Nutcracker, our melting pot just got blowed up. 62+ nations had offices in the WTC. The Brits themselves lost over 300 people - the worst terrorist attack against Britian this century (meaning 20th), and that's saying alot. In spite of that, we will continue to build the melting pot. The borders will not close, although we'll actually look at who we're letting in...
I completely disagree with almost everyone on this one. First of all you have to frame the question correctly. This is a situation MOST UNLIKE any of your examples. IF... there was a supranational organization committed to waging violence (terrorism) on the whole of influences outside of Islam (or other extremists in religious/ideological groups[Idaho succession or whatever]), an organization that had committed the largest terrorist attack in history, an organization that owed no allegiance to the nation state as a concept, and there was a significant showing of international condemnation of the act, THEN, you bet your sweet ass that the US commits resources to track these guys down. IF the group is involved in an internal struggle within national borders, THEN the US would act according to its own best interests - strategic and otherwise.
WOuld we help? We send money to virtually every nation so we would definetely help out financially. But I really doubt we would help unless we were either pushed into a corner (if China & Russia form an alliance and say you're either with us or against us) or if we had our own agenda (like getting bin Laden). After the WTC bombing a few years back I think we would hae taken a shot at Laden if the right situation arose where we could take him out without looking like a terrorist ourselves. So I think we would definetely help in someway, but I don't think we would help with our military unless we were prodded or had our own agenda.
Treeman said: Most - about 95% of the world hates us. I mean really hates us. These guys aren't really going to back us up when it starts getting really thick, except possibly the Canadians, British, and Aussies. And even they are question marks at times. I extremely disagree with this. About 95% of the world disagrees with our foreign policy. They love many aspect of the American lifestyle and Americans as individuals. Especially Texans! from the old westerns. Haven't you ever travelled outside the country? I always find people love Americans. However I must admit they love American liberals even more becuse they don't hate the foreign policy of American liberals. Your misconception is at the root of what liberals (for want of better shorthand) have been saying is necessary to create more security. Do all of you who want to tough it out militarily (but evade self analysis of our unjust foreign policy) in which we , invade counties all the time, have the CIA train proxy armies that commit human rights abuses etc have this misconception? Once the US would change its misguided foreign policy we would be more popular around the world. I know tough guys don't care about this but... Do you honestly believe that it is completely unnecessary to ignore the desires of 95% of the world? That we can impose our will on them or be imperialistic (sorry you don't like that word) enough to achieve security and domestic peace without changing our foreign policy?
I'm not sure why its true that as a liberal you necessarily oppose foreign intervention. I don't think it is. Some of our most 'liberal' politicians have led us into interventions and some of our most 'liberal' leaders have been in bed with third world despots. Its not true that 95% of the world hates us, hates our country, or hates our foreign policy. In each situation where we've made a policy decision there is someone currently happy at our decision and someone pissed off. Changing the policy is not going to make everyone happy. It is going to make one group happy and one group pissed off.
<B>You say who bombed Pearl Harbor is irrelevant but then you say we declared war on both of them because they were allied. That would seem to say who bombed Pearl Harbor was pretty damn relevant. </B> No, it was not relevent to my point. My point, as I have now stated twice, is that we did not enter WW2 out of the kindness of our hearts. The specifics of how we were provoked have absolutely no relevence to my point. We entered because we were provoked into it. Are you disagreeing with that? <B>If Algeria had bombed Pearl Harbor we probably wouldn't have declared war on Germany. </B> If Algeria had shown the ability to launch a bombing attack killed 2000 Americans and dismantled a substantial chunk of our navy without any warning, and was allied with Germany, then HELL YES we would have entered the war with Germany. In fact, if Japan stayed out of it, it would have been even more likely because we would only have one front to fight. Notice that an individual -- not even a country -- did the same on Sept 11th and we have essentially declared war with him. The country's name is not important. All that matters is its ability. If Algeria had that capability, we definitely would have gotten into it. <B>Anyways, these examples of terrorism (IRA, Basques, Chechnya) are all domestic terrorist problems. </B> So we've now accepted that this is not a war on all terrorism. Instead, it's only on terrorism that has the potential to directly affect us. Thank you.
<B>Most - about 95% of the world hates us. I mean really hates us. These guys aren't really going to back us up when it starts getting really thick, except possibly the Canadians, British, and Aussies. And even they are question marks at times. </B> Where do you get this? Have you been to India? Most Indians love America, and that's 20% of the world population right there. Have you ever talked to native mainland Chinese individuals [who still live there]? Every one that I've ever talked with either likes American ideals or at least respects them for what they are (granted, everyone I've talked was college-aged or in high school). Most of Europe does not "hate" us. Nor does Australia or South America. Where exactly are these hating people concentrated?
<B>So, it is ok to take jobs away from Americans because American workers demand too much pay?</B> Of course that's ok. That's what capitalism is all about. Are companies supposed to simply take losses or hurt their shareholders voluntarily when there are absolutely no benefits for the company? <B>It's ok to basically enslave people so that a tennis shoe company can turn a profit? </B> As others have pointed out, this isn't slavery. This is competitive wages for the area, as sad as that may be. Companies should not be expected to pay higher than average wages just because they are American companies. This all works economically. It creates more jobs in this region which then serves to raise wages and improve working conditions by increasing the amount of competition. If Nike pays $5/hr, and the local companies are paying $0.25/hr, then people in high-skill industries (those that pay $4/hr) will flock towards Nike. If Nike has a choice between educated employees or peasant-workers, they will likely choose the former. That hurts the country in the long-run because the skill industries have an outflow of talent and less-skilled workers replace them. If they raise wages substantially to compete, they are going to suffer losses or create an inflationary environment, which just hurts those $0.25/hr workers the most. There's no easy way to improve living conditions across a country. Coming into a non-skill industry, the primary benefit is simply the creation of jobs, not the quality of those jobs. Of course they should provide decent working conditions, but that's also a responsibility of the local government to demand companies do so.
TheFreak: Why yes, I do. The Russians have asked us for support. Not militarily, but politically. We refused. How is this complicated?
Or for a potential consumer such as Jeff to criticize... which he did. Don't try to clean up NIKE's image. NIKE's sweatshop enterprise is 100% devoted to abandoning a country when labor rights pick up there. Things improved in Korea and Taiwan... so NIKE went to Indonesia and China. Oohh oohhh, maybe when things get worse in Korea again, they'll be lucky enough to have good old NIKE come back and exploit them again. BTW, your example is 10000% misleading. NIKE doesn't pay more than other jobs in these countries, they just offer additional jobs... oftentimes below minimum wage, and where physical and/or sexual abuse is common. It takes Nike somewhere between 60 cents and $1.50 to make a shoe using unfair labor practices in these nations. Though they rely upon the countries in the have-not areas, their prices never change... their prices are targetted towards the haves. Does a $150.00 pair of Jordans ring a bell? This American icon has abandoned the American workforce yet preys upon their dollars. I say **** 'em.
Timing: Again, I ask you if doing what Nike is doing simply because it is the way of the country is right. Is it? Of course it isn't. Everyone knows that. Just because everyone does something doesn't mean we all do it. At some point, capitalism has to take a back seat to common decency and compassion. treeman: Your response is probably what I was looking for when I first started this thread. Our country was hit. It is our responsibility to respond. Our citizens demand it. However, we would not be as likely to respond if it were another country. I understand and respect that decision. I also thinks it makes for interesting irony and should give us all pause when we condemn another nation for not helping us out.
<B>Or for a potential consumer such as Jeff to criticize... which he did. </B> Of course. And its my free choice to respond, which I did. No one's complaining that he's criticizing. I'm presenting another viewpoint. <B>NIKE's sweatshop enterprise is 100% devoted to abandoning a country when labor rights pick up there. Things improved in Korea and Taiwan... so NIKE went to Indonesia and China. </B> You don't think NIKE had anything to do with things improving in Korea and Taiwan? That's <B>exactly</B> how free market economics should work. Companies that are labor intensive go into the cheapest labor market and create additional jobs. That drives wages up (as it did in Korea & Tawain) and improves economic conditions in those countries. Then you go to the next lowest area and repeat the process. Over a period of time, this increases wages all over the place. Each time they do it, they not only bring unskilled factory jobs, but they bring construction projects and international investment. If Nike (and other companies like them - it certainly takes far more than one company) hadn't gone to those places, they'd still be in poverty. Instead, these countries are slowly getting out of it through the creation of additional jobs. This is the fundamental concept behind the free market. Two countries trade the goods they can produce the best (in relative terms) Indonesia can't produce high-tech goods or services as well as the US. However, they can produce shoes, so essentially they trade shoes for technology and thus become more advanced while keeping goods cheaper in the US (if you're willing to buy the lower lines of shoes instead of Air Jordans). Over the long-haul, both countries benefit. <B>BTW, your example is 10000% misleading. NIKE doesn't pay more than other jobs in these countries, they just offer additional jobs... </B> I never said that Nike pays more than other jobs -- in fact, I said the very opposite. My example was the bad things that would happen <I>if</I> they did pay more than other more skill-intensive jobs, because it messes up the free market of wages. Jeff was suggesting that the wages were too low. I am suggesting Nike should not pay more than market value. <B>It takes Nike somewhere between 60 cents and $1.50 to make a shoe using unfair labor practices in these nations. </B> Unfair under whose standards? If those countries consider them unfair, they can fine/reject Nike. <B>Though they rely upon the countries in the have-not areas, their prices never change... their prices are targetted towards the haves. Does a $150.00 pair of Jordans ring a bell? </B> $150 pair of Jordans are only priced that way because people are willing to buy them. <B>This American icon has abandoned the American workforce yet preys upon their dollars. I say **** 'em.</B> And that's your right, as it is Nike's right to produce them more cheaply [as long as its legal]. I don't see why Nike should be expected to pay people more than necessary to produce their product.
shanna, it's all fine and dandy that NIKE is living up to the capitalistic enterprise. Is that really the point of contention that you want to take though? There are billions of people that will work for less than what we work for. There are finite resources. You're basically arguing for the destruction of American civilization (and I'm arguing for a nice Pat Buchanan isolationism ). Oops, time to go to work. Hopefully my company hasn't moved to a developing nation.
<B>There are billions of people that will work for less than what we work for. There are finite resources. You're basically arguing for the destruction of American civilization (and I'm arguing for a nice Pat Buchanan isolationism </B> Most people around the world don't have the skills necessary to do the jobs that are here. Blue collar jobs that can be offloaded already have been to a large extent. Most lower-paid jobs remaining are country-specific (running a Burger King in Texas cannot be done if your employees live in China). This is why jobs are shifting in the US to higher-skilled stuff like computers and technology -- that is stuff that can't be done more cheaply (at the same quality level) in other countries. As more low-wage jobs go overseas, more high-wage jobs are created in the US because purchasing power grows. If you can get your clothes more cheaply, you can spend more money on a TV or cellphone. I do believe government has a responsibility to be actively involved in training and education to help assist employees of low-skill jobs move to higher-skilled jobs, though. I think that has to be an integral part of the welfare/support system here in the US. I know I'm arguing the "extreme" case here and it doesn't make much sense from an ethical standpoint. I do agree that it would be nice if Nike did things out of decency, but I think the reality is that companies are designed to make money -- that's their role. The idea is that if everyone tries to make the most money possible, it will lift everyone up in the process (over the long-haul). I also agree with decency requirements, but I think its the responsibility of each country to protect its own citizens -- sometimes you have to accept less than the ideals to improve in the long-run, and I think these countries understand that right now, the number of jobs is more important than the quality of jobs. After they get good employment numbers, they can start rejecting the "crappy" jobs and make progress that way, but if the choice is a crappy job vs. no job, people will prefer the crappy job.
I suppose I also wish that the situation existed so that instead of "crappy job", people could choose "sustainable living". We live on a planet of finite resources. I don't know about you, but most of my friends in software development list Urdu as one of their languages. If push came to shove, many of our corporations could move elsewhere, leaving the rest of us selling Big Macs to one another. Well, at least we'll stay fed... until the price of subsidized beef....
<B>I suppose I also wish that the situation existed so that instead of "crappy job", people could choose "sustainable living". </B> Absolutely. In my mind, it's just a "necessarily evil" that countries go through stages of having Nike-like companies roll through for them to get to that level. Both of us agree on the ultimate goals. <B>We live on a planet of finite resources. I don't know about you, but most of my friends in software development list Urdu as one of their languages. </B> But where did they get educated? Notice those people are coming here as opposed to the other way around. High-skill jobs tend to move into the US while the low-skill move away. <B>If push came to shove, many of our corporations could move elsewhere, leaving the rest of us selling Big Macs to one another. </B> LOL.. that is the negative side of the idea of a "world economy" and is part of the argument for isolationism. We need to prop up other countries to improve our own economy (generate trade, etc). However, if we do manage to bring up the rest of the world to our level, what makes us special? I think most of us really like being a part of the "most powerful country on the planet".
on Nike: The problem is that they're eliminating the subsitence production conditions in the countries where the locate themselves, and changing it to a monetary economy dynamic. Basically, they're selling the dream of development to people who don't have anything. Those people look at the wealth of foreign tourists, and take the bait. Then Nike pays people wages that don't allow them to consume the goods that they're creating. In fact, quality of live actually diminishes, often. Yes, they're technically making more money. But individual production actually diminishes due to the relative abandonment of domestic (home) production. Shanna: do you believe in a minimum wage in the US? If so, I don't understand your position. The nation-state is beginning to become an archaic system of governance. It was appropriate as long as economics were localized. Now as MNC's exploit such conditions, new institutions are needed to govern behavior, much as happened in the US in the '40's. Besides, I do believe some standards of fundamental fairness exist. The value-added by labor is the vast majority of production. yet Nike is paying unfairly for that value added. That's exploitation, however you try to justify it.
<B>Shanna: do you believe in a minimum wage in the US? If so, I don't understand your position. </B> I think the minimum wage is counter-productive economically, but I do agree with it as a law here. I feel the standards should be very different for countries in the first vs third world, and I believe they should be determined by the nation that hosts the workers and companies involved. In the third world, the focus (in my opinion) should be fully on becoming first world -- and that means putting economic success first. If the company wants to put human rights conditions into that, that's of course a good thing, but that's the choice of that country. The US placing our own human rights restrictions on companies operating there are counter-productive (again, this is all my economic philosophy). Our demand for better working conditions should not override another country's need to pull their people out of poverty. In first world countries, I believe you have the resources and moral authority to establish social support / welfare systems -- I consider the minimum wage to be a part of that. So I agree with minimum wage laws in industrialized countries because we can afford any of the negative economic effects. Minimum wage can only work with an alternative welfare system in place -- if there were no welfare payments, it would be unfair to deny someone with limited skills/ability the right to work at $1/hr and then leave them unemployed. Hope that clarifies.
