|
|
 Originally Posted by Renton
I don't have time to reply to everything right now but this is an easy one.
Basically, yes, outsourcing to Bangladesh is a universal good. It enables the limited human resources of the United States to be put to more valued uses. It minimizes to the prices of goods and services in the world, increasing the standard of living for all. It throws the people of Bangladesh a lifeline which will eventually pull that country out of abject poverty. Note that the clothing jobs that people work in Bangladesh are voluntarily chosen over the dismal alternatives, and that choice is important. If it weren't for the sweatshop job they could be making even less scavenging in the streets or prostituting themselves.
This is the beauty of capitalism, clothing companies act out of self interest and exploit labor in third world countries, yet everyone benefits. A big part of realizing this is rejecting the idea of a zero sum game. Free trade is a positive sum game because everyone who agrees to a trade is getting something of more subjective value than they give, and this is how wealth is created.
thanks for taking the time. i figured that the bangladeshi worker example would be viewed in a positive light by proponents of laissez faire capitalism. and if it could be proven to me that this "trickle down" (i'm not an economist and so i'm sure my use of these economist terms is inaccurate but hopefully you get what i'm trying to say) method of alleviating extreme poverty were the best method of doing so then i'd be right with you. my inability to see why/how that's the case could certainly be because i simply don't understand economics. that's why i'm bothering to participate in this discussion.
human factors aside, where do you believe the "environment" ought to fit in to the unfettered capitalist system you advocate? some people argue that the environment is, and ought be, far less a priority than stimulating economic growth at any cost. and that's fine. but if you acknowledge that the longevity of our species depends upon certain environmental conditions (temperature range, adequate clean water, clean air, viable land etc) which are being degraded by our economic paradigm which requires exponential growth to sustain itself (which i assume unfettered capitalism would too?), and does not factor the environmental effects of business into its transactions (tragedy of the commons blah blah etc), then what do you propose ought be done? i mean, i assume governmental restrictions on environmentally-degrading business practices are out of the question because that's what you're seeking to do away with. so, put an economic price on any environmentally-harmful by-products of business? that's another barrier to business? how would these issues be dealt with in your perception of an optimal economic system?
of course, calling this a "problem" assumes that:
A) things like climate change/land degradation through deforestation and chemical alteration/water quality degradation due to runoff etc actually are occurring and actually do threaten the survival of our species. not everyone believes this to be true.
B) the survival of the next generation of our species matters
C) these "damages" have been caused by the "profit-incentive" which is inherent to capitalist systems
if you believe any of those are untrue, then we have no problem. but if true, i think you'd have to agree we have a pretty big problem, and it will be hard to deal with if we continue to hold economic growth as our primary goal.
|
Reply With Quote