Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Moreover... they are protesting corporate greed in hopes that it will result in a redistribution of wealth; not so those that live in squalor can have sufficient resources to live a reasonable life, but so that they (the protestors) can have more money to live in an even greater degree of luxury by buying more of those products that fuel corporate greed. It's absolute bull... they just want a discount on i-pads and X-boxes.
I think this is an unnecessary generalization - but there are people like this.
I've been trying to work out how corporate profits would flow if the protesters have their demands met (at least in the US) - would the proposed changes direct corporate profits to government, or to individuals? (or first one, then the other?) Would the government be responsible for essentially "redistributing wealth" through increased funding to social programs, etc?
Unrelated - what about mandatory voting in Canada? It is quite common in other parts of the world.
LightsOut
quote:
Originally posted by Skipper
Unrelated - what about mandatory voting in Canada? It is quite common in other parts of the world.
Not a fan of this at all. Surely in a democracy, the right to choose not to vote must be as equal as choosing to exercise your right to vote.
Moral Hazard
quote:
Originally posted by GGM
In terms of even economic distribution and people being treated as commodities I don't think the protesting for this pertains as much to Canada as it does to certain other areas of the world. Think of India as an example which currently has many of the worlds richest people but also has hundreds of millions living on less than a dollar a day. For humans being treated as a commodity I can think of things I've read about taking place in some of the other Asian countries that would fit the bill. These are global issues though and this being a global movement I don't see anything wrong with people in North America protesting for people on the other side of the world.
While fair these complaints are not relavant to the protests here and certainly do not appear to be prominately represented in the people gathered at St. James Park. Even at that, they have less to do with corporate greed than individual greed. If the concern is about the distribution of wealth in developing countries then it seems incredibly improbable that a few campers in downtown Toronto will have any mesurable effect. I think what we are really seeing is two-fold: 1) people want to feel like they are part of something large and meaningful, and 2) they want more wealth for themselves so that they can acquire more luxury that they believe the rich have and they do not (of course compared to those you mention in India even our poorest are fabulously wealthy). While I can appreciate the former I don't think this is a good vehicle for being part of a large and meanigful movement, as this protest will ultimately accomplish nothing of any consequence.
Elendil
quote:
In terms of even economic distribution and people being treated as commodities I don't think the protesting for this pertains as much to Canada as it does to certain other areas of the world. Think of India as an example which currently has many of the worlds richest people but also has hundreds of millions living on less than a dollar a day. For humans being treated as a commodity I can think of things I've read about taking place in some of the other Asian countries that would fit the bill. These are global issues though and this being a global movement I don't see anything wrong with people in North America protesting for people on the other side of the world.
The problem is man, people protesting in North America and the west are a main source of the problem. It's the whole "I want a 99$ Iphone. I want cheap shirts. I want goods, I want stuff... I want it now" mentality. It is us, as consumers, that do not act on behalf of these individuals. We keep gobbling up the cheap products they produce, and keep feeding the tyrants that they offer themselves to. We live in a reality that is made possible by others living on less. There is nothing to protest about that fact. You either change, or you do not. I don't see many changing.
Life was the same in Europe during the industrial revolution (and before that, for that matter). It is the same in emerging economies today. The quality of life in these countries improves as the individuals within them work hard, acquire money and as their societies evolve. There is no quick band-aid for shaping nations, as should be more than clear by this point.
LightsOut
quote:
Originally posted by Elendil
We live in a reality that is made possible by others living on less.
This.
Moral Hazard
quote:
Originally posted by Skipper
I think this is an unnecessary generalization - but there are people like this.
I've been trying to work out how corporate profits would flow if the protesters have their demands met (at least in the US) - would the proposed changes direct corporate profits to government, or to individuals? (or first one, then the other?) Would the government be responsible for essentially "redistributing wealth" through increased funding to social programs, etc?
Unrelated - what about mandatory voting in Canada? It is quite common in other parts of the world.
The end result of any redistribution would be more money for the protesters, either directly or indirectly, no? Why would they want more money? Presumably so they can have a higher quality of life, no? How would one in a society with the highest quality of life gain an even better quality of life? By acquiring more luxury goods or services, no? Unless the demand is that the wealthy redistribute their wealth to bring the truely unfortunate out of abject poverty than this is really just a play to advance the fortunes of people that the rest of the world would already view as very fortunate... it's jealousy not justice playing out here.
I would strongly object to mandatory voting, as will lead to disinterested people casting uninformed votes... I would rather the truely disinterested just stay home. The trick is to lower the number of disinterested people.
GGM
quote:
Originally posted by Elendil
The problem is man, people protesting in North America and the west are a main source of the problem. It's the whole "I want a 99$ Iphone. I want cheap shirts. I want goods, I want stuff... I want it now" mentality. It is us, as consumers, that do not act on behalf of these individuals. We keep gobbling up the cheap products they produce, and keep feeding the tyrants that they offer themselves to. We live in a reality that is made possible by others living on less. There is nothing to protest about that fact. You either change, or you do not. I don't see many changing.
This is true, but this movement has potential to make people wake up and see that their actions have direct effects on other people's lives. Remember way back when Guess got busted using blatant sweatshops? Their sales suffered tremendously for several years after. It might be a long shot, maybe not, but I have hope that people might be able to realize some key things and use their power as consumers to make a difference.
quote:
Life was the same in Europe during the industrial revolution (and before that, for that matter). It is the same in emerging economies today. The quality of life in these countries improves as the individuals within them work hard, acquire money and as their societies evolve. There is no quick band-aid for shaping nations, as should be more than clear by this point.
I don't think it's that simple. The way industrialization played out in Europe and North America is completely different than how it can possibly play out in developing nations now. The reason being that ultimately the corporations driving the industrial revolutions were based in the country where they took place, and also sold goods to citizens of those countries. Thus they had a very large interest in appeasing those populations. Currently the driving force behind industrialization in these developing countries is rarely in that country itself. So it leaves the door open for people to abuse workers with little consequences to the people they depend on for revenue.
Accomplishments
Under Aristide's leadership, his party implemented many major reforms. These included greatly increasing access to health care and education for the general population; increasing adult literacy and protections for those accused of crimes; improving training for judges, prohibiting human trafficking, disbanding the Haitian military (which primarily had been used against the Haitian people), establishing improved human rights and political freedom; doubling the minimum wage, instituting land reform and assistance to small farmers, providing boat construction training to fishermen, establishing a food distribution network to provide low cost food to the poor at below market prices, building low-cost housing, and attempting to reduce the level of government corruption.
This guy is a perfect example of how a country can use the money provided by industrialization to establish human rights. What happened to him? Openly ousted by the States in favour of a puppet who represented people outside of Haiti more than it's own population.
Chile, Iran, and Egypt are also good examples of external meddling in governments abroad that ultimately screw the people. Also, read the United Fruit Company wikipedia page to get an idea of how corporations can devastate foreign nations for more profit. There's so many more of these examples in Latin America alone it's quite disgusting. It goes beyond our demand for cheap products, but more so to the greed of the shareholders of corporations and their executives willing to do evil to meet this greed. Impoverished nations are being prevented from natural evolution like we experienced, as that would ultimately lead to higher costs to produce goods and a lower profit margin for them.
Elendil
quote:
Originally posted by GGM
This is true, but this movement has potential to make people wake up and see that their actions have direct effects on other people's lives. Remember way back when Guess got busted using blatant sweatshops? Their sales suffered tremendously for several years after. It might be a long shot, maybe not, but I have hope that people might be able to realize some key things and use their power as consumers to make a difference.
Yet, I don't know a single person who doesn't own a Guess branded item. Ultimately, altruistic behavior on a broad scale seems temporal at best. However, I'd be a fool not to hope for the same thing.
quote:
I don't think it's that simple. The way industrialization played out in Europe and North America is completely different than how it can possibly play out in developing nations now. The reason being that ultimately the corporations driving the industrial revolutions were based in the country where they took place, and also sold goods to citizens of those countries. Thus they had a very large interest in appeasing those populations. Currently the driving force behind industrialization in these developing countries is rarely in that country itself. So it leaves the door open for people to abuse workers with little consequences to the people they depend on for revenue.
Here, I would have to disagree with you. By that logic, it is no different than transnational corporations having incentive to appeal to a greater base of customers in the world at large. Remember: the end goal of a corporation is to have as many people purchasing consumables from them. It is, in the long term, in every companies benefit to raise their potential base of consumers. I don't see any significant different between what happened then (in a comparably micro form) than what is happening now (in a comparably macro form).
quote:
Chile, Iran, and Egypt are also good examples of external meddling in governments abroad that ultimately screw the people. Also, read the United Fruit Company wikipedia page to get an idea of how corporations can devastate foreign nations for more profit. There's so many more of these examples in Latin America alone it's quite disgusting. It goes beyond our demand for cheap products, but more so to the greed of the shareholders of corporations and their executives willing to do evil to meet this greed. Impoverished nations are being prevented from natural evolution like we experienced, as that would ultimately lead to higher costs to produce goods and a lower profit margin for them.
This is no different than the same evils being perpetrated by individuals every day. It just happens to be an example of evil by a collection of wealthy/powerful individuals. I agree that it goes beyond cheap products; in fact, I stated that it has to do with our way of life. It is not a way of life that can be lived by everyone. As such, the power that acts based on our demands (our government) seeks to ensure our continued ability to live it.
We are complicit in these activities. Ignorance is certainly no excuse under the law. The mere fact that society at large is aware of many of these activities and fails to take action is every bit as evil as the act itself.
Your logic that impeded evolution all boils down to higher cost and lower profit margin takes into account only a certain narrow perspective based on certain events in the short term. Ultimately, if people here wanted to improve their quality of life, we would redistribute our own wealth first, by simply limiting our purchases and directing that money to NGO's. As always, though, it's easiest to make demands of others.
GGM
quote:
Originally posted by Elendil
I agree with a lot of your views but I think we differ on corporate motives. I only have one word for that, profit. If a company goes green it's cause they deem the profit generated from marketing those initiaves is greater than the cost of implementing them. If they expand into a new territory it's because they believe the profit will be greater than the cost of expansion. If they treat employees better than required by law they believe the monetary value of retaining them is greater than the extra cost of satisfying them. etc etc...
I don't believe corporations give half a crap about satisfying the inhabitants of the country that produce their goods (in this scenario with developing nations) because 9 times out of 10 those people can't afford the very products they make. Use the iPhone/China example, the average plant worker wouldn't be able to afford an iPhone at retail cost with a month's pay. So why would Apple care about satisfying these people when their only concern involving them is getting their product made as cheap as possible? That's where I see the neglect. In 10-15 years when maybe those workers could afford the products they make then you'll see the corporation care. Realistically by then the cost of production will most likely be cheaper elsewhere and their plants would have moved anyways. It's a sad fact of globalization that wealthy countries with human rights standards abuse those without the same fortune. Not expecting this movement to fix that anytime soon but the more awareness it creates the better off we are.
I think most arguments against this movement simply focus on the fact that odds are it's not going to fix these problems on it's current path, and I'm not disagreeing with that at all. But for all the non-believers ask yourself this, what harm can this movement cause? I think we can only gain from this it's just a matter of how much.
ChemEnhanced
quote:
Originally posted by GGM
But for all the non-believers ask yourself this, what harm can this movement cause? I think we can only gain from this it's just a matter of how much.
Right now its not causing any harm but with any movement or protest there is potential for a lot of harm.
Elendil
quote:
Originally posted by GGM
I agree with a lot of your views but I think we differ on corporate motives. I only have one word for that, profit. If a company goes green it's cause they deem the profit generated from marketing those initiaves is greater than the cost of implementing them. If they expand into a new territory it's because they believe the profit will be greater than the cost of expansion. If they treat employees better than required by law they believe the monetary value of retaining them is greater than the extra cost of satisfying them. etc etc...
I don't believe corporations give half a crap about satisfying the inhabitants of the country that produce their goods (in this scenario with developing nations) because 9 times out of 10 those people can't afford the very products they make. Use the iPhone/China example, the average plant worker wouldn't be able to afford an iPhone at retail cost with a month's pay. So why would Apple care about satisfying these people when their only concern involving them is getting their product made as cheap as possible? That's where I see the neglect. In 10-15 years when maybe those workers could afford the products they make then you'll see the corporation care. Realistically by then the cost of production will most likely be cheaper elsewhere and their plants would have moved anyways. It's a sad fact of globalization that wealthy countries with human rights standards abuse those without the same fortune. Not expecting this movement to fix that anytime soon but the more awareness it creates the better off we are.
I think most arguments against this movement simply focus on the fact that odds are it's not going to fix these problems on it's current path, and I'm not disagreeing with that at all. But for all the non-believers ask yourself this, what harm can this movement cause? I think we can only gain from this it's just a matter of how much.
I think the main difference is our fundamental perspective on what a corporation is.
When you say they exist to make profit... well, you're 100% correct. That is their purpose. They are business units, designed to make money. It is the people who populate them, and the customers who buy from them, who determine the course that it will take.
I have no expectation that any particular corporation will be good or bad. I only know from observation that they mirror the population they inhabit.
And I'd have to disagree with you that they don't give half a crap about satisfying the inhabitants of the country that produces their goods. Perhaps they don't care about them in a fatherly way - but I don't expect them to. That's the job that people give to their governments. However, they certainly care about them from a long term business perspective. Lets look again at China. Corporations are rapidly scrambling to cater to the population as it increasingly emerges from the depths of poverty (and at a rapid rate, I might add). Bottom line, to me, is this: business units use a labour market at it's going rate. As the going rate increases, the cross-over point from labour to consumer shifts. continually shifts. These circumstances address themselves over many years, as a society evolves and emerges, one way or another.
jon jon
quote:
Originally posted by hardcore trancer
This interview doesn't necessary relate to the Occupation Toronto movement but it is a great interview regardless and Immortal Technique makes lots of great points here.
i liked this, especially the parts about Bloomberg and the aristocracy...
