tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7608702.post7041569379193986298..comments2023-10-25T08:46:20.242-05:00Comments on The Distributist Review: Why Economics Needs EthicsJohn Médaillehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16463267750952578888noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7608702.post-23752301199871261482007-09-25T03:13:00.000-05:002007-09-25T03:13:00.000-05:00Change Leaders has a site at Corporate Governance,...Change Leaders has a site at <A HREF="http://www.change-leaders.com/corporate-governance.html" REL="nofollow">Corporate Governance</A>, with 600+ Corporate Governance and Boards Resources. Pretty well organized site. Easy to get around. Nice to have everything in one place.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7608702.post-77735151236668538542007-08-10T10:44:00.000-05:002007-08-10T10:44:00.000-05:00What you say is true, but I'm not sure that the ar...What you say is true, but I'm not sure that the argument will hold up as exploitation (I've heard arguments <I>for</I> sweatshop labor at low rates because it keep the workers working harder). The argument could be that with $5 over $2 a day, even though the worker can't buy what he's making, he can buy more of other things in his country. If he's making soccer balls, he probably won't want to buy them anyhow. But we do, so what's the harm in hiring them out to make them at what they consider to be luxurious rates? Everybody wins, right?<BR/><BR/>I don't agree with this line of argument, but I'd like to be able to refute it, and don't have anything concrete. What would you say to such an argument?John C.https://www.blogger.com/profile/12859832339061108163noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7608702.post-32853925769452211402007-08-09T19:43:00.000-05:002007-08-09T19:43:00.000-05:00Boinky, this has indeed been the "justification." ...Boinky, this has indeed been the "justification." However, it presumes that these places did not have flourishing economies for thousands of years before the coming of colonialism. It presumes, in other words, that "jobs" are something brought by the beneficent white man.<BR/><BR/>The problem with that view is that it is largely true. In many places, the people did not have "jobs" in our sense, but a place in a community and its work. In order to provide our kind of "jobs," it was necessary to destroy the indigenous economies.<BR/><BR/>But in any case, the current system is self-destructive. Economics (if understood) presumes a balance between supply and demand; the proceeds of production are used to purchase the output of production. If wages are too low, they can't purchase the output and the markets cannot be cleared. <BR/><BR/>We buy the output of the sweatshop, but the sweatshop worker can't afford anything we make, and so the balance is broken. So-called "trade" which is not balanced in this sense in not really trade at all, but the mere arbitrage of labor rates, that is to say, <I>exploitation.</I><BR/><BR/>JohnJohn Médaillehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16463267750952578888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7608702.post-41887698065632705322007-08-07T22:00:00.000-05:002007-08-07T22:00:00.000-05:00I agree.But if you were a worker who could earn $5...I agree.<BR/>But if you were a worker who could earn $5 a day working at a sweatshop instead of $2 a day working and sweating in a rice paddy, you would say the guys who "outsourced" the job were lifesavers.Nancy Reyeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14910134058143426327noreply@blogger.com