> >
> >So what is it Jeroen? Is it good in the long term for us to transfer
> >factories from the capitalists to the Developing World, or isn't it?
>
> We may not have to move factories to increase wealth in the Third World.
> How about helping those countries set up their own factories, at first to
> produce for their internal market, and later for export? This will (a)
> reduce unemployment, (b) increase the national income, because more people
> will actually *have* an income, and (c) make those products more easily
> available because of the lower price (since they don't need to be imported
> --> lower costs).
>
> Another big step would be to stop the West's current practices in the Third
> World (such as long hours, little pay, aggressive response to workers'
> attempts to form unions) and start treating the locals decently, and giving
> them a decent pay for their work.
Anyone hear about the really damning report about El Salvadoran garment
factories? The governemnt had been suppressing it - prob because they were
afraid leftist guerillas would stsir up the war again or something. I
mean, El Salvador seems to be where they're making all the T-shirts....Now
all thes US companies claim they have conduct codes for their suppliers
but I don't think it works. It is hard to police what goes on and in the
meantime they are only too happy to take advantage of the results. A
company can be reall NICE to its workers the one day a year inspectors are
there and run a sweat shop the other 364. I mean, it's very hard to find
anything not made in the Third World these days, but Made in El Salvador
is a particularly "guilt stiking" label to a compassionate person with a
conscience, because we fought a bloody war down there and lots of innocent
people were slaughtered, many with guns the US paid for. Right wing death
squads gunned down prices and nuns. All to make it safe for US business
interests and maquiladoras, of coursse. We can say it's human rights, but
when the right wing is as evil and violent as the left, we support them
because it's in our "national interest " - read ECONOMIC
interest. Economics drives wars.
>
> Example of the wrong way: a while ago, I saw a documentary about the
> practices of IKEA. They have their furniture produced in the Third World,
> and do their best to look like the Evil Oppressor from the West. Several
> owners of local factories working for IKEA were interviewed, and they all
> told the same story about long hours, low pay, violence etcetera. One of
> them also told about the annual "negotiations" with IKEA about the price
> IKEA would pay for a piece of furniture. Every year it was the same
> routine: IKEA would "suggest" a price (which everytime was a little lower
> than the year before) and the factory owner would immediately accept. No
> discussion possible.
>
Sigh. That's so depressing. I'd heard about what a cool store IKEA was ans
what nifty products they have...lessee, Gap is evil and Starbucks Cofee is
evil and Nike is evil and McDonals is evil. Now we have to aadd IKEA to
the Shit List.
> Example of the right way: several food products here are sold under the
> "Max Havelaar" label. These products still come from Third World, but are
> not bought from large factories but directly from the producers (read:
> local farmers) themselves, and at a higher price than those producers would
> get otherwise. This makes "Max Havelaar" products a bit more expensive than
> other brands, but they sell quite well.
>
what country are you writing from? Its in Europe, right?
Kristin
