tk102 Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 China's minimum hourly wage: between $0.33/hr-$0.98/hr http://www.newsgd.com/business/prospective/200610300039.htm Exchange rate is approx 8 yuan / $1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-8252 Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 It wouldn't have anything to do with who makes the products at all would it? Sweat shops? Forced labour? Slavery? I'm not aware that there is slavery in places like China, Taiwan, etc (maybe there is, who knows). Yes, it's sweatshop labor no question, but that's just the nature of those countries. Just think about this: the people working in sweatshops in China would not even have the little bit of money they get from their labor if consumers didn't buy their products. So what's better... the people not work at all, and starve to death, or work hard as hell to scrape out a meager existance. Blame China's fascist government, not Wal-Mart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Web Rider Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 Blame China's fascist government, not Wal-Mart. To be true, the blame is on all of us. As well as Wal-Mart for encouraging it, and on China for providing it, and us, of course, for continuing to support them. If we wanted change, we'd have some. However, we're quite content in our current setup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilentScope001 Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 China is not fascist! It's Maoist! Maoist! They are quite left-wing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Web Rider Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 China is not fascist! It's Maoist! Maoist! They are quite left-wing. The best description of the Chinese government I've ever seen is "complicated yet simple." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tk102 Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 To be true, the blame is on all of us. As well as Wal-Mart for encouraging it, and on China for providing it, and us, of course, for continuing to support them.Exactly. There's enough blame for everyone. I can't do much about the Chinese government. I can choose where I buy products. Wal-Mart is the big gorilla here. the people working in sweatshops in China would not even have the little bit of money they get from their labor if consumers didn't buy their products. So what's better... the people not work at all, and starve to death, or work hard as hell to scrape out a meager existance.Is this some sort of justification for shopping at Wal-Mart? If I don't buy from Wal-Mart the Chinese laborers will starve? Oh how altruistic! Wal-Mart should get a humanitarian award. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totenkopf Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 Might as well stop trading w/Mexico while we're at it. Not only do we have to subsidize the illegals they send up here (by not providing good jobs there), but we are then also guilty of supporting a system where a tiny minority really does actually control most of the wealth to the disadvantage of the general population. The problem with trading with what are essentially third world nations is that companies in those countries have MUCH LOWER COSTS than in the developed world. You really cannot compete with them b/c there isn't a level playing field where quality is the defining issue and not govt policies (tarrifs, regulations, etc..). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prime Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 China's minimum hourly wage: between $0.33/hr-$0.98/hr http://www.newsgd.com/business/prospective/200610300039.htm Exchange rate is approx 8 yuan / $1. It would also help to know the cost of living... Yes, it's sweatshop labor no question, but that's just the nature of those countries. Just think about this: the people working in sweatshops in China would not even have the little bit of money they get from their labor if consumers didn't buy their products. So what's better... the people not work at all, and starve to death, or work hard as hell to scrape out a meager existance.Indeed. My father-in-law has worked with several international organizations and has seen this first hand. He has mentioned that often such income is the only kind for these families, so forcing them to close is not the answer, since there is no replacement. Often it is similar to a town in NA where a factory closes and everyone is out of work. There isn't as easy a solution as some people think... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totenkopf Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 It would also help to know the cost of living... These two links might help. From what I was able to glean from them, parts the PRC seem to have a per capita income of ~$US1400/yr. The richer areas closer to about $US2500-3000 (at least at the official exchange rate of 8:1). http://www.uschina.org/info/chops/2006/economy.html http://www.just-style.com/store/product.aspx?ID=39712&lk=sup Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilentScope001 Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 I think people are forgetting something about the free market. The Free Market claims that if one country specializes in something, and another country specializes in something else, and they both trade with each other, then both countries prosper. The US DOESN'T need to be the best in everything. They can't. If they do so, they will be less effective than if they let other countries be better in manufracutring or importing goods or menial labor or whatever. It can specialize in being the best in one area, then profit through the selling of that, rather than trying to do both at the same time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Web Rider Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 I think people are forgetting something about the free market. The Free Market claims that if one country specializes in something, and another country specializes in something else, and they both trade with each other, then both countries prosper. The US DOESN'T need to be the best in everything. They can't. If they do so, they will be less effective than if they let other countries be better in manufracutring or importing goods or menial labor or whatever. It can specialize in being the best in one area, then profit through the selling of that, rather than trying to do both at the same time. yes, but a country isn't uniform, example: the midwest can specialize in making wheat, the west can make oranges and the east can make maple syrup. The whole country doesn't have to specialize in one thing. Additionally, "importing goods" is not something a country WANTS to be good at, if that's all they're good at, as soon as the exporters realize this, they've got 'em by the balls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilentScope001 Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 Importing is exactly how trade works. America needs to export. But they also need to export. Having a postive trade balance means that we don't actually benieft as much as if we had a zero trade balance, equally trading with other nations. The USA needs to be good at something. If they are good at innovation, then they specialize in innovation and goods that require high technolgical advance, capital, instead of relying on goods that are labor-intensive. I'm just repeating the refrain of Economics 101, a simplified verison. It is true that a country does not specialize in everything. Maybe it should though. Inderpedence is risky, but it does lead to beniefts. But then again, I'm sure there are natural limits based on how much you want to protect the state. You can't outsource the US military to China, for instance. But you can outsource other jobs. Building toys isn't exactly something that is of prime importance to the foundation of our nation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-8252 Posted July 29, 2007 Share Posted July 29, 2007 China is not fascist! It's Maoist! Maoist! They are quite left-wing. I consider fascism to be a disease among both left and right-wing governments. Is this some sort of justification for shopping at Wal-Mart? If I don't buy from Wal-Mart the Chinese laborers will starve? Oh how altruistic! Wal-Mart should get a humanitarian award. Well, it's not just Wal-Mart that sells goods from poor countries. I don't shop at Wal-Mart, or any other cheap stores, but I can look at all my clothes and see tags saying made in China, made in Mexico, made in Pakistan, etc. I'm not trying to justify sweatshop labor, I'm just saying that the answer isn't to stop buying from these countries. Employers in China aren't going to start treating their employees like human beings because of boycotts. They'll just lay off a bunch of workers who will ultimately be driven even deeper into poverty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Galt Posted July 29, 2007 Share Posted July 29, 2007 I consider fascism to be a disease among both left and right-wing governments. Fascism is a specific ultra-right wing ideology. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism Authoritarianism, however, is a problem among both left and right-wing governments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-8252 Posted July 29, 2007 Share Posted July 29, 2007 Fascism is a specific ultra-right wing ideology. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism Authoritarianism, however, is a problem among both left and right-wing governments. I use "fascism" to describe any repressive, corrupt government, regardless of its political leaning. It originally referred to the political systems in Italy and Germany during WWII, I know, but it has a new meaning now. At least I think so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted July 29, 2007 Share Posted July 29, 2007 I use "fascism" to describe any repressive, corrupt government, regardless of its political leaning. It originally referred to the political systems in Italy and Germany during WWII, I know, but it has a new meaning now. At least I think so. Well, the term has been used to describe the Roman and Byzantine empires... essentially... fascism is where the intrests of the individual and other societal interests are considered subordinate to the needs of The State. And the respect of the State outweigh that of the people's. It is usually biased against a certain group of people... (Nazi's hating Jews etc.), and can be sexist... but I think patriarchy is always installed in culture (And is wrong I might add). It is usually nationalist, coporatist, and militarist integrated. And finally, it tries to unify the people as a single mass-moving culture which they try to globalize as "right" and therefore wage a war of conversion... EX: Islamofascism, Naziism, Over-enforced Religiousity, Rexism, Patriarchy, Matriarchy, etc. It matters not right-wing or left... if the state is considered more important than the people... it is Fascist... Totalaterianism-communism is fascist... Maoists and Stalinist are fascist... Leninism is fascist... communism, Marxism, and simple socialism are NOT like those other three... Many people obviously know what fascism is and is not... but I'm saying that the denotation has not changed... Just enlightening those who don't know... Fascism is basically... the way government is always headed if the people don't step in. If the people do nothing... then authority grows wild and out of control... corrupt and too powerful. And please stop reading wikipedia for all your political info, it is biased at times and doesn't have all the information... If you want to know more... get essays and books on political values... Communism namely... don't throw mud at communism until you've read the Communist Manifesto... or Das Kapital... (I, however, do not support the dictatorship of the proletariat... but I do support many of Marx's theories). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilentScope001 Posted July 29, 2007 Share Posted July 29, 2007 I use "fascism" to describe any repressive, corrupt government, regardless of its political leaning. It originally referred to the political systems in Italy and Germany during WWII, I know, but it has a new meaning now. At least I think so. Nah. Fascism always refers to a right-wing government that hates Commies and call for the supremecy of the state, sometimes even the superiority of an ethnic group. It's how Musilloni intended for the government to mean, and so there it is. You can't just throw the suffix "fascism" wherever you want and say, "Hah. The Government is evil! SMASH!" Why should it be used this way? Because Germany and Italy actually called themselves fasicists. Here's a thing you have to know: Does Islamofasicists call themselves Islamofasicists? No? Then we should not use that label to describe that group! I'm not going to call Democrats "Retreatists" or Republicans "Greedists", even so I detail in fine bullet-points that Democrats are indeed "Retreatists" and Republicans are indeed "Greedists". Anyway, your view would just turns fascism into a political slur, and the next evolution of Godwin's Law, and really, I don't see the point of doing so. If NeoNazists gain a foothold in the future of the Earth (hey, it can happen), then let's bring out the Fasicist demonology instead of abusing it right now. The Chinese call themselves Maoist, hence I say they are Maoist. I give people the denecy to name their own political movement. Why take that decency away? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-8252 Posted July 29, 2007 Share Posted July 29, 2007 You can't just throw the suffix "fascism" wherever you want and say, "Hah. The Government is evil! SMASH!" That's quite fascist of you to try to stop me from doing so! just kidding Why take that decency away? Because at this point, I can't figure out what the Chinese are anyway. They aren't really Communist, they just like to think they are for some bizarre reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted July 29, 2007 Share Posted July 29, 2007 I personally have a soft spot for William Godwin's Political Justice, SilentScope... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.