that giant festering trash heap is there in the first place. Clearly the environmental regulations that are in place are woefully inadequate! - not really sure whether to put a :) or a :( after that statement.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
No one is suggesting that
No one is suggesting that "multi-national corporations should ... be the ones deciding what rules and regulations that they have to abide by". And your argument seems to be (1) a broader argument against capitalism (something I discussed in my diary, although more in the context of the interests of U.S. workers vs. those of workers abroad), and (2) one that, if used as a basis for policy re: wages and labor standards, would ignore the practical realities and real-world consequences of such policy (the great harm -- e.g., more of those people on the trash dumps) just for the selfish benefit of one's own self-righteous good feelings, which would be immoral.
You make it seem like....
...a company just rolls into a country and starts throwing around edicts about what the deal is...wrong...those companies have to work with the governments of those countries, and don't you think certainly those people, and their governments, know a little more about what they want and need than you do?
Or... are they ignorant people, with corrupt governments, being exploited by international conglomerates?
Give them, the rest of the world, and modern business a break already!
Furthermore, in my experience what is crucial in one part of the world to workers, is not a consideration to others elsewhere. So a blanket edict of your own, imposing some arbitrary standards you feel would benefit workers everywhere, is not only unwise, but presumes a superiority to them the likes of which rivals the great liberal approach to minorities domestically, it presumes you know better than they (so take away their rights and put them in housing projects, give them food stamps, a little cash too, free cable and utilities, and surround it with a big fence to keep it contained...boy that worked well). This idea, and others like it, and I understand it is rooted in an earnest attempt to help, are not helpful, quite the opposite.
The consideration those workers sure want you to keep in mind, is whats good for the company, because, as it goes, a bird in the hand...
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Here's an idea.
Let each of the countries determine their own regulations based on the affordability thereof from an economic perspective based on the conditions and quality of life within their own borders...
Oh wait, that's what we do now. Hmmm.
Why do you think that we should meddle in the affairs of other countries on this point, as opposed to others like national security?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I knew this would happen
What was that comment Red_Wing made a day or two ago about liberal piling on? :)
To answer all of these comments in one fell swoop:
Yes, there is an inherent indictment of capitalism in my posts in this thread. Capitalism has, IMHO, a serious problem with wealth concentration. (And yes, I understand that it is fantastic at wealth creation, that's not the issue.) And since, in a capitalist world, money is power, that equates to a serious problem of power concentration. Hence my distaste with letting the rich and powerful dictate the rules right from the get-go.
Also, I am not saying we, as in the US, should be meddling in the affairs of foreign governments, but there is nothing wrong with us requiring US companies with foreign factories to abide by some basic rules. And there is nothing wrong with, say, a university requiring that all their official logo products be made under decent working conditions.
I am also not completely convinced, as per my initial exchange with BR, that a lot of crappy jobs is better in the long term for a developing country than a lesser amount of decent jobs. It seems like the latter would more quickly result in home-grown wealth creation (not to mention increased education and family planning - both poverty-busters), as opposed to foreign companies coming in and taking a lion's share of the profits being made.
Finally, even in a perfect free market, there should be a stigma against exploiting poor laborers. This whole "sweatshops are good" concept simply takes pressure off the corporations to do what they can to improve conditions, when the correct direction to go is to increase that pressure. The natural tendency under capitalism is for profit to go to the owners, and I think it is incumbent upon society to apply what pressure it can to temper that natural tendency, for the benefit of the workers.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Gee, this all sounds familiar.
For a blast from the past related (somewhat) to this topic, see: this
and this 
. It took a while to find it. :( But it was worth it to highlight that BR is basically supporting the views I expressed long ago! :)
Personally, I am much less concerned with the disparity between the "Rich" and the "Poor" within a given society than I am with the comparative standards of living of the "Poor" within different societies. For example, compare the standard of living of the US "Poor" to that of the third world "Poor". We have some of the richest "Poor" people in the world. That's not by accident, either.
The you quite clearly put the US corporations at a distinct disadvantage in the global economy. They simply won't be able to compete with the foreign competition which, in the end, will mean even less jobs here in the US than outsourcing would cause because that corporations will simply cease to exist.
I wouldn't be so sure that "home-grown wealth creation" is going to result in a better over-all outcome for the masses. Local businessmen and politicians are more likely, IMHO, to exploit the local masses than are rich US firms. The local guys will be struggling much more than the rich firms and thus will have an even greater incentive to exploit the masses (to keep THEIR profits high and thus try to climb the socal strata of wealth).
I don't think anyone here is arguing that "sweatshops are good", but we might be arguing about what legitimately counts as being a "sweatshop". Is that relative to US or local standards? Personally I don't think that paying someone a wage that dramatically improves their standard of living (compared to rummaging through garbage heaps looking for plastic cups) constitutes a "sweatshop" or even "exploitation" for that matter just because that wage is low relative to US standards. These people are not living with the US cost of living which is why they are willing to work for less.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4And just the implication - that left to their own devices...
...somehow American companies are out to screw over their workers is just contrary to any businesses I have ever had contact with.
It's actually perpetuating a myth, and is offensive to those of us who sacrifice to try our best everyday to create a cool place where people can go to work day in and day out.
American businesses want to build world class organizations, and have high performance facilaties, and happy productive workers.
I am not saying there are not some bad people in the world, nor would I suggest there are no bad employers, but again, overwhelmingly, by and large, when I or my colleagues in business awake in the morning, how to exploit our workers - is the last thing on our minds.
Quite the contrary.
And more government involvement IS NOT WHAT THE WORLD NEEDS.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
But you have to admit that
But you have to admit that companies (American and other) will often seek to source finished goods or materials (or subassemblies or whatever) from producers who minimize price by paying very low wages and avoiding the cost of decent work conditions. If that weren't the case, this whole discussion would be moot because there wouldn't be any sweatshops whose goods reach the U.S. market. And to the extent that they don't (and don't do so themselves in their own operations in poor countries), it's largely due to P.R. concerns rather than any ethic (and I'm not suggesting that it would necessarily be ethical or moral to pay above market wages or even that is more likely to be ethical or moral to do so).
Certainly...
...within the context of, lets call them "different" working conditions, in say Sumatra, I do not deem them objectionable given the paradigms we have previously examined.
I do not, to this very day, see companies out sourcing material or services that are necessarily the least expensive, goods must be timely, according to spec, etc., services must meet or exceed criteria set forth by current market standards and expectations.
Companies are looking for the best price, that is a given, but they must in greater measure consider the holistic well being of their organizations...
...however, liberals are reluctant to concede that fact, they seemingly find it inconvenient to acknowledge that core economic truth, as it undermines their efforts to perpetuate a hard earned stereotype of business they have created.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Nah
I don't think that is true at all. In fact, most liberal activism on this issue relies on the fact that businesses must consider that holistic well-being. That's the whole point of demonstrations against companies that use sweatshop labor - to make sure that improving sweatshop conditions becomes part of what is in the companies' best interest.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Oh SL...
The basis of liberal activism...and demonstrations...is evidence of squat!
Two words...Global warming...
I got a hot spot in Minnesota
I'd luv to sell ya...
...PLEASE!
I am not speaking from theoretical research, I am speaking from decades of first hand experience.
Lets just see who is qualified to speak on the issue...
a) Me - sitting in meetings and visiting factories on the streets of Kuala Lumpur/Jakarta/Singapore etc., or
b) You - in a feminists for free labor meeting at the coolest Starbucks in Boca Raton, or on the fair trade is groovy website.
Hopefully...you get the point.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Wow
Your insight into who I am is amazing! Chuckle.
And I guess if, in your mind, what a person (liberal or otherwise) does isn't evidence of what a person thinks or believes, then well, you are just odd and I'm not sure how to convince you otherwise.
Honestly, I have no idea what the global warming comment has to do with anything. Unless you are implying that activists who demonstrate about global warming don't believe in global warming. In which case, again... odd. I suspect you are just trying to push my buttons with an irrelevant comment about something that I care about, but whatever. Button push failed.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Ok, so the insight was a shot in the not so dark...given...
...but the paradigm is just as relevant; whether you're at a Pete's, or your local espresso shop, in a save the spotted lizard, or thermostat control initiative meeting...
To pontificate about business acumen in generalities about people, cultures, and economic climates you know next to nothing about - amounts to little more than the typical "liberals know best" about everything dogma.
As for the global warming comment - Liberals make all kinds of claims about this subject, and in fact has created a general hysteria around it, yet Minnesota seems to have overcompensated...LOL!
Point being, just cause liberals like it, wish it, give speeches and make movies about it...doesn't make it real.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Yep, we liberals... pretty much interchangeable
Lesbian treehuggers, college student peaceniks, Democratic Senators, they're all exactly the same!
BTW, you obviously completely misinterpreted my comment
about sweatshop activists. I wasn't trying to prove anything about economic realities. I was explaining why those activists believe such protests to be effective. In your rush to once again make sweeping generalities against liberals, you apprently misread what I wrote. Typical conservative, I guess! :)
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Come again...
You are bobbing and weaving your way all around this deal...
How do you get;
Lesbian treehuggers, college student peaceniks, Democratic Senators, they're all exactly the same!
BTW, you obviously completely misinterpreted my comment about sweatshop activists. I wasn't trying to prove anything about economic realities. I was explaining why those activists believe such protests to be effective. In your rush to once again make sweeping generalities against liberals, you apprently misread what I wrote. Typical conservative, I guess! :)
From...
...but the paradigm is just as relevant; whether you're at a Pete's, or your local espresso shop, in a save the spotted lizard, or thermostat control initiative meeting...
To pontificate about business acumen in generalities about people, cultures, and economic climates you know next to nothing about - amounts to little more than the typical "liberals know best" about everything dogma.
As for the global warming comment - Liberals make all kinds of claims about this subject, and in fact has created a general hysteria around it, yet Minnesota seems to have overcompensated...LOL!
Point being, just cause liberals like it, wish it, give speeches and make movies about it...doesn't make it real.
Except in an attempt at some form of divertissement.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Dude
I'm not bobbing and weaving around anything. You are arguing against something I never said. Please do go back and read this
, try to actually understand what it says this time, and then look at your response to it. Maybe then you will get it. Maybe not. Either way, I don't really care that much, so feel free to ignore it all.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
(Smirk)
I guess I would ask you to do the same, I do not see how you can avoid the obvious.
I just think it humorous, you seemingly have this universal, goody two shoes, we have the answers for everything, feels good to me so that's the way it should be attitude...about a subject you know virtually nothing about.
And you exercise this self satisfying trade policy theory at the real peril of harming hard working people who could suffer greatly at the hand of your high brow proclamations.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Could you be
any more bulbous in your response.
Is there any debate at all in your comment, or just a general personal derision of someone else, because their opinion is different than yours?
Your comment adds nothing, and is unnecessarily rude. (No surprise there)
I'm only half stupid
So opportunistic of you my dear...
...to have no input in the thread, then do your usual smart @ss chime in thing as it ends is...
...so like you.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Yeah
Don't you just hate when those liberals get all uppity and express their opinions (which is what SL clearly stated).
Your efforts to silence with bullying insults is duly noted.
I'm only half stupid
OK, you seem to be getting a bit personal
So, against my normal policy, I'm just going to have to say you are being a bit of a pompous jerk, here, RW. I think I have pretty consistently stated that my comments on this thread have been a matter of opinion, that I don't claim to have the correct answers, and that you are free to consider these opinions irrational. If you find that to be a "we have the answers to everything" attitude, then you are... well, I can think of several not-so-family-friendly descriptors, but let's just say, not someone I care to converse with.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
If I may intervene and try to
If I may intervene and try to state and expand upon what I think is RW's general point, and put it in a more diplomatic way, there are some on the left -- just as there are some on the right -- who self-righteously take positions and advocat policy that provides them a "feeling" of morally superiority without really looking into and considering the real world impact of these policies, which may in fact do more harm than good.
In your initial exchange with me on this thread you made reasonable statements, raised reasonable questions, acknowledged the possibility of being wrong, etc., but then in your exchange with RW you seemed to take a very different tone with much less reasonableness (IMHO), and perhaps that's what he's reacting to.
I humbly suggest going back to your original tone and more thoughtful comments.
I don't mean to be a Jerk SL...
I was just being...me.
And ramping it up a notch too high perhaps.
I apologize. (For the jerk-ish part, not the underlying sediment) ;-)
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Good to see. Nice,
Good to see. Nice, appropriate, and good for SC (IMHO)
Go on with your bad rational self...
..thanks for your above insight into the development of the thread..
From my perspective it hit the nail precisely on the head.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
thanks
thanks
Underlying "sediment"... LOL
*
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
By sediment I meant as in the bond that ties us...LOL!
It should work, I know my sentiments keep my lawn looking great!
....it was late ok.. ;-)
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
I will second that
Your *tone* was just fine and your comments have been very thoughtful, as always!
I'm only half stupid
Sure, price is not the only
Sure, price is not the only consideration, but once particular minimal standards are met (for product quality, lead times, etc.), price often becomes the deciding factor, which, again, is why we have sweatshops for goods destined for the U.S. market (among other markets).
As for liberals pushing for tougher labor standards re: sweatshops, I see two groups that constitute most, (1) the self-righteous crowd that think that good intentions make their position morally superior despite the reality (or without seriously considering the possibility) that such policy would harm most of the people they claim to want to help, and (2) Pro-union / protectionist folks who care only about American jobs and wages and who either convince themselves that it would help those poor workers abroad or just claim insincerely that it would or (a minority) are just honest that they only really care about Americans (of course, they mean mainly American workers and most particularly American union labor, as opposed to Americans generally which would include all consumers who would benefit from the better value (quality for the price or however defined) a free market provides.
Yes...ultimately...
...price is always a consideration.
I have already given my qualification of ...what we're calling... sweat shops...
I agree with the latter half of your post.
However, it is one thing to own and control a factory in _______, but that brings up another question, is SL further inferring foreign held companies, from countries around the planet, that do not meet some arbitrary American workplace standards, be barred from selling goods to American held companies.
Probably, if so, that presents a whole host of problematic questions.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman