chrisp65 Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 Can you elaborate on whether you are deliberately trolling? At what point did capitalism decide to end child labour? Has anyone told Nike? Or apple, burberry, adidas, Matalan, Next? As a concept it's actually genuinely funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norwegianvillain Posted March 13, 2015 Author Share Posted March 13, 2015 Can you elaborate on whether you are deliberately trolling? At what point did capitalism decide to end child labour? Has anyone told Nike? Or apple, burberry, adidas, Matalan, Next? As a concept it's actually genuinely funny. The big bad corporations that sent capital to an extremely impoverished China, where there were absolutely no capital, which led to 400 million chinese rising out of poverty? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marka Ragnos Posted March 13, 2015 VT Supporter Share Posted March 13, 2015 (edited) Can you elaborate on whether you are deliberately trolling? At what point did capitalism decide to end child labour? Has anyone told Nike? Or apple, burberry, adidas, Matalan, Next? As a concept it's actually genuinely funny. The thing, it's not actually totally inaccurate. The Elementary Education Act of 1870 was perhaps the single most powerful legal instrument that definitively put child labour in Britain into the dustbin of British history, or at least got the ball rolling if I may mix metaphors -- but, it was championed in large part by industry's need to educate a workforce for ... capitalism. Indeed, even Marx recognized that. Still, it's really complicated. My dad had to work at age 12 in England to keep the family from starving during the Depression. Was that child labour? Erm, yes. I would venture to guess that there are parts of London where child labour persists underground . I know there are in the States, for instance. But I don't think that's what NorwegianVillan was referring to. The implication of his post is that capitalism has often served traditional "liberal" goals, and that's true. Edited March 13, 2015 by Shifted To Neutral Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 the line was 'capitalism ended child labour' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norwegianvillain Posted March 13, 2015 Author Share Posted March 13, 2015 the line was 'capitalism ended child labour' You got me there. Let me rephrase: Capitalism ended child labour in capitalist nations. Bangladesh doesnt have capitalism. Capitalism is a political-economic system, not a description of corporations operating in countries with low wages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marka Ragnos Posted March 13, 2015 VT Supporter Share Posted March 13, 2015 the line was 'capitalism ended child labour' You got me there. Let me rephrase: Capitalism ended child labour in capitalist nations. Bangladesh doesnt have capitalism. Capitalism is a political-economic system, not a description of corporations operating in countries with low wages. This sure doesn't reflect well on PSG. Wow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 ah, outsourcing doesn't count fair enough Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 I more or less identify as a bleeding-heart libertarian (i.e. one who believes that individual action (with free markets being the most important manifestation thereof) are far more likely to lead to social justice and the eradication of privilege than state action). It's beautiful in theory, but all we have to do is look at the banking and investment sector to see that unregulated industry leads directly to the opposite outcome you posit. Without government "interference" in the free market, 12 year olds would still be in the coal mines. The trick is striking a equitable balance, which is always a struggle at best. But giving the key to the castle to a bunch of fat cats and expecting them to be the arbiters of social justice is pure fantasy. Of course, now that those same fat cats hold high level government positions, it's all but a moot point. No no no no no The Fed is to blame for the credit crash. Artificially cheap fiat money and bailouts. The finance sector in America today is far from capitalist. Capitalism is about profits and loss, bailouts go against every principle of capitalism. Governments are digging their own graves with the current hair-of-the-dog economics, and they are sadly being applauded for it. Look to Greece. Capitalism ended child labour. Capitalism enabled people to take their children out of work thanks to an extreme economic growth. I don't think you could possibly say anything more factually inaccurate. care to elaborate on that? You're right, I was being too dramatic. in fact, rising wages were a part of the decline in child labour. However, they were a small part of the decline (in the UK - all of this comment is based on the UK), which started before significant wage growth, and continued at its fastest rate in the wake of relevant legislation. There are a mix of reasons why child labour declined. Allowing rising real wages as one of them, that doesn't account for the impact of compulsory education (especially in Britain, the Compulsory Education Act 1880), the increasing complexity of technology, which children were unable to use efficiently, or a change in the conception of childhood inspired by Romantic poets like Wordsworth or authors such as Dickens as a time of innocence which manual labour robbed them of. The comparatively small role played by rising incomes can be seen in the fact that successive labour laws in Britain (beginning with the landmark Factory Act 1833, and continuing with various other legislation into the 1870s) failed to have a large impact on child labour in the UK. If incomes, which were rising rapidly throughout this period, especially the latter half, were the key to the answer, you would have expected the legislation to be successful. After all, if rising incomes meant children didn't really need to work that much, then you would generally expect them to stop when forbidden from doing so. In fact, the economic imperative for children to work remained for most working class families, and combined with lax enforcement and paltry fines, it continued to be economically beneficial for many to work. The real change wasn't brought about by forbidding children from working, it was brought about by forcing them to go to school (which was, in any case, considerably easier to enforce). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 the line was 'capitalism ended child labour' You got me there. Let me rephrase: Capitalism ended child labour in capitalist nations. Bangladesh doesnt have capitalism. Capitalism is a political-economic system, not a description of corporations operating in countries with low wages. This seems like a 'no true Scotsman' argument, or whatever other fallacy. You've defined capitalism as an economic system that ends child labour, and then decided that a country with child labour isn't capitalist. I say, no Villa fan hits another fan with a chair. Next day, there's a riot, and a Villa fan hits another fan with a chair. I say, well, no true Villa fan hits someone with a chair. You say, no capitalist country exploits child labour, indeed capitalism solves it. Someone provides an example of a capitalist country with child labour. You say, well, that country's not really capitalist. In what way is Bangladesh not a capitalist country? It has a market economy. Here are some relevant quotes from Wiki 'Economy of Bangladesh': "According to a recent opinion poll, Bangladesh has the second most pro-capitalist population in the developing world . . . Beginning in late 1975, the government gradually gave greater scope to private sector participation in the economy, a pattern that has continued. Many state-owned enterprises have been privatized, like banking, telecommunication, aviation, media, and jute . . . In the mid-1980s, there were encouraging signs of progress. Economic policies aimed at encouraging private enterprise and investment, privatizing public industries, reinstating budgetary discipline, and liberalizing the import regime were accelerated." Does it sound like a communist country? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted March 13, 2015 VT Supporter Share Posted March 13, 2015 I'd describe myself as a social libertarian, like a lot of people here. Don't cause other people harm, leave people alone to live as they wish, but have a state safety net to support the people. Which a lot of the anarcho-capitalist libertarian community would then tell you means I'm not actually a libertarian. The (former?) CEO of Sears in the US is a big fan of that branch of libertarianism, and used Randian ideas to change the company's structure to save it. Instead he's damn near killed it. Inb4argumentsearsproblemshavenothingtodowithlibertarianismnorrepresentanyfaultofit. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paddywhack Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 I am somewhat libertarian and on the left, at least according to this well-known survey. I did this survey and ended up slightly to the left (-0.75) and pretty damn Libertarian (-6). I had to read a few questions a couple of times before I understood them and I had to google 'protectionism' as well as a few other words that I've already forgotten. Then I read through this thread and felt pretty silly, and a bit ignorant too. I think I'll leave the politics to the clever people, I'll just play nintendo. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norwegianvillain Posted March 13, 2015 Author Share Posted March 13, 2015 the line was 'capitalism ended child labour' You got me there. Let me rephrase: Capitalism ended child labour in capitalist nations. Bangladesh doesnt have capitalism. Capitalism is a political-economic system, not a description of corporations operating in countries with low wages. This seems like a 'no true Scotsman' argument, or whatever other fallacy. You've defined capitalism as an economic system that ends child labour, and then decided that a country with child labour isn't capitalist. I say, no Villa fan hits another fan with a chair. Next day, there's a riot, and a Villa fan hits another fan with a chair. I say, well, no true Villa fan hits someone with a chair. You say, no capitalist country exploits child labour, indeed capitalism solves it. Someone provides an example of a capitalist country with child labour. You say, well, that country's not really capitalist. In what way is Bangladesh not a capitalist country? It has a market economy. Here are some relevant quotes from Wiki 'Economy of Bangladesh': "According to a recent opinion poll, Bangladesh has the second most pro-capitalist population in the developing world . . . Beginning in late 1975, the government gradually gave greater scope to private sector participation in the economy, a pattern that has continued. Many state-owned enterprises have been privatized, like banking, telecommunication, aviation, media, and jute . . . In the mid-1980s, there were encouraging signs of progress. Economic policies aimed at encouraging private enterprise and investment, privatizing public industries, reinstating budgetary discipline, and liberalizing the import regime were accelerated." Does it sound like a communist country? Bangladesh is, as is every other country on the planet, except north korea, a mixed-economy. It is far from capitalist. According to the Heritage list of countries by economic freedom, Bangladesh is number 131, in the ''mostly unfree'' bracket (http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking). One major reason for the recent economic growth in Bangladesh is the introduction of micro finance, started by the Grameen bank. To me micro finance is a brilliant example of capitalism mixed with compassion. The Grameen bank helped millions of bangladeshi (women in particular) and made Muhammad Yunus very rich. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 That's an interesting ranking of free countries, apparently Georgia which has Russian troops stationed on 20% of its territory following the war a few years ago is more free than France. Greece less free than Egypt and Pakistan. Also good to see the UAE and Saudi Arabia are more free than Italy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted March 13, 2015 VT Supporter Share Posted March 13, 2015 (edited) the line was 'capitalism ended child labour' You got me there. Let me rephrase: Capitalism ended child labour in capitalist nations. Bangladesh doesnt have capitalism. Capitalism is a political-economic system, not a description of corporations operating in countries with low wages. Did it bollocks. Trade union-led campaigning produced legislation to end (read: reduce) child labour in capitalist societies. Left to capitalists it would still be the norm. Edited March 13, 2015 by mjmooney Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marka Ragnos Posted March 13, 2015 VT Supporter Share Posted March 13, 2015 I think it's almost time for a a Villa match. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norwegianvillain Posted March 13, 2015 Author Share Posted March 13, 2015 That's an interesting ranking of free countries, apparently Georgia which has Russian troops stationed on 20% of its territory following the war a few years ago is more free than France. Greece less free than Egypt and Pakistan. Also good to see the UAE and Saudi Arabia are more free than Italy. It's just ranking economic freedom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoelVilla Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 Today in swedish papers its reported that H&M is using child labouring in Kambodja. I bet you that the top of H&M got angry with their suppliers and I actually believe that. But someone in the line want to make more money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 That's an interesting ranking of free countries, apparently Georgia which has Russian troops stationed on 20% of its territory following the war a few years ago is more free than France. Greece less free than Egypt and Pakistan. Also good to see the UAE and Saudi Arabia are more free than Italy. It's just ranking economic freedom. What's the use of economic freedom if you can't walk down the street or its illegal to drive a car? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norwegianvillain Posted March 13, 2015 Author Share Posted March 13, 2015 That's an interesting ranking of free countries, apparently Georgia which has Russian troops stationed on 20% of its territory following the war a few years ago is more free than France. Greece less free than Egypt and Pakistan. Also good to see the UAE and Saudi Arabia are more free than Italy. It's just ranking economic freedom. What's the use of economic freedom if you can't walk down the street or its illegal to drive a car? Not very much. Then who's preventing women from driving in Saudi? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coda Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 This thread has left me unconvinced on the benefits of Libertarianism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts