The matter as seen from China:
http://www.scmp.com/news/china/economy/article/1949918/rise-robots-60000-workers-culled-just-one-factory-chinas

Isn't this an old problem going back to the first steam engines?
I mean it's not even fun to read that the former low cost countries like China now start to close their factories and
produce in countries with even less costs and labor rights.
Observing my country I can see the pattern. More and more restriction of labor rights, families that can't survive
even with full time jobs, and a small minority getting richer and richer.
And than they are surprised that the crowds following the pied piper with their simple solutions.

Do you think the utilization of slave labor in China falls under the rubric of "competitive markets"?

I'll brb to continue this still today. In the interim, I do recall your avatar and have some recollection we might have posted at each other some other time. Do you know if I'm right?


This is easier to address.

For one, if you want to jump into the conversation, it would be more effective to treat your dialogue partner with respect. I might be wrong, but the way you posted is pinging my troll alarms.


For another, please clarify how you define slavery. Do you consider the industrial labor in Industrial Revolution England slavery as well? How about typical historical east european serfdom, is that slavery to you? Or the Ottoman janissaries, were they slaves for the most part?

I ask because the first of those 3 examples is the closest to China's present realities (I'm no expert in Chinese history so maybe you had somethign else in mind).

And only the second example is even close to the central meaning of slavery - you know, of africans in american plantations, or muslim piracy and white slavery, or plain old ancient pre feudal slavery.

In fact I'd say this is a perfect example of the kind of semantical tricks that undermine economic literacy. Shifting definitions of poverty the perfect example.

So, like, maybe rephrase the question? You can be more precise I'm sure.


But here's me being nice:
Competitive markets in my application are non coercive. Slavery is coercive. You can draw the logical conclusion.

How many factories in Poland have deployed suicide nets to prevent their employees from killing themselves?

Here's an article on this unusual phenomenon that is quite balanced. An excellent read if you're at all interested in the subject.

http://www.wired.com/2011/02/ff_joelinchina/

Foxconn is the very best that China has -- It's showpiece. Yet that is where the suicide nets popped up, in response to a spike in suicides due to coerced overtime.

So I ask you, does China meet your criteria for "competitive markets"?

From the article you posted:

"When one jumper left a note explaining that he committed suicide to provide for his family, the program of remuneration for the families of jumpers was canceled."

Funny how ^that^ directly contradicts you... messy reality getting in the way of your dogma.

And what a "spike":

"Out of a million people, 17 suicides isn’t much—indeed, American college students kill themselves at four times that rate."

That's just like, in the first ten paragraphs you linked? Stop trolling.


To throw you another bone however, China is a fascist planned economy - which is mostly irrelevant to the sweatshop / slavery angle you are pushing. You see, that's what I find hilarious about you. You might actually have believed I thought China was somehow an example of ideal capitalism, liberalism, whatever you want to call it. You reached the correct answer - they're far from a paragon of virtue - but your process is all screwed up. You flunk mate.


PS: For the audience's benefit. The Chinese government would rather have much more control over the population displacements brought by labor demand (caused by Foxconn, etc). Also Chinese reality regarding sociopolitics is very difficult to break into, but traditionally the main political tension in China is precisely pitting central planners - whether they are nationalist or communist or both - versus the kind of independent minded (read: risky separatist) warlord / entrepreneurs that are constant in its history. That is why richlind's attempt to paint the picture of an obvious alliance of interest between the chinese state and the Foxconn's of the world is borderline farcical. * Of course I don't actually know if Foxconn management specifically is under control / influence of the Chinese ruling party or some element of the opposition, but the dynamics are all wrong. Chinese politicians are happy with the geopolitical fruits in terms of capital and power brought by globalization, but they are very suspicious of its societal impacts - especially any kind of capital driven empowerment of rival elites, as well of "trickle down" empowerment of the masses. ** They know very well that capitalist economic activity tends to lead to democratic demand - it's no coincidence how political liberal reform followed the Industrial Revolution in England. Which is quite ironic in the context of economic literacy I was talking to viper.

** No surprise they find it very hard to thread the needle of "managed growth" via encouraging internal consumption as an alternative for diminishing international demand.

* I'm being unfair - Richlind's angle if I recall is rather about the world elites aligning to control the people. Unlike a hardcore communist for whom the bourgeousie is seen dogmatically as a conservative united block (at present the lingo would be a privileged united block ofc), he sees the elites dogmatically as a maquiavelian united block (pulling strings, etc... I would be surprised if he is not traditionally anti-semitic). Circling back, that's why I think he finds it so hard to believe I'm being sincere - I also see conflicts between political and economic interests. He only sees collusion.

To the contrary, the note suggests 2 things: that Foxconn's wages are shite, and that the man had lost the will to go on living.

Those 17 suicides resulted in the square mile complex becoming a cacoon of suicide netting -- a picture that begs the caption "trouble in paradise".

Again, Foxconn is as good as it gets for workers in China, and is far above the appalling norm.


BTW, do you always answer yes/no questions with grandiose walls of text?

Many of the factories in China *are* sweatshops, with workers that sleep under their work tables, or bridges, etc., etc.

Actually, I presumed that you didn't see China as being ideal, so you have failed again to answer my question.

I made no reference to the Communist Party, but let's assume that I did: Foxconn exists because the CPC allows it to, and the fact that it is likely a grudging alliance is beside any point I am trying to make here.

But thank you for another grandiose wall of text.

When you have private control of national money supplies this is entirely moot, and this is well-understood by intelligent libertarians who long ago recognized and identified banking collusion for what it truly is, including it's relationship to the so-called "business cycle".

https://mises.org/library/economic-depressions-their-cause-and-cure-4/html/c/67


BTW, I quite enjoy walls of text that are informative. ;p

Only the fallacious ones. Like: Richlind, are you troll or a fool?

You do understand what I mean right? Loaded questions of the sort "Have you stopped beating your wife?" should be rejected as invalid. The premises behind your question were likewise invalid.

Despite which I have answered you already twice in separate posts:
1st - that sweatshop conditions =/= slavery
2nd - that China is fascist

You however, refuse to acknowledge the answers you already got, and are still trying to play gotchas.
It's also interesting that you step in replying to what I did not address at you. Why so desperate?

So, what are you trying to achieve here? I am curious.

How was I to know that you're more of an effete pseudo-intellectual than an abrasive charpit? ;p


You seem to be disputing that sweatshop conditions exist in China. I hope that is wrong but if it isn't, here's an article that should leave you better informed.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2006-11-26/secrets-lies-and-sweatshops

As for economics being a "hard" science, I'll leave you with a brilliant documentary that takes a good, hard look at the marriage of science and finance. Enjoy!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ed2FWNWwE3I

0_o ??

Now you have me questioning your reading comprehension...

Guess who wrote these (emphasis mine):

"the first of those 3 examples [industrial labor in Industrial Revolution England] is the closest to China's present realities"

"How it applied or not to human sciences like economy..."

Hint: I did.
Hint 2: Industrial Revolution in England is where modern sweatshops originated.
Hint 3: Human sciences are not hard sciences.

The good thing from this is that others see you for what you are more clearly.

I apologize for misreading you re hard vs human science. My bad. But I'm genuinely puzzled by your reaction to what you claim are "loaded" non sequiturs. The only difference I see between the sweatshop and the plantation is that the latter is more blatant and extreme, but is there really any question that both are/were dehumanizing? If not, what point is served by asserting that one is slavery but the other is not?

Duh... so what? When and as things get worse the divisions will surface naturally. Do you remember what happened June 23rd this year? Google it maybe...

Also, for someone that was asking me some time back if labor practices in China are abusive, the sudden focus on Western countries in this reply is odd. :)

Basically, even if I accepted your premise that "they" are controlling the world economy, the scope out of "their" control is increasing.

But, you really don't want to define what you meant by hoarding causing artifical scarcity huh?