"Real capitalism has never been tried"crony capitalism is just "ideal" capitalism + time.
"Real capitalism has never been tried"crony capitalism is just "ideal" capitalism + time.
Turns out the people you give power in a capitalist system don't feel themselves bound by the expectations of those who justify their rule. Weird!"Real capitalism has never been tried"
Considering the countries we tend to talk about, that's probably true in large part because of how "capitalist" countries have already interacted with them.They were poor before the corporations were there.
You don't know that. They may have moved production to Mexico because they lack the capacity to pay higher wages.They're paying more than the local companies. They also have far greater capacity to pay than most Mexican employers.
I don't defend unregulated capitalism. I quite like good regulations, the sort of regulations that are made with a careful understanding of the practical issues that need solving, rather than an idealized position where all people are paid uniformly across the globe.You're on a public forum. And your defences of unregulated, unrestrained capitalism aren't just anathema to communists; they'd be anathema to socialists and even moderate, compassionate capitalists. Adam Smith would find this shit despicable.
You don't know the positions of the people and entities that you're generalizing. Right now, you're acting as though every corporation is hugely profitable and successful and the owners are fat and happy, and that every laborer in Mexico is starving and desperate that they have no option but to take a job doing something like manufacturing cars. You're being unreasonably extreme.You're arguing that we should be praising the rich man who gives the starving man a crust of bread, though the rich man is towing a feast behind him. And furthermore opining that the starving man is just has empowered in this transaction because he takes it out of desperation.
Frankly, I'm generally inclined to blame the Latin American elites, who suck the money out of their own countries to waste on frivolities bought from richer countries, though I would certainly be for businesses who took the moral stance of not doing business with those types of people.I agree in large part: companies investing to create jobs in poorer countries creates more work and often development in them. But there are caveats.
For instance, international businesses frequently involve the extraction of profits from countries where work is done to countries that invest, and thus it arguably would be better for workers to be exploited by their own elites, who will then likely pump more of the profits back into the same country.
Also, poorer countries frequently have weaker governance and less worker / poor empowerment. This means that large and wealthy corporations are more likely to be able to influence the state, officials, or maintain work condition in ways that increase exploitative practices. We all know corporations do this, and we resent it when they conspicuously do it in our own. It gets even more sinister when we consider that businesses almost certainly lobby our (Western) governments to apply pressure to poorer ones to make it easier for our (Western) businesses to operate there. One of the much-touted complaints about US activity in Latin America is that it facilitates wealth extraction for the Latin American elites and US businesses ahead of human and economic development for the Latin American general populace.
Would they make more sense?If this was a board full of libertarians, I would be making very different arguments in support of my personal positions.
If they lack the capacity to pay higher wages, then they lack the capacity to build, staff, and train a new factory full of laborers.You don't know that. They may have moved production to Mexico because they lack the capacity to pay higher wages.
Oh, the Latin American elites deserve no sympathy. They are the descendants of conquistadors and Spanish / Portugese nobility, who ruled over native American peasants and slaves. Just because they shrugged off the motherlands in the 19th century doesn't mean that they lost that deep-seated sense of superiority and right to rule. They could develop their countries into modern economies, but why bother when they can line their own pockets?Frankly, I'm generally inclined to blame the Latin American elites, who suck the money out of their own countries to waste on frivolities bought from richer countries, though I would certainly be for businesses who took the moral stance of not doing business with those types of people.
I don't think we (realistically, mostly the USA) care much about Latin American corruption, just the flow of money and resources.I agree with your caveats, and general comments about corruption. I think targeted responses to those issues is a generally more effective response than "People are paid less in Mexico!? End capitalism forever!" If this was a board full of libertarians, I would be making very different arguments in support of my personal positions.
Because they are in a position such that they can be exploited more ruthlessly, and so they are. Three cheers for labor markets!If they lack the capacity to pay higher wages, then they lack the capacity to build, staff, and train a new factory full of laborers.
And all of this is a distraction from the main point that it takes a person in Mexico the same amount of labor to put together a TV, so why aren't we paying them like it?
When you compare the situation of the countries we've deliberately tried to hobble because they have spooky socialist or socialist-adjacent governments to the ones who have supposedly benefited from their relations with the imperial core, it's difficult to find many uniform differences aside from how they and their governments are covered (or not covered) in our media. If indeed we have helped them, you would expect to see the latter group of countries be much better off. Anyway, I'll invite the next person who screeches about Venezuela to go live in Haiti or Colombia.However, the West facilitated and backed them up in the ways that matter most because they ensured the resources and money flowed to us. I wonder how much we have retarded rather than encouraged human development, democracy and rule of law. Possibly quite a lot.
Because the value of labor is, like all things, relative to the time and place it exists in. In places with more labor and less money, labor is worth less money. And people in Mexico, just like everywhere else, are aware of what amount of money is worth their time and effort in the context of their own lives. You aren't.And all of this is a distraction from the main point that it takes a person in Mexico the same amount of labor to put together a TV, so why aren't we paying them like it?
And capitalism will make sure those countries stay poor, because if they didn't stay poor, labor costs would rise and they'd need to pay people more. Hence the funded revolutions and coups in the global south.Because the value of labor is, like all things, relative to the time and place it exists in. In places with more labor and less money, labor is worth less money. And people in Mexico, just like everywhere else, are aware of what amount of money is worth their time and effort in the context of their own lives. You aren't.
That's what is commonly referred to as a conspiracy theory.And capitalism will make sure those countries stay poor, because if they didn't stay poor, labor costs would rise and they'd need to pay people more. Hence the funded revolutions and coups in the global south.
Because nobody in the US could afford to pay for a TV without that cheap labor when that cheap labor also allows corporations to keep *our* labor underpaid. Capitalism is a pyramid scheme. Or in the words of a Walmart executive, "Target should pay their labor $15/hr, we should pay ours less"
Another one of those conspiracy theories that the relevant actors readily admit to.That's what is commonly referred to as a conspiracy theory.
Open an economics textbook and learn about the concept of producer and consumer surplus. Please. Even a shitty neoclassical one.In places with more labor and less money, labor is worth less money. And people in Mexico, just like everywhere else, are aware of what amount of money is worth their time and effort in the context of their own lives. You aren't.
I don't deny the US has in the past involved itself in countries to protect it's access to natural resources found in those places, and that is worthy of condemnation. That is claim with a very simple line connecting cause and effect.Another one of those conspiracy theories that the relevant actors readily admit to.
A Banana Republic isn't just a trendy mall store.
Don't embarrass yourself trying to talk about basic economics again, you who believe wealth is a fixed number that cannot be mutually gained through trade.Open an economics textbook and learn about the concept of producer and consumer surplus. Please. Even a shitty neoclassical one.
I'm not thinking they're some evil, mustache twirling villains cackling as they set up yet another sweatshop because they like inflicting suffering on the poor.I don't deny the US has in the past involved itself in countries to protect it's access to natural resources found in those places, and that is worthy of condemnation. That is claim with a very simple line connecting cause and effect.
That is not the same thing as claiming US corporations are somehow collectively making Mexico perpetually poor so they can pay less for labor. That's not the same thing as believing the US opposes socialism in Venezuela out of fear that socialism might lead to the elimination of cheap labor markets. Like, these are a lot of the same big bad corporations in bed with the CCP, I guarantee nobody is opposing socialism abroad based on a historical precedent of increasing labor costs.
Yeah, I'm sure Rexnord and Mondelez Int. lack the capacity to pay a proper living wage.You don't know that. They may have moved production to Mexico because they lack the capacity to pay higher wages.
If you don't have a problem with companies dropping workplace protections and living wages in order to squeeze every last dime into the profit margin, then I suspect the regulations you'd be happy with are the toothless kind. The kind that exist as window-dressing to protect the industry from scrutiny-- like Ofcom here in the UK.I don't defend unregulated capitalism. I quite like good regulations, the sort of regulations that are made with a careful understanding of the practical issues that need solving, rather than an idealized position where all people are paid uniformly across the globe.
How you took me disputing some absolutist socialist talking point and turned it into a defense of unregulated, unrestrained capitalism, i don't know. I don't think "people can be fairly payed different wages in different places" is a social darwinist statement. Like, myself as an example, I lead a quite comfortable life, but good luck to anyone trying to live in a major city off of the same salary. I hope people there get paid more, and I don't feel even the tiniest bit exploited if I make less in central PA.
Never did I say this applies to every single company. Obviously some companies pay a living wage, and obviously some workers have a reasonable choice.You don't know the positions of the people and entities that you're generalizing. Right now, you're acting as though every corporation is hugely profitable and successful and the owners are fat and happy, and that every laborer in Mexico is starving and desperate that they have no option but to take a job doing something like manufacturing cars. You're being unreasonably extreme.
I'm well aware of the fact that laborers are trading their ability to generate wealth for the relatively meager sum it takes to sustain their bodies and that, short of any better options, this trade is worth it for the laborer (otherwise they wouldn't do it). And you either haven't thought about it that deeply or you're just entirely unconcerned by a system in which it is exceedingly normal to take advantage of and underpay desperate people in order to get rich. You might think you're being clever by referencing gains from trade, but really what you're doing is hiding behind an abstraction. I've long ago considered what those gains actually are in the cases I'm describing. Also, consumer and producer surplus are literally the terms neoclassical and Keynesian economists use to describe what are the gains from trade, so...Don't embarrass yourself trying to talk about basic economics again, you who believe wealth is a fixed number that cannot be mutually gained through trade.
Hot take: the results of crony capitalism are the same as unregulated capitalism, except it has cronies to throw under the bus when things go bad.we don't even have a capitalist system, but rather one of crony capitalists.