X-Message-Number: 28054
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 11:40:26 -0600
From: "Anthony ." <>
Subject: the future of cryonics (socio-economic considerations) p4

> Message #28049
> From: "egg plant" <>
> Subject: Things are better now
> Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 16:30:18 +0000

> >Anthony<>
> >Wal-Mart has driven smaller retailers out of business;
>
> True of course, but the way you phrase it you almost make that sound like a
> bad thing.

It is for the out-of-business retailers and some consumers, and
probably for the market place and workers generally. But you'll
disagree because in your ideology worker rights and pay (& thus their
quality of life & that of their families) matter less than what the
shareholders get.

> >forced manufacturers to move manufacturing jobs overseas
>
> Make up your mind! First you complain that rich countries are too greedy
> then you want to move jobs from poor countries to rich countries.

You've misunderstood or are purposefully trying to distort the essence
of my point: wealth is not fairly or rationally or effectively
distributed. Many of us are slaves to the ideology that those who
accrue the most wealth (not necessarily through intelligence and
hard-work - though that is often the assumption) have some moral
superiority and actually deserve to accrue yet greater wealth and
enjoy it and use it how they wish. This is not so. The concentration
of wealth into smaller and smaller numbers is a crime against everyone
else who suffers because of it. 200 people have more money than the 36
poorest countries, countries in which 1000s die every day because
their water isn't clean.

> >in a typical United States county, when a Wal-Mart
> >opens, three other retailers close within two years and four > close within
> >five years.
>
> Good. It means consumers have voted with their dollars and have decided they
> like Wal-Mart better than mom and pop stores.

Rubbish. If you think that consumers "vote with their dollars" and
that is all, then you are ignoring the very socio-economic factors we
are discussing. Advertising itself exposes the lie of the "vote by
purse". Desire for goods are sustained by commercial bombardment, even
political proclaimation (remember post-9/11 Bush telling Americans to
go out and shop).

How different do you think attitudes are between the rich and poor
regarding spending money? Do you think that people in the West are
driven to consume by particular ideas that they value, that make their
purchases meaningful and desirable? Do you think that most consumers
are aware of how WM is going to affect their spending-habits or
worker-rights?

Perhaps I have conceeded your point - they do indeed vote. My point is
that the vote is larely uninformed and driven by certain irrational
needs and beliefs in the value of consumer items. The point then is
that if a majority of people opt for something, it does not mean it is
the right choice. Democracy is about educating people to make good
choices.

The questions then are: do cryonicists want to see a society of
knowledgeable citizens who's voting (be it with the purse or the
ballot) is well informed and safe-guarded with rights? Are mountains
of useless goods, discarded waste, centralised wealth, and a society
driven by consumerism a good thing?

> >at the cost of exploiting the workers.
>
> And if competent employees were really being mistreated they would vote with
> their feet.

This is worse rubbish. You've already pointed at that the options
available might be exploitation or nothing. If you are a poor person
with responibilities towards your poverty-stricken family, are you
really going to walk-out of WM on principle!? All that would happen is
that you'd lose your job and your neighbour would take it. If these
people try to organise to demand rights, their government or (more
likely) WM prevents it. These people are not living in a rich
democracy, they cannot vote with their feet (which are shod), they
cannot vote with their purses (which are empty) - and often they have
no ballot vote either (Haiti does not have a stable democracy). Be
realistic.

> It's obvious you think this is dreadful, but sweat shops like this are a
> poor country's only hope. Cheap labor is the only asset Hate has and you
> want corporations to take that away.

No - I'm looking deeper than that into the international economic
structure. The problem with corporations is a symptom of a worse
problem. Haiti's woes began when Chris Columbus claimed the island in
the 15th century - shortly after began the genocide and slavery. Since
then Haiti has never recovered.

These injustices are old, certainly not our fault, yet they have set
the stage for WM to move in a make slaves of these people again. WM
has immense resources and power - it can do better and so can our
governments.

> Unless they are running a charity

> nobody will pay a pay a worker more than $3.33 a day ... it  > won't change, 
it's like complaining about gravity.

Are you saying that present economic conditions are akin to a law of
nature? News flash - the economic system is a human artiface - it can,
does, and will change. Your passive acceptance makes you one of the
lolling herd who are complicit in the crimes against the poor.

> Righteous indignation, the natural state of most socialist minded liberals,
> will not feed one belly.

Neither will blas  disregard for human suffering on a global scale,
perpetuated by conservative businessmen who believe in the
"inevitability" and moral-goodness of their rapine endeavours.

> >Don't you think WM could afford to pay its worker's just a > little more?
>
> Suppose I run such a place making pajamas and pay my 1000 workers 40 cents
> an hour. Am I a villain? I don't think so. My workers are delighted and
> envied by their friends because the alternative to 40 cents an hour is zero
> cents an hour.

These workers are probably not aware that their US counterparts have
it much better, and that the main reason that they are not so
comfortable is because they happened to be born in an impoverished
post-colonial country. If they understood this though, it is likely
that WM would be a villian because they'd understand they were being
exploited. Do you think it best they do not know?

> I am delighted because I am making a very nice profit.

A huge profit, and all for a smaller number of already wealthy people.
Still delighted?

> And
> Wal-Mart customers are delighted because they get a some nice pajamas at a
> reasonable price. It's not a zero sum game, it's a win win game.

The Haitians only "win" if they are not aware of the conditions of
their exploitation. And even if this is fine by them, they are still
only slightly better off, and WM makes a big profit of which a greater
portion of it could be shared with ther workers.

> Or would it be more moral of me to fire 9 workers out of 10 and pay the
> remaining ones 4$ an hour ? Yes I know, I should pay all 1000 workers 4$ an
> hour, but I simply wouldn't have the money to do that because nobody would
> buy my pajamas,  nobody could afford them.

because you've already driven the market in this direction with
aggressive exploitation.

> My expenses would be the same as
> before but my output would only be 10% of what is was, so I'd have to charge
> 10 times more than what I did before for my product, but at that price
> nobody at Wal-Mart will buy it. Thus whatever my intentions I no longer have
> the money to pay my remaining employees 4 dollars an hour, or even 40 cents
> an hour, they now make zero cents an hour and I'm dead broke too.

Is WM's profit margin so small?

>  And this
> is the way to cure world poverty?

Clearly not. As I've made clear, this is only the tip of the iceberg.
The dark, looming depths of the problem are sunk into human psychology
and are likely to be a more difficult problem than "pure" economics.

> And yes, I do think it's a tragedy that somebody must live on 40 cents a
> hour, but the root of that tragedy is not some evil Wal-Mart conspiracy,

Who mentioned conspiracy?

> the
> root cause is that the world does not have enough wealth, and the way to
> generate that wealth is the free market not grandiose government schemes or
> charity.

Clearly, you do not understand that businesses need regulating. The
energy industry alone has proven to be utterly irresponsible in how
it, say, disposes of waste. Before regulation, the scale of pollution
in Alberta alone was breath-taking. Now that more regulation is in
place, businesses act more ethically - they can do it, but they seem
to require coercion. In a different society with a different mind-set,
it is possible that businesses could self-regaulte - but your
"free-market" is currently as much as a fantasy as a global class-war.

> Interesting. I give solid statistics showing that the air is getting cleaner
> but you say that is meaningless because the color of your snot proves it's
> getting worse.

Again you distort my position. I have record of our dialogue. I have
provided you with plenty of solid statistics and evidence, to which
you have not responded - so I assume you have finally conceeded my
points. In reply, you offered me averages regarding life-expectancy
which I said were meaningless, and I explained why.

> And by the way, please stop referring me to web pages with
> the breaking news that air pollution is a bad thing, I sort of figured that
> out for myself.

From the way you were talking, it sounded like you needed the obvious
full in the face.

Anthony

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=28054