What goes on within these countries is their concern.
 
My concern is that we don't compete with countries that employ child labour.  
It is an insane policy.
 
arthur

________________________________

From: Keith Hudson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Fri 12/8/2006 3:18 PM
To: Cordell, Arthur: ECOM
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [SPAM] Re: [Futurework] Democrats and "Free" Trade


Arthur,

Have you not read the case studies by Oxfam and other charities who describe 
what happens when child labour -- for example in India and Pakistan -- is 
forced out of existence by well-meaning Westerners? Far worse fates follow for 
many of these children and teenagers, particularly the girls.

It's their only way of picking themselves up by their bootstraps -- as indeed a 
generation or two did in England in the late 18th century. And South Korea did 
only 40 years ago (and now has higher average wages than England).

If you stamp out child labour in Third world countries then not only do you 
artificially and temporarily protect home industries but you are preventing the 
former getting out of the gutter.

I thought this particular type of debate was over and done with years ago. 
Can't we move on to much more relevant concerns today? 

Keith Hudson


At 12:15 08/12/2006 -0500, you wrote:



        Keith, 
         
        You do what you can.  What you don't do is open the borders to goods 
made abroad where workers' wages are a small fraction of wages at  home; where 
environmental laws are nil or negligible; where child labour is the rule rather 
than the exception. 
         
        The free traders are always in some sort of rush.  What's the rush.  We 
hear in Canada the constant drum beat "macht schnell", hurry up or we are going 
to be left behind as a third world country.  It could be that by throwing open 
the borders, third world status will be with us sooner rather than later.
         
        Sure education/knowledge/innovation, etc., is important.  Also 
important is social cohesion, a sense of predictability and the existence of a 
middle class.  Rushing globalizaiton benefits the elites in society and raises 
wages in certain low wage countries.  If globalization is so important, then we 
should move slowly and cautiously.  Right now it seems to be a veiled attack on 
the trade unions in industrialized countries and the by-product is the 
continuing immizeration of the middle class.  This can only lead to a bad 
outcome.
         
        arthur
        
        ________________________________
        
        From: Keith Hudson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
        Sent: Fri 12/8/2006 2:25 AM
        To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
        Cc: [email protected]; Cordell, Arthur: ECOM
        Subject: Re: [SPAM] Re: [Futurework] Democrats and "Free" Trade
        
        
        I was not writing of "economists' time" but of the time it takes to 
offer full educational opportunities to the children of any unfortunate workers 
who are displaced by more efficient industries or services elsewhere in order 
for the children to have a better chance of avoiding the same state as their 
parents.
        
        And it is to be remembered that more workers are displaced by 
efficiency in competitive industries and services at home rather than abroad. 
So what do you do about that? If you try to protect this situation you are in 
danger of doing what the USSR did for 70 years -- which has now bequeathed 
Russia with an increasingly impoverished, demoralised and steeply declining 
population with galloping Aids, hard drug addiction, TB and alcoholism.
        
        KH
        
        At 22:41 07/12/2006 -0800, you wrote:
        
        
        
                One among many problems with the neo-liberal "open markets 
raises all
                boats" theory is that while jobs are lost in real time, 
standards of
                living are increased in "economists'" time which could be short 
term but
                is usually medium or long term (or never term given that there 
are always
                exogenous factors that intervene that don't quite fit into the 
economists'
                supply curves...
                
                And of course as Keynes most famously said "in the long run...
                
                MG
                
                > Arthur,
                >
                > If the Democrats in America can't decide on free trade or 
otherwise, then
                > tough luck on them, because customers will decide for them 
sooner or later
                > by buying cheaper goods made abroad and avoiding costlier 
home-made goods.
                >
                > If it's sooner, then the out-of-work factory (and some 
service) workers
                > will concentrate government's mind on reforming the education 
of its
                > children. If it's later, then the factories (and some other 
services) will
                > be forever inefficient compared with those in other countries 
and the
                > general standard of living will go down. And then the factory 
(etc)
                > workers
                > will be out of work a litte later anyway. The general 
standard of living
                > could remain down forever from then onwards when one 
considers the rate of
                > technological change and the new skills required.)
                >
                > If a country wants to engage then its government should 
ensure the best
                > possible education for its children, outlaw protective 
practices in all
                > trades and professions (and publicise all past formal 
credentialising
                > examinations). In this way, everybody will have as 
interesting jobs as
                > they
                > are capable of and shorter working weeks and more leisure 
time will
                > gradually become the norm.
                >
                > Keith Hudson
                >
                > At 20:40 07/12/2006 -0500, you wrote:
                >
                >>Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
                >>Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
                >>boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C71A6A.19761E86";
                >> x-avg-checked=avg-ok-4B151299
                >>
                >>dir=ltr>
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >>----------
                >>From: Strategic Forecasting, Inc. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
                >>Sent: Thu 12/7/2006 7:28 PM
                >>To: Subject: Stratfor Public Policy Intelligence Report
                >>
                >>468e12.jpg
                Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.15.14/578 - Release 
Date: 07/12/2006 
        
                snip, snip......................
        
        
        Keith Hudson, Bath, England, <www.evolutionary-economics.org 
<http://www.evolutionary-economics.org/ <http://www.evolutionary-economics.org 
<http://www.evolutionary-economics.org/> > > 
        
        
        
        No virus found in this incoming message.
        Checked by AVG Free Edition.
        Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.15.15/579 - Release Date: 
07/12/2006 


Keith Hudson, Bath, England, <www.evolutionary-economics.org 
<http://www.evolutionary-economics.org/> > 
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework

Reply via email to