From: Robbie Lindauer (robblin@thetip.org)
Date: Wed Sep 10 2003 - 17:16:12 MDT
On Wednesday, September 10, 2003, at 06:01 PM, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:
> ### Who's lying?
Does Nike operate sweatshops? Did they lie about it? Is that OKAY
according to you?
>> Mechanism, think physical "follow the path of resources." Your
>> historical precedence is ridiculous. Laughable, really. How do THEY
>> show that it happens?
>
> ### (context elided - show how capital investment increases incomes)
>
> Oh, by simple calculations, by experiments, by observations of
> markets. The
> whole of economics, ever since Adam Smith, describes the effects of
> supply
> and demand on the price and availability of goods and services. Even
> Keynesians admit such basics. Are you aware of any alternative economic
> theory, which would deny the right of supply and demand?
So Keynes and Smith say so, is your current position. Do you go along
with EVERYTHING they said?
>> You mean keeping them in their mud huts? What USUALLY happens is the
>> peasants revolt and are put-down occasionally by their
>> capitalist-funded leaders. At least, this is how it works in Burma.
>
> ### More people crawled out of the mud in the last century than in all
> the
> centuries before. That's how it worked in the US, in Poland, in
> Vietnam, and
> will work in Burma.
There are MORE PEOPLE than in the last century. Percentages matter.
>> As a matter of fact, poverty is up worldwide.
>
> ### If you choose your source of facts appropriately, you will find
> that
> Elvis lives, and the Earth is flat. For economic data try OECD, WHO,
> UN, US
> Dept of Commerce.
Let's see your legitimate "poverty is in decline" source.
> ### Yes, the percentage of poor changed - from 100% about 8 000 years
> ago,
> to today's less than 20%.
According to the Bible, Abraham had 200 tents and thousands of
servants. That's not 100%.
Poverty is NOT less than 20% - even in the United States.
> But now I see why you need to laugh at the least provocation - your
> have to
> dispel the darkness, your view of the world is so gloomy, evil and
> poverty
> rising everywhere, rapacious capitalists raping the planet, no hope
> for the
> future, and those who have it, must be suckers.
>
> Sad, sad.
Truly sad indeed.
Hope for future is an empirical question. I think my life will be very
pleasant. Do I think that the rest of the world will have as pleasant
a life as mine, no.
I like to call it cold realism. You should try it.
>> How do you think someone like you could accumulate the effective labor
>> of lots of other people without actually performing that labor
>> yourself?
>
> ### I have no need to accumulate the labor of other people. I will
> make a
> million $ on my own, and then another, and another - with cryonics and
> life
> extension, could go on for a long time.
How will you do this? Don't say Amway.
> ### You know I am a staunch opponent of coercion. I will benefit only
> from
> people working for their own gain, freely, such as the Nike workers in
> wherever they are.
So are you just ignorant of the political repression in Burma that
causes them to be subject to abject poverty and willing to take shitty
jobs?
R
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 10 2003 - 17:26:31 MDT