Saturday, February 26, 2011

Sweatshops

Libertarians are notorious defenders of sweatshops. Kevin Wayne, in a comment, brought up this excellent resource:

A Consensus Statement on Sweatshop Abuse and MIT’s Prospective Actions in Pursuit of International Labor Justice

34 comments:

Kevin Wayne said...

I've also put together a brief compendium of websites on the issue of Sweatshops:

Sweat Shops are SO wonderful: Why would anyone object?

Joanna Liberation said...

From Kevin's link: "I got a problem with assholes who recommend others work in environments they themselves wouldn't want to be in. Call me crazy, but that seems like a Double Standard."

And I got a problem with assholes who recommend others work in environments they themselves wouldn't share. Call me crazy, but that seems like a Double Standard.

Just let me know when you "sweatshop haters" are ready to repeal immigration laws.

Kevin Wayne said...

Just let me know when you "sweatshop haters" are ready to repeal immigration laws.

Anytime ;-)

Joanna Liberation said...

I'm glad to hear that Kevin, I'd love more liberals were as sophisticated. However, do you really think your sweatshop "hatred" is of any use to sweatshop workers? If they had better employment opportunities, they would not have worked in sweatshops in the first place. It's only one of the liberal BSs that you can improve people's lifes by limiting their opportunities. No, if you really hate sweatshops, you have to increase their opportunities. That's what free market is about. Sweatshops seem like a free market paradise, but they are either the result of collectivist poverty or very early capitalism stage. Sweatshops can disappear if you make them illegal all right (like China did during its 30 years of communism), but that only makes people poorer, get them back into unemployment or farm work which is still worse. Of course, it would also be worse for you liberals, as then you would have no nice Nike brand to focus your hatred on... It's silly to "recommend" chinese workers to simply start getting US salaries by passing laws. Salaries=workplace productivity=capital productivity so you need local capitalists to build up capital first. Developed contries' workers enjoy high standard of living precisely they had sweatshops in the past, you can't simply skip the phase and expect pseudo-feudal economy to start sending their workers on foreign vacations overnight. The more sweatshops, the sooner they'll end, China is a great example.

Kevin Wayne said...

I'm glad to hear that Kevin, I'd love more liberals were as sophisticated.

Uhhhhh... what planet are you oonnnnn? ;-)

I coulda sworn it was all those "Back to the Constitution" assholes we were arguing with against Arizona's recent Immigration law? Yes, I think so!

If they had better employment opportunities, they would not have worked in sweatshops in the first place.

And those poor cash strapped Koch brothers that fund your Libertarian websites can't stretch their dollars enough to be able to pony up for a bit better living wage? Awwwwww....

No, if you really hate sweatshops, you have to increase their opportunities.

Top down Job Partnership training coming right up! Would you like fries with that" ;-)

Sweatshops can disappear if you make them illegal all right (like China did during its 30 years of communism), but that only makes people poorer, get them back into unemployment or farm work which is still worse.

Clearly you've read none of the material provided. How about reading what we linked you to so you can see what you we're actually arguing:

Slavery might also be better than starvation, yet nobody advocates a return to slavery. Just because a bad job may be better than starvation doesn’t justify labor abuses such as the beating and raping of workers or the threatening of worker’s families—all abuses that have been regularly documented by independent researchers visiting sweatshop factories (Breslow, 1995; Foek, 1997). While accepting that a bad job might be better than nothing, we should continue to fight the abuse of human lives, and even a basic study of history reveals that most human progress as a society has occurred through such struggles for progress, not through maintenance of the status quo. If we justify abuse under the premise that is better than the worst alternative, we create a slippery slope leading down to the complete devaluation of human life.

Of course, it would also be worse for you liberals, as then you would have no nice Nike brand to focus your hatred on...

I'm sitting here wondering if you really are that stupid?

Kevin Wayne said...

CONTINUED:

Developed contries' workers enjoy high standard of living precisely they had sweatshops in the past,

Nope:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweatshops

Critics of sweatshops cite high savings, increased capital investment in these countries, diversification of their exports and their status as trade ports as the reason for their economic success rather than sweatshops and cite the numerous cases in the East Asian "Tiger Economies" where sweatshops have reduced living standards and wages. They believe that better-paying jobs, increased capital investment and domestic ownership of resources will improve the economies of sub-Saharan Africa rather than sweatshops. They point to good labor standards developing strong manufacturing export sectors in wealthier sub-Saharan countries such as Mauritius and believe measures like these will improve economic conditions in developing nations.

Critics of sweatshops argue that the minor gains made by employee of some of these institutions are outweighed by the negative costs such as lowered wages to increase profit margins and that the institutions pay less than the daily expenses of their workers. They also point to the fact that sometimes local jobs offered higher wages before trade liberalization provided tax incentives to allow sweatshops to replace former local unionized jobs. They further contend that sweatshop jobs are not necessarily inevitable. Eric Toussaint claims that quality of life in developing countries was actually higher between 1945-1980 before the international debt crisis of 1982 harmed economies in developing countries causing the to turn to IMF and World Bank-organized "structural adjustments" and that unionized jobs pay more than sweatshop ones overall - "several studies of workers producing for US firms in Mexico are instructive: workers at the Aluminum Company of America’s Ciudad Acuna plant earn between $21.44 and $24.60 per week, but a weekly basket of basic food items costs $26.87. Mexican GM workers earn enough to buy a pound of apples in 30 minutes of work, while GM workers in the US earn as much in 5 minutes." People critical of sweatshops believe that "free trade agreements" do not truly promote free trade at all but instead seek to protect multinational corporations from competition by local industries (which are sometimes unionized). They believe free trade only involves reducing tariffs and barriers to entry and that multinational businesses should operate within the laws in the countries they want to do business in rather than seeking immunity from obeying local environmental and labor laws. They believe these conditions are what give rise to sweatshops rather than natural industrialization or economic progression.


So a woman take a job in a sweatshop. She's working double shifts each day. She cant step away to take a drink. She smarts off to as supervisor, is beaten, raped, killed. So did she really take a job that was better than her previous situation?

Or perhaps you would like to be in her place?

I've read over the pro and cons of the Sweatshop debates and the Cons are much stronger arguments.

Joanna Liberation said...

So did she really take a job that was better than her previous situation?

Yes, unless you argue she was stupid. Which would not surprise me really, most liberal arguments boil down to the alledged fact that people are stupid (they buy because they are stupid consumerists, they work because they are stupid scabs, they sell because they are stupid speculators etc).

Or perhaps you would like to be in her place?

If I were in her place, I'd certainly not want some first world guy to decide where I can or cannot work. Thank you very much for your recommendations, just let me know when you can offer me a job that pays better. I can't buy food for your sweathshop hatred.

I've read over the pro and cons of the Sweatshop debates and the Cons are much stronger arguments.

Hahaha, wow, so you've carefully analyzed all the pros and cons and only then came to the conclusion that sweatshops offer dismal workplaces compared to the ones we know in the first world? What a breakthrough! I would have never thought of that! It's like when you tell a conservatist that you want legal abortions. "But you want to kill babes!". No, I'd prefer not to kill babes, I just believe that less options does not make anyone happier or richer.

Kevin Wayne said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Kevin Wayne said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Kevin Wayne said...

Yes, unless you argue she was stupid.

No, Stupid - I argue it because she's DEAD!

If I were in her place, I'd certainly not want some first world guy to decide where I can or cannot work.

You can't work. Your dead, remember?

Thank you very much for your recommendations, just let me know when you can offer me a job that pays better. I can't buy food for your sweathshop hatred.

Well you can always beg the State Top-Down Controllers of the Masses who have been driving the Chinese economy for the past 25 years. Oh, that's right. You Libertarians think any economic gain just happens naaaatturallly! :P

Hahaha, wow, so you've carefully analyzed all the pros and cons and only then came to the conclusion that sweatshops offer dismal workplaces compared to the ones we know in the first world? What a breakthrough!

Silly me I thought you were going to offer some Counter-points to the stuff I provided. Never occurred to me that you had none.

I would have never thought of that! It's like when you tell a conservatist that you want legal abortions. "But you want to kill babes!". No, I'd prefer not to kill babes, I just believe that less options does not make anyone happier or richer.

The China Fantasy: Why Capitalism Will Not Bring Democracy to China

Joanna Liberation said...

No, Stupid - I argue it because she's DEAD!
You can't work. Your dead, remember?

I congratulate you on your efforts to keep sweatshop workers alive by forcing them back into third-world unemployment (as opposed to our fat-ass first world unemployment) where I'm certain the sky is the limit. Looks like they have managed to stay alive w/o your "help" though (or more accurately, precisely because you could not "help" them), considering the population growth in thirld world countries keeps increasing.

Silly me I thought you were going to offer some Counter-points to the stuff I provided.

But you don't make any points. Your "arguments" are merely descriptive. You basically repeat sweatshops are a bad thing 1000 times and make it sound as if you were making some groundbraking discoveries. It's precisely like pro-life "arguments". Conservatists merely repeat 1000 times that killing babies is bad as if no one knew that already and as if they were making some groundbraking discoveries. That's just retarded.

Joanna Liberation said...

The China Fantasy: Why Capitalism Will Not Bring Democracy to China

But there is really no need to fantasize and hypothesize.

Is China more democratic now as opposed to 1978 when economic reforms started? Ask any chinese guy.

What is current chinese GDP per capita as compared to US GDP per capita? 16 times smaller. Would it be accurate to say that China is accordinly 16 times less democratic than the US? Sounds good to me.

Kevin Wayne said...

I congratulate you on your efforts to keep sweatshop workers alive by forcing them back into third-world unemployment (as opposed to our fat-ass first world unemployment) where I'm certain the sky is the limit.

Mor-on! Read what I've been posting for you! Where is anyone saying it's about getting rid of sweatshops?

You basically repeat sweatshops are a bad thing 1000 times and make it sound as if you were making some groundbraking discoveries.

You're reading comprehension is about 3rd grade level AFAICS. Did you grow up going to an inner city Public School that was hit by Republican cutbacks?

I've actually thought about being charitable in giving you some coaching on how to read stuff put in front of your nose and engage constructively in this conversation, but - nahhhh don't think I'll bother. I'd just have to listen to you rant & rave more. :-D

Kevin Wayne said...

Is China more democratic now as opposed to 1978 when economic reforms started? Ask any chinese guy.

Um, ya- Top Down control of the masses had nothing to do with their Economic prosperity, ans is all about to disappear overnight. Dream on.

Joanna Liberation said...

Top Down control of the masses had nothing to do with their Economic prosperity

Of course it has, same as it had during the 30 communist years before. It efficiently stifles progress. After the reforms, there has been much less top down control over the last 30 years, compared to the previous 30 communist years. Hence the whole big deal about chinese "prosperity". They were even able to waste taxpayer money on a nice white elephant of the olympics, which made all liberals ecstatic. At least those who forget currently over 70% of chinese GDP is produced by private sector. Still, chinese are 16 times poorer than americans so nothing to be impressed about. You're correct, the top down control of the massess is still relatively strong there, so unless you measure prosperity by white elephants, this fact fits the whole GDP per capita picture pretty nicely (and democratization).

Joanna Liberation said...

Mor-on! Read what I've been posting for you!

Okay, so what exactly would have happened if we applied liberal laws to 19th century factories, which, by our today's standards, were basically all sweatshops. Are the "critics of sweatshops" saying we'd have simply jumped to 21th century overnight back then? And if yes, why socialist countries didn't?

Kevin Wayne said...

After the reforms, there has been much less top down control over the last 30 years, compared to the previous 30 communist years.

But not in the way you are thinking of.

Hence the whole big deal about chinese "prosperity".

A Slave can run to the bank for the Master just as good as one can till the field.

They were even able to waste taxpayer money on a nice white elephant of the olympics, which made all liberals ecstatic.

Hrummph! I seem to remember talk about organizing boycotts.

At least those who forget currently over 70% of chinese GDP is produced by private sector. Still, chinese are 16 times poorer than americans so nothing to be impressed about. You're correct, the top down control of the massess is still relatively strong there, so unless you measure prosperity by white elephants, this fact fits the whole GDP per capita picture pretty nicely (and democratization).

And of course! The Free Market is to credit for all of this! Ya'Right! *snort*

China's Rapid Recovery in the Great Recession of 2007 - 2009

During the recession of 2007-2009 China's exports dropped 15-18 percent causing 23 million workers to be laid off, but 98% readily found jobs as the economy bounced back and the unemployment rate dropped to 4% with a $586 billion stimulus package. The strategy was to create employment directly through fiscal means as President Roosevelt did during the Great Depression of the 1930s.

China's system cannot be emulated by other nations because of its unique institutional framework, nor is it intending to export its system. Some of its leaders fear that adopting Western democracy may cause turbulence in society. Its main objective in dealing with foreign countries is economic opportunity, trade and development in a pragmatic way. Political leadership of a one-party system is elected every five years. China has a market authoritarian form of a system in which a free market is allowed to operate with the government holding a very firm hand on political activity in the country. Last year 10,000 small protests were tolerated. Currently over half of China's GDP is produced by privately controlled enterprises.

Not quite the Libertarian paradise, not even a Free Market one.

Continued next.

Kevin Wayne said...

China's Miracle Economy: Have the Chinese Become the World's Greatest Capitalists?

State-owned banks have massively increased lending, with local governments and state enterprises borrowing on a huge scale. The People's Bank of China estimates that total loans for the first half of 2009 were $1.08 trillion, 50% more than the amount of loans Chinese banks issued in all of 2008.

China is the one leading economy where the divide -- the disconnect between its financial sector and the world normal Chinese people and their businesses inhabit -- doesn't exist. Both worlds are booming again and this is due to the way the government handled its banks. China hasn't allowed its banking sector to become so powerful, so influential, and so big that it can call the shots or highjack the bailout. In simple terms, the government preferred to answer to its people and put their interests first before that of any vested interest or group. And that is why Chinese banks are lending to the people and their businesses in record numbers.

How can the people get somewhere with the Government? When the Government has a stranglehold on things which are largely private sector every where else. Not bad for a 1-Party System!

THE PEOPLE are in charge, when their Government as aspects of the Private Sector by the balls!

To the extent that China's stimulus plan is working better than in the U.S. and the U.K., this seems to be because the government is using the banks for public ends, rather than allowing the banks to use the government for private ends. The Chinese government can operate the banks' credit mechanisms in a way that serves public enterprise and trade because it actually owns the banking sector, or most of it. Ironically, that feature of China's economy may have allowed it to get closer to the original American capitalist ideal than the United States itself.

A lot closer to the ideals of Democratic Socialism (even if only a 1-Party System) than anything Libertarians are talking about!

The Chinese solution to a failed banking system would be to nationalize the banks themselves, not just their bad debts. If the U.S. were to follow that example, we the people could get something of value for our investment -- a stable and accountable banking system that belongs to the people. If the word "nationalize" sounds un-American, think "publicly-owned and operated for the benefit of the public," like public libraries, public parks, and public courts.

Kevin Wayne said...

Okay, so what exactly would have happened if we applied liberal laws to 19th century factories, which, by our today's standards, were basically all sweatshops. Are the "critics of sweatshops" saying we'd have simply jumped to 21th century overnight back then? And if yes, why socialist countries didn't?

If we, did we, shoulda, woulda, coulda, why didn't they. WHO CARES? You could spec 'til your blue in the face. I'd rather talk about now.

Kevin Wayne said...

Economy of the People's Republic of China

Since 1978 when economic reforms were instituted, the government role in the economy has lessened to a great degree. Industrial output by state enterprises slowly declined, although a few strategic industries, such as the aerospace industry have today remained predominantly state-owned. While the role of the government in managing the economy has been reduced and the role of both private enterprise and market forces increased, the government maintains a major role in the urban economy. With its policies on such issues as agricultural procurement the government also retains a major influence on rural sector performance. The State Constitution of 1982 specified that the state is to guide the country's economic development by making broad decisions on economic priorities and policies, and that the State Council, which exercises executive control, was to direct its subordinate bodies in preparing and implementing the national economic plan and the state budget. A major portion of the government system (bureaucracy) is devoted to managing the economy in a top-down chain of command with all but a few of the more than 100 ministries, commissions, administrations, bureaus, academies, and corporations under the State Council are concerned with economic matters.

Each significant economic sector is supervised by one or more of these organizations, which includes the People's Bank of China, National Development and Reform Commission, Ministry of Finance, and the ministries of agriculture; coal industry; commerce; communications; education; light industry; metallurgical industry; petroleum industry; railways; textile industry; and water resources and electric power. Several aspects of the economy are administered by specialized departments under the State Council, including the National Bureau of Statistics, Civil Aviation Administration of China, and the tourism bureau. Each of the economic organizations under the State Council directs the units under its jurisdiction through subordinate offices at the provincial and local levels.


Thanks for this discussion. I am now more sold on Keynsian Economics than ever before!

Joanna Liberation said...

Not quite the Libertarian paradise, not even a Free Market one.

Right, and I get that just after I've said China is 16 times less democratic/freemarket/capitalist than the US...

THE PEOPLE are in charge, when their Government as aspects of the Private Sector by the balls!

Yeah, again, somehow I'm not that impressed, you just get back to me when chinese stop being 16 times poorer than americans.

that feature of China's economy may have allowed it to get closer to the original American capitalist ideal than the United States itself

No doubt China leaves US in the dust, at least in liberal minds. I am perfectly aware of liberals ecstatic love to all chinese government aggression. Again, get back to me when chinese stop being 16 times poorer than americans.

If we, did we, shoulda, woulda, coulda, why didn't they. WHO CARES? You could spec 'til your blue in the face. I'd rather talk about now.

Yeah, your analysis still paints too big a picture. Rather than broad timespans like 2007-2009, you should rather focus on hour-by-hour chinese government aggression effects over last week. And then extrapolate back till before Christ.

Kevin Wayne said...

And now that I've gone through all of that rigmarole, back to sweatshops:

The Chinese Government obviously has not let the Market Run wild. Everything points to the sheer Runaway success of Planned Economies and Public Engagement.

It most certainly CAN be asked to put the same effort it puts into keeping all these different sectors of it's economies under tight watch, into reforming things for the lowest-level factory workers.

It most certainly CAN- given it's hellacious economic growth- put more into seeing that it's laws are enforced. Remember Rule of Law that you Conservs & Libertarians are always harping on?

From my blog entry on sweatshops:

Sweat Shops are SO wonderful: Why would anyone object?

Under Chinese law, employees cannot be forced to work more than eight hours a day and overtime must not exceed 40 hours a month. There's a local minimum monthly wage too of $66. But every single worker we spoke to from many different factories around Shenzhen had at some point either been overworked or underpaid. Usually both.

Someone's not minding the store, it's as simple as that.

The U.S. General Accounting Office defines a sweatshop as an employer that VIOLATES MORE THAN ONE FEDERAL OR STATE LABOR LAW governing minimum wage and overtime, child labor, industrial homework, occupational safety and health, worker’s compensation or industry regulation.

That's actually talking about US Sweatshops. I think we can apply the same standard across the board.

But in China many factories have just gotten better at concealing abuses. Internal industry documents reviewed by BusinessWeek reveal that numerous Chinese factories keep double sets of books to fool auditors and distribute scripts for employees to recite if they are questioned. And a new breed of Chinese consultant has sprung up to assist companies like Beifa in evading audits.

The Chinese people need to have the laws and fair standards applied where they are at and have it be across the board fair. They don't need Assholes telling them they gotta work in those conditions another minute, because "it will all grow out of it soon." Their staggering 8% annual growth is more than enough to pay for the resources to tighten the screws.

And our Government CAN insist that US compnaie soverseas start complying with the law!

Liu's Dickensian tale stands in stark contrast to the reassurances that Wal-Mart, Payless, and other U.S. companies give American consumers that their goods aren't produced under sweatshop conditions. Since 1992, Wal-Mart has required its suppliers to sign a code of basic labor standards. After exposes in the mid-1990s of abuses in factories making Kathie Lee products, which the chain carries, Wal-Mart and Kathie Lee both began hiring outside auditing firms to inspect supplier factories to ensure their compliance with the code. Many other companies that produce or sell goods made in low-wage countries do similar self-policing, from Toys 'R' Us to Nike and Gap. While no company suggests that its auditing systems are perfect, most say they catch major abuses and either force suppliers to fix them or yank What happened at Chun Si suggests that these auditing systems can miss serious problems--and that self-policing allows companies to avoid painful public revelations about them.

That's whats wrong. They are allowed to SELF POLICE. This will all stop, once the government grabs these sleazebags BY THE BALLS!!! When that happens, The average worker's life will be a happier lot, and they will do more than make a little money. They will be able to hold their heads high.

Kevin Wayne said...

Again, get back to me when chinese stop being 16 times poorer than americans.

Already outlined the proper response in my last entry. Crack down! Make the employers follow the law, ans it will happen! It sure as hell won't come by deregulation because no enforcement is de facto deregulation.

Kevin Wayne said...

I gotta add here: This discussion is the same thing I've run into with Libertarians before. Every good thing that happens, you take credit for (or rather you say the Market gets the credit.) Every bad thing - it's the State's fault. China was a glowing example for you until I started detailing the reasons foe the changes, and then you start citing the fact that it's people are 16 times poorer.

Don't worry, that inequity will be resolved. Just keep letting the banks be Private, and not loan money to businesses. The USA will slide into being a 3rd world country. Then the Chinese will be richer by default!

EFF YOU Libertarians and your stupid hypocritical double -tongues philosophy! The world will be better off when you go the way of Astrology and Tarot Cards. Fun to speculate, but don't put any faith in it.

Joanna Liberation said...

Okay, if you really want, even though this is a total waste of time, let's analyze one sentence of your liberal "reasoning":

Critics of sweatshops cite high savings, increased capital investment in these countries, diversification of their exports and their status as trade ports as the reason for their economic success rather than sweatshops

WTF??? High savings as "reason" for success? Increased capital investments as "reason" for success? Status as trade ports as "reason" for success??? No, mor-on, you have merely described what it means to be successful. You have never mentioned even one single "reason" of being successful.

It's same as if you said: rich people are successful because they have... lots of money in their bank accounts. Soooo retarded.

No reasoning at all, just descriptions, and retarded at that.

Joanna Liberation said...

China was a glowing example for you until I started detailing the reasons foe the changes, and then you start citing the fact that it's people are 16 times poorer.

China is a glowing example of success that comes from deregulation, privatization and free markets, thanks to reforms that started in 1978, because chinese became much richer after 30 of the reforms. That's why they are now only 16 times poorer than Americans, not 160 times poorer as 30 years ago.

Then China is also a glowing example of failure thanks to heavy top-down control still present, that's why they are now still as much as 16 times poorer than Americans.

Why can't you get the simple fact China is now between socialism and capitalism, much more capitalist than 30 years ago, but still way less capitalist than America? What's so difficult about that to get?

Kevin Wayne said...

you have merely described what it means to be successful. You have never mentioned even one single "reason" of being successful.

The topic at hand was originally Sweatshops. It later morphed into the Chinese economy. At this point though, we were still asking the question if sweatshops really were the reason for the runaway success of the Chinese market. Your quote of my quote broke it off in the middle and you ignored where it didn't fit your model:

Critics of sweatshops cite high savings, increased capital investment in these countries, diversification of their exports and their status as trade ports as the reason for their economic success rather than sweatshops and cite the numerous cases in the East Asian "Tiger Economies" where sweatshops have reduced living standards and wages.

"Rather than" is what you should have focused on. Critics of sweatshops cite improvements elsewhere in the Chinese economy, rather than sweat shops. Then they cite their reasons for not liking sweatshops - their performance elsewhere hasn't been anything to throw a party over. Perfectly legitimate reasoning.

Why can't you get the simple fact China is now between socialism and capitalism, much more capitalist than 30 years ago, but still way less capitalist than America? What's so difficult about that to get?

1. Because China is kicking our asses in it's growth performance, something that the USA following the present/recent models has not been able to sustain. 2. Because being rich has nothing to do with Democracy or Free Markets. Monarchies do it all the time. 3. Because it's not evident the US is going to get any better following our current brand of Capitalism, nor is it evident that making us more Capitalist than we are now will make life better. 4. Because it's not evident that adopting Capitalism is 100% the reason for their success. You missed where I cited that their strategy was to “create employment directly through fiscal means as President Roosevelt did during the Great Depression of the 1930s”. You also ignored the aspect of Planned Economies, as well as State ownership of Banks. It may be more accurate to say that China's reasons for success are Western than Capitalist! 5. Because of ignoring factors other than economic ones. This gets into what irks me about what I've noticed regarding Austrian Schoolers. Everything is explained by Economics. Sociology goes out the door. China by culture is Collectivist, no one denies this. Could that be a mitgating factor that has helped their economy that the US can't emulate? All the Bees are doing their jobs in the Hive, no one's getting out of line. China only has what- probably 5 times the US population? (1.3 Billion vs 310 Million.) it's Rural populations spreads out over remote, far flung geographic areas. I personally have thought for awhile that that factor alone is going to make any model tough to follow:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/world/2009-05-06-china-health-care-reform_N.htm

Looks like the adoption of Capitalism hasn't helped their health care all that much, and they are going back the other direction.

To summarize:

China's reasons for it's Economic growth may not be all Capitalist, but Western.

China may not benefit from full Westernization, whether Socialist or Capitalist.

China may not even be able to become more Capitalist due to several factors.

The US has used some of the more Keynsian ideas in the past that China has used. Their could be benefit in using those again.

Not hard to understand at all.

Joanna Liberation said...

"Rather than" is what you should have focused on.

That's precisely what I would have focused on, if there were any legitimate "reasons" to be focused on in the first place. Again, we can have a different opinion on whether sweatshops are the source of economic success, but we can't debate if "high savings" are such, because "high savings" ARE economic success, not SOURCE of economic success. OMG...

sweatshops have reduced living standards and wages

Okay, please, give me an example.

China is kicking our asses in it's growth performance

Yeah, and when a retard, 30 years old, finally learns B after she has learned A when she was 15, she has just achieved 100% growth growth performance. And there comes Kevin saying we have something to learn from the retard, cause the retard is kicking our assess in growth perfomance. Now, ladies and gentlemen, that's retarded logic perfomance.

Because being rich has nothing to do with Democracy or Free Markets. Monarchies do it all the time.

You can be lazy and stupid but still rich because your parents are rich. Or because you inherited land that suddenly becomes very valuable to other people because of natural resources. That does not mean being lazy and stupid make you rich. OMG...

it's not evident the US is going to get any better

It is certainly not for you, as you reject both apriori reasoning and historical evidence. "If we, did we, shoulda, woulda, coulda, why didn't they. WHO CARES?" That is your life motto!

create employment directly through fiscal means as President Roosevelt did during the Great Depression of the 1930s

Roosevelt created employment? First time I hear. There were some fluctuations but unemployment remained more or less about 15-25% during Roosvelt years till 1939. Unless you mean the draft?

http://mises.org/misesreview_detail.aspx?control=347
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Unemployment_1910-1960.gif

And your "Western" is as precise as "modern". Do not pretend calling something "western" explains anything.

Kevin Wayne said...

Yeah, and when a retard, 30 years old, finally learns B after she has learned A when she was 15, she has just achieved 100% growth growth performance. And there comes Kevin saying we have something to learn from the retard, cause the retard is kicking our assess in growth perfomance. Now, ladies and gentlemen, that's retarded logic perfomance.

That's a retardedly POOR anology! A better one would be the Retard, struggling for years to learn A then B, suddenly has a Flowers For Algernon moment, and his IQ triples, and he finds that this is threatening to other people. And I (since you put me in the story) wind up not even being able to catch up to his new turbo-charged intellect, because not only did I not use his methods, I have poor lifestyle habits that hold me back.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flowers_for_Algernon

To further the anology so it fits what you are trying to point out: Say after the Retard getshis Intellectual Mojo, you point out that I still have nothing to learn from this because he hasn't done anything. But Kevin has written his Master's Thesis and graduates Summa Cum Laude! But so what? If current circumstances hold true, I'll be blown out of the water by the guy, and he won't hasve do anything but keep on doing what he is doing.

Just like China will.

It is certainly not for you, as you reject both apriori reasoning and historical evidence. "If we, did we, shoulda, woulda, coulda, why didn't they. WHO CARES?" That is your life motto!

Because you wanted to ask “what would happen if _____ happened.” That's not history that's sepculation.

Kevin Wayne said...

Roosevelt created employment? First time I hear. There were some fluctuations but unemployment remained more or less about 15-25% during Roosvelt years till 1939. Unless you mean the draft?

Aww how cute, you provided a link to the Mises institute! ;-) How utterly predictable.

But just to pick up on one of the points:

This was far from the only way in which New Deal programs hurt the poor. Blacks fared very badly under Roosevelt, the supposed great exemplar of enlightened modern liberalism. Minimum-wage laws proved a stumbling block to efforts by blacks to secure jobs. These laws prevented employers from undercutting unions by offering lower wages to nonunion members. Since blacks faced exclusion from many of the powerful unions, they were in effect frozen out.

Roosevelt was not much concerned with the effects of his programs on blacks. Indeed, he did little to support civil rights: he would not, e.g., support antilynching legislation. To do so might antagonize important Southern congressmen. Despite his seeming indifference to blacks, Roosevelt gained support among many members of the black community, in part owing to carefully calibrated publicity gestures by members of his administration.


FDR, like Lincoln and a host of others that lived before the Civil Rights Movement, were not yet caught up to more recent enlightened notions that African-Americans might need a little help getting over the barrier of deliberate Racial exclusion. It's silly to blame this on FDR's New Deal, and a whole lot more sensible to look at cultural factors such as Discrimination, which needed to change. (Here we go again! Looking only at economics and not other factors!) Put simply, grab the noses of those bastards and tweak hard! Stop capitulating to Segregationist congressmen! (which the Dem's did starting in 1948.) Do things to concretely put the programs in operation.

All of this says doodly-squat about FDR's New Deal, it just gives anecdotes about asshole Conservatives who think because they own a business they can do whatever they want.

Kevin Wayne said...

Incidentally, that Mises article predictably repeats the old “you cant' tax the Corporations, they won't wanna give us jobs” canard. This answers that nicely:

http://www.thenation.com/article/158282/how-build-progressive-tea-party

The tax-evasion defenders also tried to argue that a crackdown would “drive away” corporations, to the detriment of the nation. But the corporations are already, for all intents and purposes, “away.” They pay nothing to Britain. They have relocated everything they can. They can’t, however, physically relocate their British shops to Bangalore. It’s impossible. That remnant can certainly be taxed. What are they going to do?

Besides, the right’s claim that enforcing fair taxes drives away the rich was recently tested—and proved wrong. Toward the end of the last Labour government, officials increased the top tax rate to 50 percent. (This is still far short of the 90 percent levied on US taxpayers by President Eisenhower, during the biggest boom in American history.) Conservatives predicted disaster: London Mayor Boris Johnson said it would reduce the city to a ghost town as bankers fled to Switzerland. Yet after the taxes rose, the number of rich people applying for visas to leave Britain for Switzerland actually fell by 7 percent.

And your Mises boys cherry-pick this ancedote:

His anti–New Deal verdict is hard to dispute: levels of unemployment at the end of the 1930s remained at depression levels. In May 1939, Treasury Secretary Henry J. Morgenthau Jr., one of Franklin Roosevelt's best friends, testified before the House Ways and Means Committee: "I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started… And an enormous debt to boot"
Which might mean something except that FDR served 12 years, and by his last year of 1945 (as your graph shows) the level of unemployment fell to the lowest it has been in the last 25 years!
But your graph is no where near deatiled enough. This shows a direct correlation between Government Spending & recovery:
http://www.colorado.edu/AmStudies/lewis/2010/econ.htm
More details: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal#Relief_statistics
The rest of the article tries to explain away Roosevelt's re-lection to a 3rd & 4th term on the fact that he was some kind of Charming Santa Claus. Ho-hum.
Not very impressive, your Mises Insti-tooters! Not at all.

Kevin Wayne said...

In response to your aside about WWII helping the employment levels:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression_in_the_United_States
The government began heavy military spending in 1940, and started drafting millions of young men that year;[22] by 1945, 17 million had entered service to their country. But that was not enough to absorb all the unemployed. During the war, the government subsidized wages through cost-plus contracts. Government contractors were paid in full for their costs, plus a certain percentage profit margin. That meant the more wages a person was paid the higher the company profits since the government would cover them plus a percentage.[23] Using these cost-plus contracts in 1941-1943, factories hired hundreds of thousands of unskilled workers and trained them, at government expense.

Looks like Emploment was created to me!

But heck, why stick my head in all this Objectivity! I can cite Partisan websites just like you!

http://www.wwcd.org/policy/US/newdeal.html#WPA
You can scroll down to where it begins talking about the WPA, and where it details how many jobs created, and in what sector.
Also see:
http://populistdemocrats.blogspot.com/2009/02/in-defense-of-new-deal.html
And your "Western" is as precise as "modern". Do not pretend calling something "western" explains anything.
Excuse me for noting that JMK is from a Western Culture and China in it's roots is an Eastern one. I think given the overall evidence, it makes more sense than only using “Capilatims & Socialism.”

Joanna Liberation said...

If current circumstances hold true, I'll be blown out of the water by the guy, and he won't hasve do anything but keep on doing what he is doing

Liberals always assume current state of affairs is God-given that can be simply extrapolated into the future. The reality is, China
has only passed Albania and still has a lot to go before it catches up with Thailand or Colombia, while Belarus would be a dream, so save your magic stories for a different audience.

That's not history that's sepculation.

And I get that just after being treated with Flowers For Algernon fairy tale... OMG... If you don't understand how we ourselves got to our high standard of living, then you have no right to give recommendations to countries that are essentially at 19th century stage of capitalist progress.

Aww how cute, you provided a link to the Mises institute! ;-) How utterly predictable.

Yes, for a Misesian libertarian, I happen to provide Mises Institute links. Finally a good prediction, Kevin! Way to go!

Which might mean something except that FDR served 12 years, and by his last year of 1945 (as your graph shows) the level of unemployment fell to the lowest it has been in the last 25 years!

Yes, if unemployment is your only concern, just participate in some big war. Classic broken window fallacy. But you don't need FDR for that, any retard will do. Actually...

Roosevelt eased back
on the deficit spending, overly worried about balancing the budget. But this only
caused the economy to slip back into a recession, as the above chart shows.


Deficit spending, going to war, yes, unemployment will go down. You can also try blowing up all people's houses, that should also work. I can understand you have trouble to focus on too many things at once. Once you focus on unemployment, you see nothing else, like, say, people's prosperity. Classic socialist problem. No unemployment in socialism. So what.

Excuse me for noting that JMK is from a Western Culture and China in it's roots is an Eastern one. I think given the overall evidence, it makes more sense than only using “Capilatims & Socialism.”

Don't forget chinese also eat more rice. That also should make a huge difference as far as economic recommendations go. Chinese themselves seem to disagree though, considering that for 30 years they've been trying to implement some western guy's recommendations, with exactly same dismal results as in the West.

Joanna Liberation said...

BTW, one thing you probably can explain me: why you liberals are against Iraq and Afganistan wars if, according to your historical interpretation, FDR's draft was such a boon?