Modernizing The Third World

[crimzonsol]

I believe that multinational corporations that use labor from Third World Counties should be force to pay 10% of the profits made from goods produce in the Third World Country the corporation is active in to wards anti-poverty initiatives in the country that the labor force resides in.

[Buck Laser]

I believe that multinational corporations that use labor from Third World Counties should be force to pay 10% of the profits made from goods produce in the Third World Country the corporation is active in to wards anti-poverty initiatives in the country that the labor force resides in.

That's a pretty amazing statement for an anarchist, Crimzon. My concern in this kind of issue is that global corporations are usurpong powers that rightly belong to governments.

The initial problem I see with your idea is that most third-world governments tend to be extremely corrupt. I doubt that any of the well-intended moneys would ever go to the people, unless there were some organization like the UN to put teeth into such an edict. But of course people will fall all over themselves in their haste to declare their hatred of the UN.:P

[crimzonsol]

I still Think that the Idea is still sound and even if the money is used inaporately it still sends a message to Corporations that they are not in control. as an Anarchist I feel that People are not read for Anarchism, so i'll do my best to make sure that the Dream of anarchism can be realised. Anarchism is goal that can never be reached, but is something that we should strive to achieve.

[Buck Laser]

I still Think that the Idea is still sound and even if the money is used inaporately it still sends a message to Corporations that they are not in control. as an Anarchist I feel that People are not read for Anarchism, so i'll do my best to make sure that the Dream of anarchism can be realised. Anarchism is goal that can never be reached, but is something that we should strive to achieve.


Actually, it was a fundamental tenet of classical marxism that the the state would eventually wither away. That never worked out, either.

[crimzonsol]

neither did prohabition, I still think some thing should be done to help the people in Third World Countries. Anarchism came before Karl Marx, People like Peirre Prohoum

[firefox]

The best way to help the third world is to eliminate the protectionism of goods and services in developed states. Most 1st world countries subsidize or otherwise prop up their inefficient domestic industries at the expense of foreign, usually poor producers. In the US, for example, we would be getting beef for half the price way pay today from Argentina if it wasn't for federal and state subsidies.

[crimzonsol]

I think that this way would create strain on farmers in the US, it would be best if Corporations are paying the debt that they so dearly owe the people of the world.

[firefox]

American farmers aren't efficient. If they wanted to be, the'd switch from beef cattle to bison, and from corn to other grains, and soy. Why should they be paid to grow/not grow produce at the expense of everyone else? More supply and lower cost is good for the whole world. The reality today is the converse of this, and must be changed. Do you work in ag or have close associates or family who do, crimzonsol?

[crimzonsol]

I can see your point, however I must disagree because most people believe that people grow enough food to sell in the international market, they do not because they do not have a modernized country, so a large amount of produce is lost before it is even grown. I would support the elimination of Taxes and Tariffs after the Third World is modernized, then they could actually compete with the rest of the world. Also if taxes and tariffs are eliminated then corporations like Monsanto would go into the third world countries and grow their stuff there because it would be cheaper, so more the jobs will be lost and the US will be spending more and more, and making less and less. That cycle will lead to the collapse of the US.

[firefox]

I'm confused. So are you at least in support of killing the restrictions on imports FROM the third world TO the first world? What I'm reading here is that you are for protectionism within the 'developing' country, but not in those that are already industrial/postindustrial.

[Drocket]

The problem with competing with third-world countries on a head-to-head basis is that the only way to do it is to BECOME a third-world country. This is something we've demonstrated quite clearly in the past couple of decades with our trade with China. Sure we could get dirt-cheap beef by importing it from (Argentina or whatever), but then what do we do with the tens of thousands of unemployed people who currently work in the beef industry? I guess they can go compete with the rest of our former manufacturing base for a job at Walmart...

My own solution is pretty simple: All goods imported to the United States have to be made by people making US minimum wage. You want to manufacture your product in China? No problem, but you're not going to be doing it by exploiting virtual slave-labor for $0.25/hour.

[Mayberry]

My own solution is pretty simple: All goods imported to the United States have to be made by people making US minimum wage. You want to manufacture your product in China? No problem, but you're not going to be doing it by exploiting virtual slave-labor for $0.25/hour. That is a good solution, Drocket. Unfortunately it will never come to be because the corporations run the government. :(

[firefox]

It's not slave labor if people voluntarily choose to take the job. What is better? A lower paying job or none at all? One must also realize that the costs of living are much lower in most other countries, meaning that a dollar there goes a lot farther than it does here. If you don't like it, by all means, boycott the crap out of it, and show us why we should buy from companies that offer superior worker compensation. Just don't advocate passing a law about it, for crying out loud.

[NortheastCynic]

I'm with Firefox here. If you want to help individuals in the Third World, liberalize trade and put everyone in a common market with the same set of rules and regs. Protectionism is simply a way to ruin the balance of free trade which limits choice and efficiency. The free market isn't perfect, but it's the best alternative.

-NC

[crimzonsol]

It would all depend on how you view voluntary. You could say that if someone pointed a gun at you and told to give them your money and you did so, it could be argued that you did that voluntarily. You did have a choice; you could have resisted the thief. Although if this defense were used against you in court you would be quick to say you had no choice. Therefore, before you say that the workers in third world countries have a “choice” consider that the situation laborers face in third world countries is remarkably similar to the experience the thief. They could not work, but then they would die.

Do they have a choice about working?

[crimzonsol]

Cynic, First what is it an alternavtive to. Second, How do you expect somone working in hut to compete with multinational companies?

Droket Then the market will just move back in to the US effectively screwing the rest of the world, because companies will realize that they can make the same product over here and not have to pay for shiping.

[firefox]

Cynic, First what is it an alternavtive to. Second, How do you expect somone working in hut to compete with multinational companies?


They either work for the MNCs, or they find a new niche market where the big boys are at a disadvantage. This is the key to small business success- You can't win competing directly with established firms, especially if they are large. What you should do instead is find a niche market where your nimble nature runs circles around the big, bureaucratic establishments.


Droket Then the market will just move back in to the US effectively screwing the rest of the world, because companies will realize that they can make the same product over here and not have to pay for shiping.


"Here" being the US? Only if it was the most efficient way- in a perfect world with no government subsidies, at least. Also, there's always a shipping price, it's just a matter of how high it is. Remember, There's No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. Period. Everything has a price, it simply depends on what that price is, and who pays it.

[crimzonsol]

Cynic, First what is it an alternavtive to. Second, How do you expect somone working in hut to compete with multinational companies?


They either work for the MNCs, or they find a new niche market where the big boys are at a disadvantage. This is the key to small business success- You can't win competing directly with established firms, especially if they are large. What you should do instead is find a niche market where your nimble nature runs circles around the big, bureaucratic establishments.



If they can't compete with the MNCs then how wil it improve their quality of life. It won't. They will be unalbe to make any money. If they cannot make any disposabble income then how can they hope to be a democracy?

[firefox]

Crimzon, did you read what I wrote in my last post? People in the developing world should absolutely NOT try to compete with the MNCs, as I stated before. Doing so will result in misery, as you correctly realize. Big corporations like Walmart or Nestle are very big, but VERY invested in a particular set of products or services. They can't afford to change unless absolutely necessary. Meanwhile, the little guy can come in under the radar, make profits, and move on to even greener territory much faster than the big guys, as he has less to loose or move around. Does this make sense? If not, how can I make it more clear?

[Drocket]

Droket Then the market will just move back in to the US effectively screwing the rest of the world, because companies will realize that they can make the same product over here and not have to pay for shiping.

To some degree, yes, but to that I say - so what? Should we let our own country continue it's decline into poverty and dependency simply because we don't want to deprive some Chinese guy of his $0.25/hour job? America has essentially lost it's manufacturing base, and that, far more than any other factor, should be a serious cause for concern for our national security more than anything else.

And the reality is that the rest of the world will get along just fine. There will STILL be a lot of goods and services that can be made more efficiently overseas. If anything, that's something that becomes more true with greater American wealth - there'll always be a market for luxury imported goods like Swiss chocolates, French wine, Persian rugs, etc. And the makers of those goods will actually have a meaningful income, which they'll then spend, creating wealth in their community.

[crimzonsol]

Then how would it help the Third World?

[Drocket]

They gain the benefit of citizens who are actually living above subsistence-level existence. That's probably the single most important thing for any country. People living hand-to-mouth can never achieve anything. As soon as you have a middle-class, though, you have room for education, and education inevitably leads to increased wealth.

[crimzonsol]

How do they gain the benifits, they have nothing to produce. The only thing that they have is albor force, but nobody would need it.

[Drocket]

Of course they'll have goods to sell. They'll just have to work a little harder to figure out what they are beyond "shitty plastic crap for Walmart."

[1Samuel8]

It would all depend on how you view voluntary. You could say that if someone pointed a gun at you and told to give them your money and you did so, it could be argued that you did that voluntarily. That is not a voluntary transaction.
If you think you can argue that it is voluntary, go ahead: make the argument.

Freedom is not an over-abundance of choice.


Do they have a choice about working?I do. I can work or I can starve. Nobody owes me a living.



My own solution is pretty simple: All goods imported to the United States have to be made by people making US minimum wage. You want to manufacture your product in China? No problem, but you're not going to be doing it by exploiting virtual slave-labor for $0.25/hour.Your choice is not so simple. You forgot one thing: Who will pay to enforce your solution?
Should people who do not buy junk from China be forced to pay for your solution?

[crimzonsol]

Drocket,
First, if the Corporations with draw from a Third World Country, lets say Rwanda, they stop the inflow of currency to that country.
Second, if the people in Rwanda attempted to compete on the world market the corporations would be able to produce the same item for less.
Third, the people of Rwanda would only be able to sell to other people that are in Rwandas vicinity.

[firefox]

1. How do you figure? Foreign investment brings money and skills *into* a country, not out of it. "Land raping" schemes can only really work when there's a state that is able and willing to act as a corporate hit-man by forcing people to do things they don't want to do. The core of the problem is the state, when you get down to it. Businesses can (and 99% of the time are) beneficial to society, providing more benefits than costs. Government, on the other hand, produces more costs than benefits- the exact inverse.

2. Yes, this is correct, and it is the whole point. When comparative advantage is allowed to do its thing, everyone's buying power increases over time because you can buy more goods for the same dollar. This is of course complicated by the government manipulation of markets and currency, as one would expect.

3. Why would they only be able to sell locally?

[crimzonsol]

Because They would have to ship their goods, thus making them cost more to cover for the shipping. Coporations can produce and localy sell their products so their products will cost less, so people will buy their products. Unless there is something that can only be produced in a certain country, all bussines will be local.
And even if there is something that can only be produced in a ceratin country coporations will be able to charge less because they make more money, so they will lose profit, but will not go in debt.

[firefox]

Everything has a shipping price, even if it is very low for a very short distance. What you say about economies of scale is absolutely true. Bulk shipments cost less per unit than smaller shipments. This is just how the world works. As I said, small producers tend to be the most successful when they go for new niche markets that the big boys don't know about and/or can't effectively compete at.

Perhaps a little non DND affiliated role-playing will help you make more sense of all this. Let's say that you are... You. Name a few ambitions you have and some of your most important skills. I'll pay the big bad dumpy MNC. Having never run a MNC I don't expect this to be 100% accurate as per the real world, but it should get the point across at least. You start, please crimzonsol.

[crimzonsol]

First point, My skill set and someone from the third world are going to be different.

What do you mean by ambitions? How about you give some examples so I know what you want from me.

[firefox]

I know, crim I'm trying to demonstrate a point here. What I'm asking is, What do you want to do with your life, and what skills/plans of action do you have to attain those goals?

[crimzonsol]

Eliminate the need for a government. To do that all I have is my head and ideals. I Also have the power of persuasion.

[firefox]

Cool me too. I'm glad you're driven! 8-)

My goals are to spawn a number of pro liberty businesses that help people achieve freedom and improve their material lives as well.

[crimzonsol]

I would try that, But I have been exposed to too much anti-bussinesss thigns to be able to trust bussinesses, I would rather leave that to you, while I go and try to improve Anarchism, by asking questions and putting forth ideas that may not be insync with Anarchism need to be thought abotu if we are to have a truely free society.