From: Rafal Smigrodzki (rafal@smigrodzki.org)
Date: Wed Sep 10 2003 - 04:33:04 MDT
I am catching up on some old threads:
Robbie wrote:
>Rafal wrote:
>> ### No, poverty does not exist because of Nike, but despite Nike.
>
> Well, here we just have a plain disagreement. Nike takes valuable
> resources from Burma and relocates them to the United States and takes
> the profits for themselves. This has the generalized effect of making
> Burmese poorer, Nike richer and American's better-shod. Since the
> Burmese are becoming poorer, Nike richer and American's better-shod,
> they are likely to be able to, if they so desire, perpetuate the
> system that impoverishes Burma. Indeed, we know that this is the
> case BECAUSE IT IS HAPPENING.
>
> It happens both at the direct level - shoes and money for nike - and
> at the global-economic level. Cash from the WTO (funded by Citigroup,
> Deutchebank, Credit Lyonnaise, Barclays, etc.) goes to the Government
> of Burma which then buys military supplies to ensure it's ongoing
> ability to enforce its rule over its people. Meanwhile, Nike which is
> majority owned by those same interests, goes and takes advantage of
> the cheap labor created by the oppressive government.
>
> Do you see it differently?
### Yes. See http://www.techcentralstation.com/090803C.html, especially the
references to Nike.
------------------------------------
>
>> Businessmen invest where labor is cheap, thus causing labor to get
>> more expensive.
>
> What's the mechanism by which this happens exactly? Can you site any
> historical precedent?
### Free market. Poland in 1970-95, even more so later on. USA at the
beginning of the century, industrialization by Ford, GM, etc. Etc. etc. etc.
----------------------------------------------
>> ### Owners of Nike (I might be one too, I haven't looked at the list
>> of stocks in my mutual funds for a long time) should not held
>> responsible for their actions, beyond the value of the stock they
>> bought, in accordance with the law.
>
> Well, since "the law" was set up specifically to prevent the owners of
> Nike from taking any responsibility WHATEVER for the actions of their
> corporation, here we just have a straight disagreement. The law
> really should be changed to make the owners of a company jointly and
> severally responsible for the "official" actions of the company.
### Why?
Why would you like to reduce incentives to invest by individuals of limited
means, thereby reducing economic growth, and harming everybody?
-------------------------------------
>
>> Liability of joint stock corporations for harms inflicted can easily
>> be handled by a compulsory, free-market liability insurance.
>
> You think this would make things better for the people living in mud
> huts? Once again, can you explain the mechanism?
### Yes. By increasing the flow of capital to the mud huts.
(This is not meant as a snub - I actually mean exactly what I wrote. The
easier it is to invest, the more competition there is for workers, and the
better wages ensue)
---------------------------------------
>
>> The correct way of helping poor children is to offer education
>> support (perhaps in the form of a loan) and protection from abusive
>> parents, rather than prosecuting persons who offer gainful
>> employment to them.
>
> Again, I hear your claim, but the mechanism has been around FOREVER
> and yet, there they are, children playing in pee in the streets
> because the sewage has never worked...
### Thanks to the flow of capital, the percentage of children playing in pee
has been steadily decreasing. The world is actually getting better every
day.
-----------------------------------
> If you look at the workers of an impoverished country as desperate for
> work, what incentive could someone capable of providing better wages
> have for actually going and competing for resources in that country.
> It's bad business. If Nike is paying $2/day, Addidas wants to pay $1.
> So if Nike is doing business in Burma, Addidas will go to Angola.
> That's how "REAL BUSINESS" works.
>
> Do you seriously think that we're going to run out of poor countries
> in which workers can be exploited?
### Yes. The world will be getting better in the future, too.
Rafal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 10 2003 - 01:44:06 MDT