With that in mind, I want to to furnish some of the arguments I’ve been given in the past twenty four hours.
Daniel Cook voices the following at the end of my articles “Why the Desire to be Rich is unethical.” Please note that at no point in his response does he indicate why it is ethical to want to be rich. Instead he assumes that none of us have heard the arguments he gives and he gives them once again. As I know that all of us have heard these responses and have seen the fallacies in them, I want to publicly address them so that they are out of the way, once and for all.
Here is the full text of his response.At least in first world countries, there are very few exchanges that are "forced" on anyone. You cannot compare advertising to being robbed at gun-point.
You give Apple products as an example of an overpriced product that is an unequal exchange. I wholly agree with you there, but others may not. Apple offers a whole product ecosystem, quality control, and an aesthetic that may appeal to some people. To such people the markup is more than worth it. In such cases, each side may see themselves as getting the better end of the deal. On paper, Apple is making an unequal trade, but the worth of something isn't always measurable in dollars and is highly subjective.
To continue using Apple as an example, it a purely monetary evaluation of these exchanges doesn't take into account the innovation and progress they spur in the industry.
You also leave out the fact that of all the Foxconn workers in China, the ones employed by Apple actually have it the best. It's more of an issue with Chinese labor laws and economy encouraging sweatshops an horrible working conditions in general than an Apple-related issue. Is it unethical to take advantage of that situation? Possibly. Of course, without all those companies making their fortunes off cheap Chinese labor, where would all dirt poor Chinese laborers be? Out working the fields? Chinese education and average standard of living are on the rise. Without the influx of technically oriented jobs and money from all those unethical companies, this might not be possible. I did not mean to focus so heavily on just Apple, by the way. You can make similar arguments for nearly any company that produces something of value (unlike, say, a patent troll).
I’m going to deal with this on a point by point basis.
Quote: You cannot compare advertising to being robbed at gun-point.
Barry Schwartz: The Loss of Wisdom: Education, Humanity, Morality,
Ethics, and Labor
No, you cannot compare advertising to gun point. At gun point, one knows that one is being attacked so one can, at least, fight back. With advertising, one doesn’t know that one is being brainwashed, so one is unaware of just how much one’s actions and beliefs are being influenced by others. You can read more about the techniques used in advertising if you read about Edward Bernays
. Otherwise read the short version on how advertising and repetition affects the human brain.
Quote: To such people the markup is more than worth it. In such cases, each side may see themselves as getting the better end of the deal.
Yes, and to some people, arsenic is a great source of Vitamin E, sado masochism is fun, it’s okay to pay slave wagery, Romney is the best presidential pick. the moon is blue, pink is purple, flowers make a girl’s heart melt, and pizza is non fattening. And that’s more than okay if they think that. However, that’s not the point of my article. The fact that some people may be okay with some things does not mean that that same thing is okay with all the people it is hurting in the process.
Quote: the worth of something isn't always measurable in dollars and is highly subjective.
Really? Are you aware that ever since the mechanism for mark up has been changed from being related to cost of production and cost of business to what the market will bear that wealth has been gravitating upwards at an amazing rate?
The fact that one can get away with charging someone with a life time’s worth of labor for a cup of water while he is dying of thirst in the Sahara Desert doesn’t make it ethical (for the greater good). It’s essentially extortion because when one is forced to pay an unreasonable price because the choice is either do without it or pay a price based on high way robbery. And while the response to that may well be that nobody is forced to buy it, the truth is that manipulation and peer pressure are as powerful a force as any other force.
Quote: You also leave out the fact that of all the Foxconn workers in China, the ones employed by Apple actually have it the best.
You’re highly mistaken. Here is a list of the companies with the best working conditions in China.
Daniel Pink: The Puzzle of Motivation
Why Incentives Don't Work
Quote: Is it unethical to take advantage of that situation? Possibly. Of course, without all those companies making their fortunes off cheap Chinese labor, where would all dirt poor Chinese laborers be?
The mind boggles on this one. Yes, of course, it’s unethical (not for the greater good). And where would all the Chinese laborers be? Well, they’d be making their living the same way they used to before thethse companies removed them from a tried and tested way of making a living. Let me give you an example of my home country.
In Africa, big American corporations offer the young rural laborers work for a few pennies per hour (what was it the mega rich Australian lady said? Oh, yes, $2 per day). So they leave the ‘kraal’ or home village and the parents grow old and there is now no longer someone to look after the cattle and fields. So eventually they fall into disuse and are sold for profit to corporations who use them for other purposes. Does anyone benefit from any of this? Not on your life. The ‘laborers’ instead of having a rural life that has worked for thousands of years, now have to work without independence, earning insufficient money to live an adequate lifestyle, and with very little rest. They can’t go to college either because these countries don’t offer that opportunity.
Quote: I did not mean to focus so heavily on just Apple, by the way. You can make similar arguments for nearly any company that produces something of value (unlike, say, a patent troll).
Response. Yes, we realize that. We’re both intelligent and educated readers. We realize that Apple is just an example of something that virtually all major corporations are doing.
Frank Feather in response to a post I made on Google+ has the following to say:
Quote: ... they have to be made at a profit, otherwise nobody will make them...
That is absolute nonsense. Billions of people work throughout the world for ‘no profit.’ Certainly, they work for a wage and they work for attain some goal, but there’s a difference between profit and a wage or a goal. Many things have been made through the millenia without thought of profit. Marie Curie worked a long time to figure out antibiotics. She was NOT driven by profit.
Quote: ...things should be made where it is most economical to do so. If things are made in developing economies like China, all well and good; they will be made cheaper there. The developed countries make more advances products that in essence have higher value. So USA sells jumbo jets to China.
No, things should be made where they are needed. Not everybody needs the same things. And products can and do often substitute for each other. If corn is compatible with one environment, barley or wheat might grow better in another environment. It’s not necessary for everybody to eat the same thing. The only people who want to convince people that they all need a particular product are the ones making a profit out of it. If gas/petrol isn’t available in one economy, then find another form of energy. If highways take up too much land and land is needed for cultivation, develop a solid public transport system.
There is absolutely no reason whatsoever why countries, nations, cities, can’t adapt to using their own environment for what they need. It’s been done for millions of years quite successfully. Some will respond that there are now too many people to do that. Let me ask you something. At what point, exactly, are you going to realize that the population cannot keep growing unchecked.
The real reason Capitalism isn't working anymore.
At some point, we have to say that the earth simply cannot afford to house anymore people because there is no way of producing enough to support them. Or are you unaware that the Pentagon announced in 2009 that within a decade there would be wars about resources? Did you see that ad which China placed in the New York Times the other day? It was speaking about how they wanted the return of his island that was now in Japan’s possession. Resources! Resources! Resources! If we have too many people on the planet to use sustainable methods, the solution is not to use unsustainable methods.
As for the ‘developed’ countries making more ‘advanced’ products, do some projections. At some point, there just simply aren’t going to be countries with cheap labor. In a generation or two, everybody is going to be wanting to be king of the castle. It’s just not sustainable.
Quote: If there was not a working market economy, then you would not in fact be able to organize your event on a non-profit basis.
The argument here is that the only reason non profits currently work is because there are profitable companies that somehow sustain them. That’s absolutely not true.Let's say that every company in the world is non profit. Every person in the company is earning a livable wage. Why would it not work?
I think there is some confusion as to what profit is. Profit is NOT a salary. In any company, whether small or large, the owner or CEO earns a salary which is built into the business model. The owner does NOT live off ‘the extra’ that comes in after everything is paid. That is a sure sign that the businessman has no idea how to run a business. When one draws up a business plan for a small business, one projects the growth of the business and one puts in all the costs or running that business. The cost of business includes wages and salaries for everybody working in the company - including the owner. Profit is not necessary. Sufficient money to pay everybody and make the business sustainable is.
Quote: ...I have done a lot of work in China over the last 30 years....It was fair, in that it kept everybody equal (pretty well), but it also kept them poor.
Why is it that every time one mentions that it’s not necessary to make a profit that it is assumed that one is speaking about China and communism? There are hundreds of other options, but to continue. Also, why is it assumed that if one speaks about the disadvantages of capitalism, it is assumed that everybody must be equal? I don’t know. I think some people only have two perspectives to choose from. So let’s get over that. Firstly, nobody is equal. We are all born with different DNA - some are more intelligent than others. Some are prettier than others. Some are better sportsmen than others. DNA will always give some people the advantage over others. And if they work smarter, their reward will be greater. Nobody is arguing with that. In fact, very few people mind if some have more than they have. What they’re moaning about is the very few who own the universe while they’re starving. That is a matter of degree, and it is the degree of inequity that is being disputed. Most people are okay with the fact that some have more than they do and others have less than they do. And there are a large number of people in the world who really don’t care if someone drives two cars while they only drive one.
The comment that keeping people equal keeps them poor may or may not be true. However, no one is speaking about keeping people equal.
Quote: ...For example, farmers produces just enough to meet their quota, and no more, because there was no advantage for them to do so.
If I am paid to do eight hours work, that is what I will do. If I am given an incentive to work for twelve hours, you can go fuck yourself. I’m happy with the reward I receive for eight hours and there is no way on earth that I am working one hour more and ruining my health and well being. There’s more to life than work. People in America have the highest stress rate, cancer rate, obesity rate, etc. because they are overworked. And that is not the sign of a particularly successful or desirable society.
Quote: So, incentives, provided they are reasonable and apply to everyone across the board, are in fact effective. It is human nature for them to be effective
You need to go and read the latest research. People do NOT work for incentives. They work to get what they want, and when they’ve got it, they don’t work anymore. You might like to listen to some TED research on what the science actually says about how often incentives don’t work and how they backfire.
Only a few benefit from globalization and, as you can see from this chart, those are the people who will tell you it's inevitable and necessary.
Quote: Now a couple of other issues. Reality is that we have a global economy. Every country is now a province of the world. You cannot say that each country should become self-sufficient. It is impossible. For example, within the US 50 states, very few of them could be self-sufficient if they were independent countries with closed borders and no trade/investment flow between them....They lack the resources to be self-sufficient.
Oh, why can’t I say that each country should become self sufficient and that is it is impossible? No, it’s not impossible, and a global economy is, in fact, very dangerous to the world. If one area of the world goes down due to a meteorite strike, a deadly quarentine, or a thousand other unanticipated factors, the rest of the world is in danger.
The reasoning behind your statement is that every country needs cars, fuel, food, water, Christmas cakes, and dolly vardens. No, they don’t. Every country has the ability to adapt to its environment. Sure, there might be some absolutely vital components that they need from somewhere else, but the actual situations where something is that vital are few and far between. The Bedouin have adapted to living on camels in the Sahara. You might not want to do that, but they are more than okay with it.
Leonardo de Caprio made a comment after he made Blood Diamonds in Africa that he would never feel sorry for another American again. After he saw little kiddies playing happily in rags he realized it wasn’t necessary to have what everybody else has.
Every country in the world does not need to be a carbon copy of another country. The only people who want globalization are the fat cats who are brainwashing the general public that it’s a necessity. No, it’s not. Most people in America have never set foot out of this country. There are more than sufficient natural resources in this country, and more than sufficient creativity amongst its peoples, to adapt to what it is. And that works for every other country as well.
Which countries, exactly, lack the resources to be self-sufficient? None, as far as I can see. They just haven’t made the best use of their resources, and they haven’t made the compromise between what they can have and what they have been brain washed to believe that they want. Oh, the evils of advertising and marketing!
The problem is not that globalisation is inevitable or the only way; it is that it profits some immensely and that’s why they want it.
Systems other than Capitalism, Communism, and Socialism that DO work.
Quote: And it is in the collective interests of the total global population that we operate in this fashion. To do otherwise, with protectionism, etc., is in fact to hold us all back.
This is quite a jump. Since when is self sufficiency protectionism? That said, there is absolutely nothing wrong with protecting one’s market place. And as I’ve remarked before, why must we produce all these gazillions of products that are doing nothing but going to the landfill and polluting our environment. We need to manufacture far less and we need to stop manufacturing yellow rubber duckies (and its ilk). Nobody needs them.
Quote: You may still disagree with and reject my approach. But at least I hope you will understand where I am coming from.
I find it both bewildering and insulting that you (and others who hold the same outlook that you do) think that myself and others are unfamiliar with these arguments. Are you so limited in your understanding and comprehension of others that you think that the only reason we see another picture is because we are unaware of what you ‘know?’ We know everything you’ve said above. If you think about it, we had the same professors at school that you did and we've read the same books. That said, we’ve looked at the arguments and found them limited, fallacious, and unsustainable in the long term. And that's why we reject them. Time you went back to the drawing board.
No comments:
Post a Comment