Reducing my carbon footprint

[bertsmobile1]

Go to your wardrobe and look at where all of the cloths are made
Why are they made there and not in the USA ?
Because the workers are either in a 3rd world country or working under 3rd world conditions.
the factory that was making Niki running shoes was getting $ 3.50 a pair.
You were paying $ 50 to $ 100 a pair.
Some one was making a massive profit supporting a great lifestyle and it was not the workers putting in 10 to 14 hour days in a 3rd world country.
So that is 3rd world countries subsidizing your ( and my ) lifestyle
Your car is full of stuff made in China , The Phillipines , Tiawan, Indonesia etc all made by workers below the poverty line.
Your E-waste get shipped to Africia when poverty struck workers unaware of the hazards they are exposing themselves to recycle parts & metals that get sold back to 1st world countries for depressed prices.
Exploitation of 3rd world countries is a direct subsidy on your lifestyle.
Then when it comes to foreign aid, the only stuff that benefits the inhabitants of 3rd world countries is the work the charities do.
What governments do is give them a lot of money on the grounds that they use that money to buy obsolete weapons so most of it comes back.
Then they finance projects that get done by 1st world companies so the road that locals could do for $ 100 / yard gets done by a USA company for $ 2000 / yard and gets called "foreign aid " and that road will go to a mine that a 1st world company has a majority share in not to farms so the locals can get their produce to market.
I am not trying to sound like I am anti US, the Aussie government is just as bad.
Our "foreign aid" established a foundry in Afganistahn , the idea being to convert weapons to agricultural tools.
It eventually got canned when it was found out that 80% of the money was being paid in wages & protection for the 6 Australians in charge of the project and a further 12% went into equipment sourced from Australian business that could have been made locally for 5% of the price .
This is the case with most of the foreign aid.
And then there is what I like to consider "local slave labour"
Down here we have thousands of Phillipino house maids cleaning the houses of Australians for a fraction of the price a local would have to be paid, thus subsidising the life style of the Aussie .
Over there I imagine it would be Mexicans & Hispanics,

And for a long while the work charities did was principally for the benefit of the charity.
We passed a law back in the 90's that 50% of the money charities collected had to be spent in the benifiting country not including wages paid to Aussies working there and around 80% of our overseas charities closed down or became what they really were Pty Ltd businesses filling the pockets of local businessmen.
This ratio has been steadliy increasing and now you have to spend 75% of your revenue overseas or you loose your charitable status and get taxed.

 

[2smoked]

Whew!! This thread is exhausting!

I think I will go out in the garage and relax by starting up 3 of my 2-stroke Lawn Boys just to smell them.

 

[TonyPrin]

Bertsmobile1, what you're referring to is called Zero-sum game: the mathematical concept that one person's benefit is offset or caused by another's loss and I don't think it applies on at least four counts.

First, if Nike shoes were made for $3.50 a pair and they were sold in the US for $5.00 you'd have a point because an item worth $100 would be purchased for less and the American would have extra cash. But when the item is purchased for $100 (market value) there is no benefit to the consumer in the US. After all, those shoes could be made anywhere - including the US - and the price to the consumer would still be $100.

Second, I think you could also make an argument for a benefit to the US if Nike's additional profit came into the US and was spent on other things, thereby helping the US economy. But, that is not the case. That money is kept outside the US - to some extent to build more foreign factories - which is a major issue in the US.

Third, you and I could say many workers in these countries are exploited - and that's a horrible thing - but their being exploited doesn't create a benefit to anyone outside that country except the companies doing the exploiting and has no positive impact on the US economy. After all, exploiting workers in a 3rd world country doesn't help workers in the US, it hurts them because it results in jobs transferred overseas. Rather, the benefit is to the economy of the worker's country because the workers have money to spend at their local stores which is why those countries allow it.

Fourth, you could say the same thing applied not that long ago to Japan and South Korea so now those countries are importing millions of cars to the US. Do you somehow think damaging the US auto industry is helping the American economy?

Finally, next time you shop for wine buy a California chardonnay instead of an Australian and think about which country benefits the most from that.

 

[bertsmobile1]

Bertsmobile1, what you're referring to is called Zero-sum game: the mathematical concept that one person's benefit is offset or caused by another's loss and I don't think it applies on at least four counts.

First, if Nike shoes were made for $3.50 a pair and they were sold in the US for $5.00 you'd have a point because an item worth $100 would be purchased for less and the American would have extra cash. But when the item is purchased for $100 (market value) there is no benefit to the consumer in the US. After all, those shoes could be made anywhere - including the US - and the price to the consumer would still be $100.

Second, I think you could also make an argument for a benefit to the US if Nike's additional profit came into the US and was spent on other things, thereby helping the US economy. But, that is not the case. That money is kept outside the US - to some extent to build more foreign factories - which is a major issue in the US.

Third, you and I could say many workers in these countries are exploited - and that's a horrible thing - but their being exploited doesn't create a benefit to anyone outside that country except the companies doing the exploiting and has no positive impact on the US economy. After all, exploiting workers in a 3rd world country doesn't help workers in the US, it hurts them because it results in jobs transferred overseas. Rather, the benefit is to the economy of the worker's country because the workers have money to spend at their local stores which is why those countries allow it.

Fourth, you could say the same thing applied not that long ago to Japan and South Korea so now those countries are importing millions of cars to the US. Do you somehow think damaging the US auto industry is helping the American economy?

Finally, next time you shop for wine buy a California chardonnay instead of an Australian and think about which country benefits the most from that.

Idon't really want to get into a slanging match so we will have to agree to dissagree on this one.
I pulled the Nike example out because it was a big public scandal a few years back and thus well known.
I could have picked upon Murry mowers, made in China, sold to you just slightly cheaper than an AYP mower at a massive profit to the importers and almost none to the workers in China
Every locally made car you buy is around $ 500 cheaper to you because of all the Chinese / Mexican / Brizillian parts

 

[MowerMike]

It all depends on your perspective.

As a consumer in the USA, cheap foreign labor rates are a benefit. As a blue collar worker they are a detriment. Where I live, a lot of the manual labor is done by immigrants, mostly Mexican, and many of them undocumented. If you look at all the housing construction, the work crews are all speaking Spanish and the same goes for lawncare crews and many other tasks that are not unionized. I think it's important not to confuse benefits to individuals with profits to corporations.

 

[bertsmobile1]

It all depends on your perspective.

As a consumer in the USA, cheap foreign labor rates are a benefit. As a blue collar worker they are a detriment. Where I live, a lot of the manual labor is done by immigrants, mostly Mexican, and many of them undocumented. If you look at all the housing construction, the work crews are all speaking Spanish and the same goes for lawncare crews and many other tasks that are not unionized. I think it's important not to confuse benefits to individuals with profits to corporations.

Except corperations are owned by individuals, called shareholders who get dividends that elevate their lifestyle.
While some might have few shareholders and others have a lot ultimately is it a USA citizen who reaps the rewards as you can not own USA share unless you are a citizen unless you are using very complicated corp structures, same as in Aust.
Again not trying to be anti USA we do the same down here.
SO the person who buys the car gets it cheaper because of the 3rd world underpaid labour used in making the parts and the shareholder gets more profit. And yes the American on the production line gets the sack when the parts are sourced elsewhere.
The tragedy of it is there is enough money in the world to feed every one with 3 square meals a day .
I was 1/2 listening to a radio docco when the presenter said a single days trading on the Toyoko Stock exchange would feed the entire 3rd world for a year.
And of course that days trading was just making rich people richer.
I have a resonable collection of motorcycles ( BSA's ) and I source parts locally where ever possible.
I have a moderate income , around 2/3 of the average male income, which is more than I need so I am happy to support local industry, but food from the local farmers or at the local shops.
I cop abuse from fellow motorcycle collectors with incomes 10 to 20 times mine for not sourcing ( usually inferiour ) parts cheaper from India or China or racing out & buying really cheap riding gear from Aldi.

Poverty is cause by people at the top skimming way too much out of the system which means there is not enough at the bottom.
They they get outraged when those at the bottom turn to crime .
Most people in the USA ( and Australia ) could afford to pay an extra $ 500 for their ride ons which would allow local manufacture of mowers .
However most will scour the universe to find the absolute cheapest then whinge that the quality is not what it used to be.
part & parcel of this is exploiting those in 3rd world countries many of which get paid less than their own minimum living wages for producing stuff for people who wast more money than they will ever see in their entire lives.

 

[TonyPrin]

Except corperations are owned by individuals, called shareholders who get dividends that elevate their lifestyle.
While some might have few shareholders and others have a lot ultimately is it a USA citizen who reaps the rewards as you can not own USA share unless you are a citizen unless you are using very complicated corp structures, same as in Aust.
Again not trying to be anti USA we do the same down here.
SO the person who buys the car gets it cheaper because of the 3rd world underpaid labour used in making the parts and the shareholder gets more profit. And yes the American on the production line gets the sack when the parts are sourced elsewhere.
The tragedy of it is there is enough money in the world to feed every one with 3 square meals a day .
I was 1/2 listening to a radio docco when the presenter said a single days trading on the Toyoko Stock exchange would feed the entire 3rd world for a year.
And of course that days trading was just making rich people richer.
I have a resonable collection of motorcycles ( BSA's ) and I source parts locally where ever possible.
I have a moderate income , around 2/3 of the average male income, which is more than I need so I am happy to support local industry, but food from the local farmers or at the local shops.
I cop abuse from fellow motorcycle collectors with incomes 10 to 20 times mine for not sourcing ( usually inferiour ) parts cheaper from India or China or racing out & buying really cheap riding gear from Aldi.

Poverty is cause by people at the top skimming way too much out of the system which means there is not enough at the bottom.
They they get outraged when those at the bottom turn to crime .
Most people in the USA ( and Australia ) could afford to pay an extra $ 500 for their ride ons which would allow local manufacture of mowers .
However most will scour the universe to find the absolute cheapest then whinge that the quality is not what it used to be.
part & parcel of this is exploiting those in 3rd world countries many of which get paid less than their own minimum living wages for producing stuff for people who wast more money than they will ever see in their entire lives.

Bertsmobile1, your comments continue to amuse me. If you take your show on the road let me know and I'll buy a ticket.

Somehow you assume that the plight of workers in 3rd world countries relate to exploitation by wealthy countries like the US and that is nonsense. The economic conditions in hose countries are tied directly to their resources, corruption, and the ineptitude or unwillingness of their governments to rectify the situation. Workers take sweat-shop jobs in 3rd world countries in order to live because better work is not available, not because someone in the US forces them to do it.

Poverty is cause by people at the top skimming way too much out of the system which means there is not enough at the bottom.

The idea of this is ridiculous. There is no system, per se, with a limited amount of money where some people take more leaving others with less. Wealth is created from nothing. When a company like Facebook is created, the founder becomes a billionaire but that money isn't taken from anyone. It is just incorrect to suggest that every winner requires a looser.

 

[cpurvis]

I would also ask what these "sweat shop" laborers in foreign countries were doing before the sweat shop came to town. Did they have better jobs then? Or is the sweat shop job an improvement over their prior employment? Could it be that their standard of living actually improved after getting the sweat shop job?

 

[bertsmobile1]

Bertsmobile1, your comments continue to amuse me. If you take your show on the road let me know and I'll buy a ticket.

Somehow you assume that the plight of workers in 3rd world countries relate to exploitation by wealthy countries like the US and that is nonsense. The economic conditions in hose countries are tied directly to their resources, corruption, and the ineptitude or unwillingness of their governments to rectify the situation. Workers take sweat-shop jobs in 3rd world countries in order to live because better work is not available, not because someone in the US forces them to do it.

The idea of this is ridiculous. There is no system, per se, with a limited amount of money where some people take more leaving others with less. Wealth is created from nothing. When a company like Facebook is created, the founder becomes a billionaire but that money isn't taken from anyone. It is just incorrect to suggest that every winner requires a looser.

If you really believe that wealth can be created from nothing then we have a massive fundamential difference about the principles of economic commerce.

When Face book floats, it did not "create money", only government reserve banks can "create money" and even then it is not real.
Money gets moved from one place to another.
So when Facebook lists, the money is moved from one set of assets to acquire another asset.
Now this might be your own money or a banks money via leveraging and when leveraging with imaginary money gets too extreme we have a banking collapse like the GFC of the early 2000's.
The founders of Facebook invested a lot to create facebook in the first place ( time, labour building rental etc etc etc ).
Remember money is not real it is a third party means of trading items between two parties, be it your labour and your employers products, your labour & the customers lawn etc etc etc.
That is the whole premiss upon which double entry book keeping is based upon, for every credit there is a debit.
Create more money and all the money already there becomes worth less, we call that inflation which is why you get $ 30/ hour now against $10/hr 20 years ago.

AS for 3rd world countries yes it is a lot more complex but if no cheap items were available from 3rd world countries everything you purchase would be a lot more expensive
So yes blue collar workers would have more work and thus more money but would be no better off because everything would be more expensive.
You ( assuming you are not a blue collar worker ) will be substantially worse off because everything you buy that is market priced will be more expensive.
Thus you are being subsidised by the labour of the 3rd world.
If you have an open mind and want to get a better idea about how the governments of 1st world countries manipulate the 3rd world get your hands upon a copy of "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man"
This was written by an ex world bank exec and shows clearly how 1st world governments make sure 3rd world countries can never get out of the poverty traps deliberately created by 1st world governments.
It in particular explains how Africa has been kept in poverty to prevent it developing and becoming an economic competitor to Europe, the USSR & the US .
Now corrupt 3rd world governments & civil authorities don't help the plight of the 3rd word people either, but most of these people were corrupted by the west in the first place.
All that "dirty money" corrupt officals steal from their treasury has to go some where , some where safe, politically stable where it will accumulate more wealth and is easily transferiable,
And that is US, Europe & Australia

 

[TonyPrin]

Bertsmobile1, I think we're almost there. You are obviously knowledgeable, so here goes; your previous comment was:

When Face book floats, it did not "create money", only government reserve banks can "create money" and even then it is not real.
Money gets moved from one place to another.
So when Facebook lists, the money is moved from one set of assets to acquire another asset.
Now this might be your own money or a banks money via leveraging and when leveraging with imaginary money gets too extreme we have a banking collapse like the GFC of the early 2000's.
The founders of Facebook invested a lot to create facebook in the first place ( time, labour building rental etc etc etc ).
Remember money is not real it is a third party means of trading items between two parties, be it your labour and your employers products, your labour & the customers lawn etc etc etc.
Create more money and all the money already there becomes worth less, we call that inflation which is why you get $ 30/ hour now against $10/hr 20 years ago.

Most of what you say is correct, but it has to do with money, not wealth, and has nothing to do with poverty in 3rd world countries. Although wealth is measured in money, they are not similar. Money is printed all the time by 3rd world countries but it doesn't make those countries wealthy. Printing more money results as you state in inflation, not wealth.

A country's cumulative earnings - called prosperity - is measured in GDP. As a country becomes more wealthy, its GDP increases. The increase in US GDP has nothing to do with poverty in 3rd world countries it has to do with value created in the US.

Remember money is not real it is a third party means of trading items between two parties, be it your labour and your employers products, your labour & the customers lawn etc etc etc.
That is the whole premiss upon which double entry book keeping is based upon, for every credit there is a debit.

You insist on the zero-sum game approach to wealth - that one person's wealth creates another's poverty - but that's not the premise of double entry bookkeeping at all. When those entries are closed out, the offset is income or loss. The country-wide change in that income in the US is the country's increase in wealth shown as an increase in GDP.

If you really believe that wealth can be created from nothing then we have a massive fundamential difference about the principles of economic commerce.

Finally, I'll illustrate what I meant. When a contractor builds an addition on a home at a price of $50,000 but a cost of $40,000 he creates an increase in his wealth of $10,000. While that increase is the result of his skill and efforts, he creates it from nothing - i.e., it doesn't come from someplace else. If you don't believe wealth comes from nothing, look at the world in the past 50 years and let me know where all that wealth came from.