Economics v. business --The Huck incident

[rtwngAvngr]

Trade with the U.S. may not develop nations. It ranks among the highest on the list for tariffs in the areas that developing nations have a comparative advantage.

No. it does develop them. May? May? Don't come on here with may.

 

[shadrack]

Free trade zones are not designed for sole for the purpose of foreign trade, they are also set up to encourage trade amongst member nations. It isn't part of some sneaky plan designed by "the man" to keep them down. Third world countries have been helped an coddled enough, if they want to be part of a larger world market, they have to have something to offer, if the aren't "ready" they need to get out of the game and set their aims a little lower.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but I certainly won't deny effects associated with free trade. Set their aims a little lower, eh....like poverty.

In third world countries, businesses and manufacturers tend to do business with multinationals more often than not.They are also the people who have the best chance of adapting, since ordinary citizens tend to be excluded from the benefits of foreign development because they lack the skills or education to acquire those skills. They already face being wiped out by their own governments. The fact that you try to pass the blame onto your own country for this is VERY pathetic.

I don't think questioning policy and having the desire to improve global human rights through the use of my government exerting its force on multinational corporations is particularly anti-American or very pathetic. The point that foreign governments are ultimately responsible for ensuring its citizens full protection of civil and political rights, while brutally true, is not valid if one desires to diminish the negative effects that multinational corporations and globalization have on a population, because the fact remains that abuses occur and American based firms sometimes contribute to those abuses.

The Center for Economic and Policy Research reports that progress in many nations has diminished during the 20 years after 1980, considered to be the period of globalization, compared with the 20 years before. The World Bank projects that removing all laws that control international commerce will grow low and middle-income countries by 0.6 percent per year. From 1960 to 1980 average growth of middle-income countries was 3.6 percent per year. The poorest nations have suffered most, going from 1.9 percent economic growth to 0.5 percent. The gap between rich and poor is growing throughout the world as well as within the U.S.

Paying initial factory setup costs protects developing nations from foreign ownership, they own the land, and the building, this is a good thing.

So the theory goes, but being a realist, I see that it also increases their mobility.

Most third world countries do not have standard labor practices

U.S. firms seem to act as though political intimidation and violence against unionists are outside or seperate from their involvement in the host nation's economy. Besides, there are international standards.

, and very little environmental restrictions that can't be abided by. Can you can show me one fairly recent case where a third world government has agreed to loosen any existing labor and environmental policies in order to do business with a multinational?

Nigeria is an example. Transnational oil corporations should act within Nigerian laws that apply to their operations that contribute directly or indirectly to human rights abuses even if the Nigerian government doesn't ensure the enforcement and proper implementation of their environmental protection legislation. They each should guarantee a mechanism of redress of violations of civil and political rights.

 

[shadrack]

May? May? Don't come on here with may.

Oh, you didn't know. I thought it was pretty clear that some of the framework and policies associated with globalization and free trade have been at least partly responsible for a decline in standards and growth in low and mid income nations. The world economy may be growing, but the wealth is concentrated.

 

[freeandfun1]

Oh, you didn't know. I thought it was pretty clear that some of the framework and policies associated with globalization and free trade have been at least partly responsible for a decline in standards and growth in low and mid income nations. The world economy may be growing, but the wealth is concentrated.

just wondering....

If everybody in a nation is poor, but then some get richer due to economic development, does that really mean the poor are getting poorer? No. They are just staying the same while others are enjoying better lives.

Economic development in EVERY nation leads to better lives. It might take time, it might not be easy, but it does occur. 20 years ago Korea was a back-water nation making shoes for Nike and the like. Today they are the biggest exporter of cellular phones in the world. Economic development helps all around it one way or another.

 

[Said1]

I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but I certainly won't deny effects associated with free trade. Set their aims a little lower, eh....like poverty.

Setting realistic goals geared to encourage economic growth does not equal poverty, it's working within your means or national budget.

I don't think questioning policy and having the desire to improve global human rights through the use of my government exerting its force on multinational corporations is particularly anti-American or very pathetic. The point that foreign governments are ultimately responsible for ensuring its citizens full protection of civil and political rights, while brutally true, is not valid if one desires to diminish the negative effects that multinational corporations and globalization have on a population, because the fact remains that abuses occur and American based firms sometimes contribute to those abuses.

You're still placing the blame entirely on multinationals. I didn't say questioning policy is bad, or anti-American. I said placing blame on one party is pathetic.

The Center for Economic and Policy Research reports that progress in many nations has diminished during the 20 years after 1980, considered to be the period of globalization, compared with the 20 years before. The World Bank projects that removing all laws that control international commerce will grow low and middle-income countries by 0.6 percent per year. From 1960 to 1980 average growth of middle-income countries was 3.6 percent per year. The poorest nations have suffered most, going from 1.9 percent economic growth to 0.5 percent. The gap between rich and poor is growing throughout the world as well as within the U.S.

What are the reasons for this? Many of the worlds poorest nations are also the most volatile politically and militarily, some were dependant on the Soviet Union, things change (we aren't talking middle income countries here anyway, we're talking about third world nations). While so much emphasis is put on economic growth, simple things like education continue to be neglected. How can an economy continue to grow if future generations are not educated enough to maintain existing infrastusrctures? When you knowingly choose to educate small amount of your citizens, what chance do the rest of them have if they can't read what their corrupt governments are telling them?

So the theory goes, but being a realist, I see that it also increases their mobility.

Sure it does, but the building is still there, and it's provides another opportunity for another investor to move in and set up, saving start up costs.
If you can't see the benefits of this, you're crazy.

U.S. firms seem to act as though political intimidation and violence against unionists are outside or separate from their involvement in the host nation's economy. Besides, there are international standards.

Of course it's seperate, although Wal-mart is allowing a union to represent employees in their China stores. As for international standards, it's up to the "host" country to enforce them if they want developers ect to adhere to them. Some pay below international standards, but are still above economic standards within a particular nation. You're still placing blame on others.

Nigeria is an example. Transnational oil corporations should act within Nigerian laws that apply to their operations that contribute directly or indirectly to human rights abuses even if the Nigerian government doesn't ensure the enforcement and proper implementation of their environmental protection legislation. They each should guarantee a mechanism of redress of violations of civil and political rights.

Sure, mutual agreement on policies, that's perfect. When laws are knowingly violated by both parties, BOTH parties should be held responsible for the harm they inflict. I would also like to see a legitimate source stating Nigeria knowingly ignored their own environmental policies in order gain investment from multinational oil corporations (who created a bidding war, or intimidated them).

What do you think is the most significant factor in continued under development (aside from evil multinational corporations)?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Oh, you didn't know. I thought it was pretty clear that some of the framework and policies associated with globalization and free trade have been at least partly responsible for a decline in standards and growth in low and mid income nations. The world economy may be growing, but the wealth is concentrated.

If you want to guarantee a global minimum wage and environmental standards, I guess you'll just have to take over the world, eh?

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

We're looking for a few good men.

 

[shadrack]

Setting realistic goals geared to encourage economic growth does not equal poverty, it's working within your means or national budget.

I think we're off track here. I'm saying free trade zones within a country are more like ethics free zones.

You're still placing the blame entirely on multinationals. I didn't say questioning policy is bad, or anti-American. I said placing blame on one party is pathetic.

I think whoever has the greatest means has the greatest responsibility to achieve ends acceptable to interested parties.

What are the reasons for this? Many of the worlds poorest nations are also the most volatile politically and militarily, some were dependant on the Soviet Union, things change (we aren't talking middle income countries here anyway, we're talking about third world nations). While so much emphasis is put on economic growth, simple things like education continue to be neglected. How can an economy continue to grow if future generations are not educated enough to maintain existing infrastusrctures? When you knowingly choose to educate small amount of your citizens, what chance do the rest of them have if they can't read what their corrupt governments are telling them?

The Center for Economic and Policy Research also reports progress in education and health have also suffered the same results within the same time periods before and after 1980. Progress in nearly every area has diminished. 1980 is significant because it was before the latest era of globalization.

Sure it does, but the building is still there, and it's provides another opportunity for another investor to move in and set up, saving start up costs.
If you can't see the benefits of this, you're crazy.

Capital accumulation is the key to growth, but if it comes with unaffordable debt it can't stimulate growth.

Of course it's seperate, although Wal-mart is allowing a union to represent employees in their China stores. As for international standards, it's up to the "host" country to enforce them if they want developers ect to adhere to them. Some pay below international standards, but are still above economic standards within a particular nation. You're still placing blame on others.

You're still blaming one party....the host country.

Sure, mutual agreement on policies, that's perfect. When laws are knowingly violated by both parties, BOTH parties should be held responsible for the harm they inflict.

Didn't I just say this in a previous post.

I would also like to see a legitimate source stating Nigeria knowingly ignored their own environmental policies in order gain investment from multinational oil corporations (who created a bidding war, or intimidated them).

Come again?

What do you think is the most significant factor in continued under development (aside from evil multinational corporations)?

Direct or indirect? Colonialism, cold war, isolation of the wealthy, wealthy nations create the rules for international trade are all some of the things that contribute and continue to contribute to under development.

 

[shadrack]

just wondering....

If everybody in a nation is poor, but then some get richer due to economic development, does that really mean the poor are getting poorer? No. They are just staying the same while others are enjoying better lives.

Is that an argument for trickle-down?

Economic development in EVERY nation leads to better lives. It might take time, it might not be easy, but it does occur. 20 years ago Korea was a back-water nation making shoes for Nike and the like. Today they are the biggest exporter of cellular phones in the world. Economic development helps all around it one way or another.

South Korea is hardly a model of free trade. High import tariffs and a nearly authoritarian focus on export driven growth lead to rapid industrialization and high growth rates. Many nations have followed similar models because of South Korea's success which, in part, caused the Asian Economic Crisis in the 90's. The export driven economic model makes a nation very dependent on others.

 

[shadrack]

If you want to guarantee a global minimum wage and environmental standards, I guess you'll just have to take over the world, eh?

You're kidding, right?

We're looking for a few good men.

"We're" looking? Who? Neocons? And I'm sure you're their chief representative.

You denounce me as a racist and then solicit me to join your ranks. What a joke.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

You're kidding, right?

"We're" looking? Who? Neocons? And I'm sure you're their chief representative.

You denounce me as a racist and then solicit me to join your ranks. What a joke.

chillpill --take these and call me in the morning.

 

[Said1]

I think we're off track here. I'm saying free trade zones within a country are more like ethics free zones.

WTF are you talking about? Please give me an example of a free trade zone within a country that is more like an ethics free zone. Who is morally incorrect, the "host" nation or the multinational? Make up or mind.

I think whoever has the greatest means has the greatest responsibility to achieve ends acceptable to interested parties.

The multi-national should adhere to national enivronmental standards, and developing nations need to enforce penalties for those who don't. It's not complicated or unfathomable.

The Center for Economic and Policy Research also reports progress in education and health have also suffered the same results within the same time periods before and after 1980. Progress in nearly every area has diminished. 1980 is significant because it was before the latest era of globalization.

You still haven' t offered a reason, or a guess. In case you haven't noticed, developing nations need only to ask, and they usually recieve.

Capital accumulation is the key to growth, but if it comes with unaffordable debt it can't stimulate growth.

I see what you're getting at ie: multination steps in, lends money for start up, forces unreasonably high interest rates, exploits workers and environment, then slips away leaving a giant mess, and a nation which is worse off and in more debt. A vicous cycle that is destined to destroy the planet and make poor nations poorer...am I on the right track? Developing nations have only proven they are unable to learn from their mistakes, they are the only ones able to stop this, yet they don't. Interesting don't you think?

You're still blaming one party....the host country.

Give me a break, bad leadership and corruption is what most under developed nations are suffering from, the multination is not responsible for what some third world socialist government does to it's people after they start operating in their country. You are the one who assumes all multinationals are corrupt and evil without looking at both parties, both have their own interests to protect. It's not a simple matter of "looking attractive" to foriegn investors/developers.

Didn't I just say this in a previous post.

You're really reaching here. Is is that hard to tell I was agreeing with you? Nice fancy underlining , are you a TA?

Come again?

I would also like to see a legitimate source stating Nigeria knowingly ignored their own environmental policies in order gain investment from multinational oil corporations (who created a bidding war, or intimidated them). .

Clear enough Buster?

Direct or indirect? Colonialism, cold war, isolation of the wealthy, wealthy nations create the rules for international trade are all some of the things that contribute and continue to contribute to under development.

Thanks, just asking for your opinion, although you seem to purposely miss the fact that international trade is just that, international trade. The rules can't be set to accomodate those who aren't ready.

 

[shadrack]

WTF are you talking about? Please give me an example of a free trade zone within a country that is more like an ethics free zone. Who is morally incorrect, the "host" nation or the multinational? Make up or mind.

You are asking me to choose one side to blame after making the claim that it is pathetic to do so.

The multi-national should adhere to national enivronmental standards, and developing nations need to enforce penalties for those who don't.

Evidently we both agree because we keep repeating this statement over. So, How would you make this happen?

You still haven' t offered a reason, or a guess. In case you haven't noticed, developing nations need only to ask, and they usually recieve.

Third world nations have asked for forgiveness of debt and increases in developmental aid.

.....they are the only ones able to stop this, yet they don't. Interesting don't you think?

The only ones?

Give me a break, bad leadership and corruption is what most under developed nations are suffering from, the multination is not responsible for what some third world socialist government does to it's people after they start operating in their country. You are the one who assumes all multinationals are corrupt and evil without looking at both parties, both have their own interests to protect. It's not a simple matter of "looking attractive" to foriegn investors/developers.

You should rethink what you just said.

You're really reaching here. Is is that hard to tell I was agreeing with you? Nice fancy underlining , are you a TA?

1.I didn't know I was reaching for something. 2.Language is funny that way. 3.What is TA?

I would also like to see a legitimate source stating Nigeria knowingly ignored their own environmental policies in order gain investment from multinational oil corporations (who created a bidding war, or intimidated them). .

Clear enough Buster?

Not much better, but I'll work with what you give me. If I understand what you are saying, I'll respond by saying......There are many sources.

....you seem to purposely miss the fact that international trade is just that, international trade. The rules can't be set to accomodate those who aren't ready.

1.You can't define something by using it in the definition. 2. The rules are set up to include those who aren't ready because third world nations have natural resources and cheap labor and are asking to be included.

 

[Said1]

You are asking me to choose one side to blame after making the claim that it is pathetic to do so.

I was asking you what you were talking about, and I asked for an example which demonstrates your opinion. And I asked you who was lacking in ethics. Simple questions.

Evidently we both agree because we keep repeating this statement over. So, How would you make this happen?

Hhhhmmm that's a toughie. How about third world nations enforcing their own policies themselves. I know it's a crazy, but it just might work!

Third world nations have asked for forgiveness of debt and increases in developmental aid.

This is already happening. Remeber, you are not in favor of it.

The only ones?

Yes they are the only ones. The leaders of third world nations are responsible for the people who reside within their boarders and their natural ecosystems. Would you prefer regime change.

You should rethink what you just said.

Why?

1.I didn't know I was reaching for something. 2.Language is funny that way. 3.What is TA?

I was agreeing with you, go read it again. A TA is short for teaching assisant.

Not much better, but I'll work with what you give me. If I understand what you are saying, I'll respond by saying......There are many sources.

Pls provide one.

1.You can't define something by using it in the definition.

Why come?? Is that why you failed to explain what you mean by "ethics free zone"?

2. The rules are set up to include those who aren't ready because third world nations have natural resources and cheap labor and are asking to be included.

If they are asking to be included, what's the problem? Things can not be changed in order to make special accomodations. That wouldn't be fair. And fairness is what you're all about isn't it?

 

[shadrack]

I was asking you what you were talking about, and I asked for an example which demonstrates your opinion. And I asked you who was lacking in ethics. Simple questions.

Sweatshops.

Hhhhmmm that's a toughie. How about third world nations enforcing their own policies themselves. I know it's a crazy, but it just might work!

They don't often enforce their own policies now, so, with that in mind, what would you suggest?

This is already happening. Remeber, you are not in favor of it.

I'm not in favor of it?? Why do you say that?

Yes they are the only ones. The leaders of third world nations are responsible for the people who reside within their boarders and their natural ecosystems.

But leaders of third world nations are not acting responsibly, so what would you suggest be done?

Why?

If a transnational corporation benefits from corruption, are they not also guilty of corruption?

Pls provide one.

http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGAFR440202004

If they are asking to be included, what's the problem? Things can not be changed in order to make special accomodations. That wouldn't be fair. And fairness is what you're all about isn't it?

What special accomodations are you refering to?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Sweatshops.

So who is ethically to blame for the "sweatshops" phenomenon? Host nations or multinationals? IS the system to blame, man?

 

[Said1]

Sweatshops.

Sweatshops aren't limited to free trade zones, owned and operated soely by the state, or in all cases, in violation of employment standards existing within any given developing nation.

They don't often enforce their own policies now, so, with that in mind, what would you suggest?

I believe many human rights and environmental violations do fall under UN jurisdiction. International bodies responsible for overseeing and administering penalities should do just that.

I'm not in favor of it?? Why do you say that?

You said:

Capital accumulation is the key to growth, but if it comes with unaffordable debt it can't stimulate growth.

This lead me to think you against aquiring more debt. Development aid is more debt, no matter how you phrase it.

But leaders of third world nations are not acting responsibly, so what would you suggest be done?

Again, many of the violations being committed by third world nations do fall under the jurisdiction of international bodies who have the power to intervene, yet they don't.

If a transnational corporation benefits from corruption, are they not also guilty of corruption?

Of course they are.

http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGAFR440202004

The article points to the dangers of forien ownership

I didn't ask you to point out the dangers of foriegn ownership. I've already said this should be avoided as much as possible, since there are benefits. The article also points out many things I've been saying to you, which is that the onus of responsibility ultimately falls on the "host" nation to protect their environments, people and investments. What's so hard to understand?

Did you really read the entire article, mainly the fine print at the bottom?

What special accomodations are you refering to?

None. You're the one consistantly pointing out the unfairness "global markets".

 

[shadrack]

I believe many human rights and environmental violations do fall under UN jurisdiction. International bodies responsible for overseeing and administering penalities should do just that.

And if they don't administer penalties?

....debt, no matter how you phrase it.

What are you suggesting here? oh, you know what....I mean capital like buildings and equipment. Does that clear things up?

Again, many of the violations being committed by third world nations do fall under the jurisdiction of international bodies who have the power to intervene, yet they don't.

So, since they don't, what would you suggest?

Of course they are.

Is anyone who benefits from corruption also guilty of corruption?

I didn't ask you to point out the dangers of foriegn ownership.

you said: I would also like to see a legitimate source stating Nigeria knowingly ignored their own environmental policies in order gain investment from multinational oil corporations (who created a bidding war, or intimidated them).....I've asked you to clarify this statement. All you did was underline it and call me buster.

So, if it was Nigerian oil producers, there would not be dangers?

The article also points out many things I've been saying to you, which is that the onus of responsibility ultimately falls on the "host" nation to protect their environments, people and investments.

but: "The point that foreign governments are ultimately responsible for ensuring its citizens full protection of civil and political rights, while brutally true, is not valid if one desires to diminish the negative effects that multinational corporations and globalization have on a population, because the fact remains that abuses occur and American based firms sometimes contribute to those abuses."

What's so hard to understand?

What do you mean?

None. You're the one consistantly pointing out the unfairness "global markets".

So you think they are currently fair?

 

[Said1]

And if they don't administer penalties?

How about this, what do you think? I promise I won't laugh.

What are you suggesting here? oh, you know what....I mean capital like buildings and equipment. Does that clear things up?

OMG, this is getting funny.

So, since they don't, what would you suggest?

How about you address some questions you avoided from previous posts, Squirt. Don't think I haven't notice how one-sided this discussion has become.

Is anyone who benefits from corruption also guilty of corruption?

Are you asking stupid questions on purpose? Really, I have to know if you're just messing with me. I hate mystery.

you said: I would also like to see a legitimate source stating Nigeria knowingly ignored their own environmental policies in order gain investment from multinational oil corporations (who created a bidding war, or intimidated them).....I've asked you to clarify this statement. All you did was underline it and call me buster.

Was the Nigerian government intimidated by the oil company? Was there a bidding war? I didn't see evidence of your claims in the link you provided. Just to clarify, I'm talking about the government, not some bottom feeder villiage cheif.

So, if it was Nigerian oil producers, there would not be dangers?

Gee Sport, good question.

but: "The point that foreign governments are ultimately responsible for ensuring its citizens full protection of civil and political rights, while brutally true, is not valid if one desires to diminish the negative effects that multinational corporations and globalization have on a population, because the fact remains that abuses occur and American based firms sometimes contribute to those abuses."

It is valid if they allow it to continue. Just say NO dude.

What do you mean?

You're doing it again.

So you think they are currently fair?

Yes, if the same rules apply to everyone.

 

[shadrack]

How about this, what do you think? I promise I won't laugh.

I'm not the one claiming that they don't administer penalties, so you'll have to answer that question.

OMG, this is getting funny.

I guess I just don't get what you are trying to get at.

Maybe it’s because I’m confused how anyone could even begin a challenge on this:
yes and no

What often happens is a free trade "zone" is set up inside a third world country to attract foreign cash. Ordinary citizens, businesses, and manufacturers of this nation face being wiped out by the new more powerful competitor. Because the multinationals are able to choose between many underdeveloped nations, a bidding war erupts between governments. The winning government often pays part of the initial cost of factory setup, loosens environment protections and rules regarding negligence and the treatment of workers, and agrees to not ask for payment of taxes for a period of time. If the host government does ask for taxes or tightens rules the corporation threatens to set up operations elsewhere, giving leverage at the bargaining table with more demands.........This, basically, is fact. You may claim it will all result in good in the end, but it still is fact. It may have stronger language in places than you might use, eg, “wiped out”, but the overall view is accurate. oh, you know what.....when I said "manufacturers of this nation face being wiped out", "this nation" was a reference to the one in the previous sentence, the third world nation. Does that clear anything up? eg, Local businesses and manufacturers that are not within the zones face higher levels of regulation which causes them to be unable to compete with foreign firms that are established within the zones.

Here's a link...http://allafrica.com/stories/200412070074.html


You also said a country should buy building and equipment to prevent foreign ownership so I said "Capital accumulation is the key to growth, but if it comes with unaffordable debt, it can't stimulate growth." ie, I acknowledge that a country's ownership in buildings and equipment (capital) and the accumulation of buildings and equipment is key to economic growth, but if it comes with unaffordable debt these buildings and equipment can't stimulate growth because all earnings are sunk into debt reduction. Besides, foreign and international banks own the buildings and equipment until the debts are payed, so there is really no way for you to realistically say that foreign ownership is a dangerous practice that should be avoided. It simply can't be avoided.

The World Bank has recently started a program that is supposed to help with debt management of low income nations.

How about you address some questions you avoided from previous posts, Squirt. Don't think I haven't notice how one-sided this discussion has become.

“.....that can't be abided by. Can you show me one fairly recent case where a third world government has agreed to loosen any existing labor and environmental policies in order to do business with a multi-national corporation?” Yes, I can show you a case where a third world government has agreed to loosen any existing environmental policies in order to do business with a multi-national corporation: Nigeria.

Ask me another one.

Are you asking stupid questions on purpose? Really, I have to know if you're just messing with me. I hate mystery.

You made a claim:"Give me a break, bad leadership and corruption is what most under developed nations are suffering from, the multination is not responsible for what some third world socialist government does to it's people after they start operating in their country."

The multinational corporation benefits from regulations and laws (or lack of) that third world governments implement and enforce (or fail to) that result in abuses of human rights by multinational corporations. Corruption.

Was the Nigerian government intimidated by the oil company? Was there a bidding war? I didn't see evidence of your claims in the link you provided.

You didn’t ask me for proof of intimidation or bidding war when I gave you the Nigeria example.

There are a few oil companies that are in the Niger Delta. If they shut production down, or even slow it down, for a short time, two things would happen. One, there would be a scarcity of oil that drives local prices high which would grind to a halt of the Nigerian economy (happened in the mid ‘90s). The scarcity would also lead to greater profits for the oil companies. Two, the government would lose $35 million in oil revenues a day until they started pumping again. Oil revenues account for 95% of export earnings for Nigeria. Who holds power over who?

Just to clarify, I'm talking about the government, not some bottom feeder villiage cheif.

Is that a slur? Or are you just trying to differentiate between the federal government and some of the rural social organizational structures?

Gee Sport, good question.

Well, for you to be able to claim that "The article points to the dangers of forien ownership", it must be true that the same dangers wouldn't exist without foreign ownership. Otherwise, you can't claim that this is what the article points to.

It is valid if they allow it to continue. Just say NO dude.

But they don't say no, so what should be done now?

You're doing it again.

Doing what again?

Yes, if the same rules apply to everyone.

Do the same rules apply to everyone? Should they?

 

[shadrack]

So who is ethically to blame for the "sweatshops" phenomenon? Host nations or multinationals? IS the system to blame, man?

What phenomenon are you refering to?

Which system are you refering to?