Sweatshops

Spot on Cliff, apologies Vidyohs if there was any confusion, my post was rejoinder to the post *below* yours

I was lucky enough to attend a talk Ben Powell gave on the subject of immigration in NYC about three months ago. He's a credit to the GMU economics department.

...can continue to espouse a moribund theory about child labor. Those kids lives are being wasted; they should be in school getting an education;...

Children work when the alternative isn't an education but starvation. If these kids didn't have sweatshops to work in, they would be sold into slavery or prostitution or just starve to death. It's all well and good for people like you to indulge outrage and moral indignation with a full belly from the comfort of your computer, but if your choice is work, slavery, prostitution or death, you'd choose work. And the point is, these people CHOOSE to work. Nobody is forcing them.

...you lazy poor slobs with addled Hayekian fascist brains.

I guess it's too much to expect you to understand that the real fascist is the one who would forcefully impose his singular vision on everyone else without regard to the cost. In other words, Trumpit, the real fascist is you.

Cliff,

It is obvious I was confused.

I don't mind someone trying to "whup up on me" as long as it can accurately be related to something I have said. And, if I deserve a whuppin', I like to know why so I can fix it or learn from it.

Thanks. have a profitable day.

vidyohs,

He was talking about the post after yours. Sometimes, I think, it is hard to tell which post the name belongs to- above or below.

Economist,

I gotta admit that I am confused by your post.

As for this post by Don, I believe that the only comment I have made was:

"Good post, Don.


Thank you.


Posted by: vidyohs | Jun 4, 2008 11:27:08 AM"


that one.

If though you are referring to my post in response to the thread of:

"Suggestions for Lowering Energy Prices

Don Boudreaux


The Cato Institute's Jerry Taylor speaks much good sense, in today's New York Post, about energy prices"

then I am even more confused.

1. I specifically said I agree with Mr. Taylor. 2. I specifically indicated I didn't believe that they would happen and that I wouldn't hold my breath. 3. That is not a criticism of Mr. Taylor or Dr. Boudreaux. 4. I went on to clearly state in my simple straightforward way that I placed all blame and criticism on the Congresassholes. 5. I gave my reasons for doing so. 6. It should be obvious that I never intended to suggest alternatives to Mr. Taylor's ideas except to say that to make them come to fruition certain things would have to come to pass - such as extinction of the polar bears, or extinction of Congresass. 7. My only suggestion was for you to grease it up because your future is one of being screwed.

Okay, now my reply to Jeff was one challenging his impressions of the difference between the quality of life between Europe and the USA.

And, to state that, now please get this Economist, that restriction of resources by our Congresassholes is as much of a market manipulation as if the market was manipulated by oil cartels. It is an artificial manipulation and a harmful one as well.

Notice that I did not say in this post or the previous post that I thought the goverment was acting in collusion with cartels to manipulate prices.

All in all, it's like you didn't even read my posts, which is okay by me; but, if you're going to criticize me at least make it on something I said, not something you imagine I said.

Great read! Definitely one of my favorite articles in recent time, thanks.

As an addendum to an earlier post (vidyohs) rich in ad homs and poor in criticism

a) Your lack of a proposed superior alternative


and b) Your lack of an understanding of what fascism is in this context; economically-speaking translating to mean state collusion with market entities (eg cartels), which it is not


c) Moots your criticism

Terrific article! Thanks!

Great read! Definitely one of my favorite articles in recent time, thanks.

As an addendum to an earlier post (vidyohs) rich in ad homs and poor in criticism

a) Your lack of a proposed superior alternative


and b) Your lack of an understanding of what fascism is in this context; economically-speaking translating to mean state collusion with market entities (eg cartels), which it is not


c) Moots your criticism

Terrific article! Thanks!

"The successful use of competition does not preclude some types of government interference. For instance, to limit working hours, to require certain sanitary arrangements, to provide an extensive system of social services is fully compatible with the preservation of competition."

Fancy which leftist wrote that?

It's really sickening that a young man with a smiling face and a crew cut can continue to espouse a moribund theory about child labor. Those kids lives are being wasted; they should be in school getting an education; democracy depends on an educated populace. How does it make sense that products produced using child labor are allowed to be sold in this country when we wouldn't allow the same products to be manufactured here under the same illegal, immoral child abusive circumstances? Also, the ridiculous idea that third world countries must make the same mistakes (or worse) as industrialized countries made to become advanced and wealthy is rejected. We should learn from the past and not repeat the horrors of the past. You'll just have to forgo your new Nikes if you can't afford to pay a fair, clean trade price for them. Work a 2nd job if you must; no slacking off; you lazy poor slobs with addled Hayekian fascist brains.

Good post, Don.

Thank you.

I never fully understood the basis for what he said. The only thing I could think of at the time was that it would a similar effect of lots of low-wage, low-skilled immigrants driving down wages here. I'm really only guessing at this point. I didn't press him on that because I didn't need to understand it to make my point. Maybe I should have. He basically supports some kind of international minimum wage based on a poverty line set by the IMF, or World Bank or something.

hutch --

Did he happen to mention *how* he believed sweatshops drove down wages? I don't understand how a greater demand for work would cause prices to fall.

The only other argument I've ever heard for "driving wages down" is Walmart, which is alleged to drive wages down by eliminating competition in the goods market and, consequently, eliminating better-paying jobs at the competitors. Even if you buy that argument vis-a-vis Walmart, it just doesn't seem to apply here.

I think most people do honestly believe that the rest of the world is just like the US, only with different languages and colors of people. Maybe not if asked directly, but I think that subconsciously most people think of say Cambodia the same way they think of Colorado (or Holland for you folks across the pond.

I am glad that Mr. Powell brought that up, since for a long time I was wondering if I was the only one who noticed that most warm and fuzzy "we need to help them from oppression" arguments seemed to be based on this notion.

hutch:

Now you know the true face of the "compassionate left".

I actually saw the link on Econlog, read it, and clicked over to Cafe Hayek.

I had a debate with a colleague at work a couple months ago about this. His argument was that sweatshop wages drive down the wages of non-sweatshop wages in the country, and that even at sweatshop wages the workers were going to die from malnourishment anyway (a dubious assertion at best, but I played along anyway). Therefore, he said that because they were going to die anyway they shouldn't be allowed to drive down the wages of others. I asked him if he's saying we should force the sweatshop workers to sacrifice themselves and die of malnourishment sooner (relative to when they would have died with the sweatshop job), so the others can have higher wages, and he said yes. I couldn't believe it. I don't think his argument is typical (I hope it isn't), but to me that's worse than any "soulless capitalists".

Wow, that was a fantastic read, well-done, Dr. Powell!

Absolutely not. We need to let them starve or prostitute themselves for THEIR OWN GOOD. It makes us feel morally SUPERIOR!