Dirty old Nike....

I\'m sorry but sometimes I just fucking can\'t believe how stupid some people are - this from todays herald page 2
\"Jo Tisch, Nike New Zealand\'s brand communications manager asks if the factories are so bad, why are people queuing up to work in them?\"

I\'m sorry, but I\'m just lost for words....how the fuck can people be so self centered and blind?

There\'s no how, they just are.
Go Tiger Woods.

*sigh*

there we go again....

not sure what you mean.
You asked the question how can people be so
self centred and blind.
Sorry for the pessimistic take, feelin\' abit fragile
today.
What I meant was, without having to over state it
is greed no matter whether it\'s corporate or
personal, is and always will be an inherent part
of the human condition.

Tiger Woods gets payed more than the entire work force making Nike shoes.

Im not sure what time frame this is (his contract was for 5 years) but still pretty fucked up. 12 cents a day is the normal wage.

It is def fucked up. But how many people here own Nike stuff or have done in the past? Or any major label clothing for that matter? Everyone supports this behvaiour towards third world countries whether they\'re aware of it or not.

vinyl press - have you read 'no logo'

if not - read !

no-one said life was fair!

but if you dont aggree with wat nike is doing. dont buy the product.

however if enought people did that would it mean that nike would have to lay off some of the people they employ at 12c a day just so they can meet their financial targets. if so what will those people do for money. how will they feed their families. either way it doesnt look very rosey.

Agreed. And similarly, if Nike were 'forced' to pay all these workers (who supposedly work for 12c a day) more in some way, it might be economical to just employ American workers, so in another dimension these people would be worse off, and moreso the Americans would have a stronger economy due to less money flowing to overseas wages.

I don't think 'buying more Nike' is, in the end, a good way to support the people forced to work for 12c (or whatever it may be) a day. (Quite apart from the employment issues, there are other reasons I am opposed to Nike). No-one said life was fair, no, but I don't remember anyone saying life should be run by a pack of uber-millionaires with little more than a shrug from the rest of us, either.

I realise that's not what people're saying, but...I think the benifits of telling Nike to stop doing the sorts of things they're doing outweight the negatives. I'm hazy on this - what kind of international labour laws are there?

No Logo is well written, yes. The chapter about irony and it's death is nice.

sorry but just got back into work so i have to jump in...
dpt - yeah i have read no logo
Man, some of the attitudes on this thread are worrying...the main one being that if nike closes down it's factory, then they will all starve - bollocks!!! nike creates the conditons, these people were fine before nike came along. and please V.I.Y as if raising the wages to say, $1 per day is going to make it cheaper to produce the shoes in the states - what kind of wages do you get paid?

love the cartoon in the herald from the weekend - if you haven't seen it, check it out:

The one with Tiger Woods going through customs...

PS: nike gear sucks, but that swoosh is just too cool...

; )

Haha, 12c a day / $1 a day - I don't know what the exact wage is. All I was saying is that it's not as clear cut and simple as some of you think it is. Nike (and other large companies) do treat their employees badly in some places, yes. But they also employ a lot of people in industries in developing countries that may not exist otherwise (the industries, that is) leaving many people worse off.

Mate, the old "fine before Nike came along" argument doesn't cut it. If they were fine, they wouldn't have chosen to work for Nike when they did came along anyway. So although the conditions are despicable by Western standards, they are obviously better than the alternative for these people (which may, or may not be unemployment) or they would not choose to work there.

As they earn money and become wealthier (as does their country through the taxes Nike pays etc) and more skilled they will doubt move on to better employment in better conditions.

I'm just pointing out that boycotting Nike's products isn't necessarily going to help these workers you so desperately are trying to help.

I hate to say it but that's all crap. The reason that people are forced to work and live in such terrible conditions is because western ideals are being forced upon them. The world bank and the IMF lend these 'developing' nations huge sums of money to fund projects which are doomed to fail. The countries are then left in such huge debt that they have to bow to the will of whichever multinational comes along and accept their terms.
And do you honestly believe that there are opportunities for advancement for these people? come on VIU they may not have been fine before Nike came along , but Nike is now taking full advantage of their plight

Oh yes. The 'big bad world bank and IMF' argument. A mainstay among the uninformed anti-capitalism lobby. Fair enough - that's your call.

I suggest you read a World bank or IMF report one day, and see how they /really/ make their financing decisions. Incidentally, neither of these institutions fund 'projects' as far as I know - they fund 'countries' in a number of ways, involving refinancing, debt restructuring and special lending. The conditons are economic reform based on methods that have shown success elsewhere - but then again, I suppose how it is that you measure 'success', n'est-ce pas?

Just on the side, studied or read any economics at all? Just a little survey I am doing among anti-globalists, that's all.

Oh gee VIU I didn't know I had used an 'uninformed argument', i am terribly sorry.
Yes I have studied a little economics so you can add that to your no doubt highly educational survey.
I have also read the odd IMF/WB report in my time, and find it difficult that you can truly believe these 'special projects' which they seem to love so much are based on anything other than pure financial gain...as opposed to bettering the lives of those in the countries affected.

Hey now, hey now, you boys are just getting all snide and bitchy. Shake hands now (and come out fighting).

I think there are good arguments on both sides of the fence but I must say I tend to agree with Vinyl Press.

Sure Nike might have some genuinely helpful initiatives they've put in place in these countries (safer facilities, mildly better wages) but I tend to think this is purely to offset the observation and obscure the fact that they're basically fucking these people over! And thereby reinforcing their position, while at the same time, keeping those countries under their heel.

And whose heel would that be? Hmmm I wonder...

the vinyl press - you *must* read no logo.
Fairly one sided, but very solid arguments and some interesting new ideas.
Transtemporal - I'll think you'll find that the multi-nationals don't improve anything in the countries they squat. They apparently jump ship the moment anyone complains about wages / attempts to unionise etc.
Voiceinsideyou - these "restructuring" plans have been proven to just fuck the countries over more. All they involve is getting them stuck in a debt cycle by forcing more debt upon them in order to "get out of debt." Doesn't seem to work...

Go into "any" clothing retail shop (Route 66, Amazon, etc) and you won't find any piece of clothing that isn't made in a sweatshop area. I tried this on Sunday and was amazed at what I found

cheers randoman, i have read it bro. as for the clothing shops, well there it is in a nutshell really

*shrug*

Randoman: Not true, just plain not true. That is not 'proven' at all. *shakes head* The IMF and World bank have nothing to gain by lending to countries if they are not expecting to be paid back. Why would this be a valid strategy? They'd just end up with countries defaulting on their debts and not paying anything (either that or devaluing their currency to pay off debt, which would also breach the loan covenants), which would cost IMF/World bank a lot of money.

Anyway, you guys seem to have made up your minds, so I think I'll leave it here. There's not really any point in trolling out a large amount of economic thought since most of you will probably just discount it and insult me for being a capitalist, or assume I am trying just to be 'smart'. *sigh*

I find that hard to comprehend VIU that if you really do have an understanding of how things work; you cannot see the huge value in essentially 'owning' a country due to the money they owe you. It gives them them huge leverage over the resources or that country (including the labour resource).
Please continue to write, I have no intention of discounting your thoughts or accusing you of 'being smart'.

Sorry, I meant, "being a smart-ass".

I do see the value in doing that, but I also see that the World Bank has no real place, or need to do that. The World bank and IMF are both institutions formed on the basis that they assure the financial stability of the world economic system, ot prevent one country's downfall leading to a spiral downfall of many closely linked countries (as sometimes happens in a collapse of a large firm in an industry).

If the benefits is gained by anybody, it is no the world bank as the world bank only recommends economc reform be undertaken. I understand that you proabbly do not support this kind of reform, but it has been successful in varying notions in many of now 'modern' countries and thus is accepted by the majority of economists to asset debt laden, and weak economies to recover to a point in which they can repay their debts. Invariably (but probabyl debatably), a failure to repay these debts in the past has been due to lack of compliance with reforms due to weak political support or other internal factors, rather than the IMF loading infinite debts.

Indeed, foreign investment in these countries as from Nike can play a valuable part. It pumps dollars into the local economy, which is paid to workers (even at despiacably low rates) and spent on local goods. The idea is that thse workers buy other goods in the country with that money, and these goods are produced by other workers who get paid and so on to make the money get reused around the country many times, inducing growth in activity. (this is called an economic multiplier effect) The idea is that this growth in the economy translates into increase living standards gradually, across the economy in some way, hopefully employing people who would not otherwise have jobs, who can then earn more money and progress to better paid, better standard jobs.

In rich countries, we can afford to have minimum labour standards for our citizens, but in developing and poor countries, perhaps with limited infrstructure and resources, and therefore no real competitive advantage - it's hard for them to attact foreign money to help grow their economies without the boon of 'cheap labour'. It's sad, but it's a step most countries go through when developing, and although it does seem like 'profiteering' from Nike and other corporates, in can play an essential part in developing the economy as Nike's money goes into taxes used to develop infrastructure (roading, electricity, sanitation etc) and develop welfare systems. At some point the people will be better off and refuse to wor for Nike as they can work for someone else in better conditions, and maybe Nike will move on to another country, but these people will probably be better off than they were before (on the whole).

I don't claim to understand the entire intricacies of economy's, welfare and employment, but I think the basic principles that the IMF etc are founded on are just, and that multinationals get a bad rap for the wrong reasons (sometimes). In the same way that people often say that we should not judge developing countries ethical and religious values with our own Western prejudices (as many have said of the US' stance on the Taleban). I think we have to recognise that the circumstances facing poor people in poor countries are different and that setting up a big welfare safety net including workers rights may not help when the country is so poor and cannot afford it - and while by our Western standards - it is disgusting, by their standards, they might be quite glad to just get a job at all.

i was going to reply but voice insides message is so fucking huge i dont think i can be bothered reading it!!!!!

Well said voice. I agree with you, even though I find you insanely optimistic!

peptide: Fair enough. As I said above, I didn't really expect anyone to read my drivel. Believe it or not that was a very, very abridged version. There are many interactions between inward and outward flows of money in these countries which can establish the 'overall' benefit to society.


In regards to my 'optimism':
Witness some of the many cases internationally where foreign investment has been pulled out of a country due to various instabilities - it has most often left these countries much, much worse off.

I think we all forget that during the industrialisation of Western countries (US, UK in particular) there much of this same thing with workers rights going on. In the mass urbanisations of history many workers flcoked to places such as London and Manchester and worked in shitty conditions, for terrible wages and horrible living standards (by our current standards) as there was no employment left in the rural sectors - and the attraction of an urban lifestyle had much promise.

Undoubtedy the US and the UK have developed much since then and both countries can now 'afford' more strict workers rights and welfare systems to minimise the amount of this 'exploitation' that goes on of workers. This has been the result of many years of hardship while developing.

The situation is, of course, different for todays developing countries as there are other more developed countries than them (whereas the UK and the US were ahead of nearly everyone in their developing phases). For me, I consider this another reason to push obstinate wealthy countries (e.g the US) to reduce trade bsrriers with these countries, remove tariffs on imports of 3rd and 2nd world goods and let these countries trade their way from poverty using the natural resources they often do have, and the skills they have at produdicng foodstuffs etc. But I suppose the whole 'trade' argument (although inextricably linked to the whole poverty issue in my mind) is another huge can of worms altogether......

Maybe I am optimistic. I jsut think that the anti-globalisation, anti-capitalism debaters put their energy in teh wrong place. The energy (I think) should be put into pressuring rich countries to disband their industry assistance schemes locally (which discourage imports of food from poor countries) and get rid of tariffs and quotas on imports. The EU's ridiculous farm subsidy programme and the US' favouritism towards the 'farm lobby' has HUGE costs for 3rd world countries, especially African countries.

Anyway. Another bigass spiel for someone to disagree with entirely.

I agree in some places VIU. It frustrates me that the anti globalisation/capitalism bandwagon is a popular one to jump on, as so many people are far too uninformed to have created their own opinions on issues. I agree that this energy is too often focused on total ANTI thinking as opposed to working towards positive solutions. Unfortunately however i have absolutely so faith in large multinationals (generalisation) and their partners in crime - WTO and WB. Perhaps that is where we differ-your optimisim lies with them, while I hold no hope that anything but greed drives these people who hold the power.

Fair enough - and at times those suspicious have been shown to be correct. Most of the time I figure than the 'open' constitutions they are designed with should try and avoid some of those issues. Moreso, I support the economic fundamentals they are based on - free trade and debt relief/stability for the world financial system, especially in these times of increased economic ties between countries.

I'm very interested in seeing where the current fracas over Enron and Republican links to Enron goes in the US - another place I am always a tad suspicious of 'vested interests'. At least in the US they have a multi-layered governmental system to get things through, I suppose.

What about good old Mike Moore - Mr. labour? *grin* I think he has done a good job at the helm of the WTO, through some difficult times. But then again, I support the WTO, which is merely designed to be a brokering agency between countries to sort out trade disputes and to move towards free trade, which I believe will ultimately help poor countries.

anti-globalism / anti-capitalism seems to be a popular bandwagon for people to jump on as they would any "fad". Look at the Ford t-shirts changed to Fuct, Dole changed to Dole bludger etc...most people look at them for an *image* rather than a political motivation.

This argument could (and has) proved to be very opinionated...

There are a few things I'd like to point out though:
- Power corrupts people - 12 men sitting in a boardroom in sunny Oregon are going to be more concerned about their share price / profit than their labour practices. The only way this will change is through a mass culture change which will basically force these companies to change their conduct.
- The economies in the sweat shop countries apparently do not reap much from these multinationals as all the factories are held in export processing zones and the governments are forced to offer huge tax breaks because they are scared the companies will just move elsewhere (and they do). It's free trade, yes, but it seems to be giving one party an enourmous advantage and completely screwing the other party over.
- Yes, capitalism is necessary for our society to function. But, most capitalists seem so driven on profit that everything else is totally discounted.

voiceinsideyou - I would be interested to hear why you think free trade will benefit poor countries in the long term...I am sure there are reasons, but to me it appears like it will just concentrate the world's wealth into the hands of fewer and fewer people.

Very constructive guys. Especially considering arguments like this tend to boringly polemic!

transtemporal - too true, which is why I shy away of having an argument with two very opposing sides (non-capitalist vs capitalist for example). It's a great topic to "discuss" though...of course most discussions tend to end in arguments anyway so let's all go figure...

Yes, the line between discussion and argument can be very blurred, it's a bit of a continuum I suppose.

Incidentally, I think those t-shirts are funny - I'd have no problems with wearing one at all. And yeah, it's an image, but it definitely wouldn't mean I was jumping on any anti-capitalism bandwagon!


I think I was trying to illustrate above how trade would help the poor. It works similarly to foreign investment, but probably better - if you ask me. (as a lot of the returns to foreign investment go offshore, whereas the return to local export production stays onshore). Free trade at least in foodstuffs and light manufactured goods would assist these countries by giving them the ability to sell goods they are very good at producing overseas. Currently they are inhibited by protectionist trade bbarriers in western countries made along the "defend the local industry" argument, which if you ask me - is entirely selfish. (ironically, leftwingers are usually the protectionist ones...!) Poor countries can foten produce food much cheaper than can estern countries, and if their people were able to be employed in producing food for export it would help their economies and people immensely.

Theres so many factors though, the where the wealth ends up being concentrated is always hard to determine. In the poor countries, it is essential that they have solid legal and property frameworks set up, and that as the country develops it moves along a path of equal opportunity for all people, if you ask me. Primarily to avoid the corruption that plagues Africa (look at Zimbabwe and Mugabe's atrocities).

Random: You say that tax breaks suck the benefits from the economies. Well, this can be true to some extent, but they do give 100% tax amnesties, and there are still many other economic benefits that arise due to various multiplier effects. The multiplier effect is quite hard to describe easily, I'm not sure I did it very well above or can do it very much better without drawing graphs and diagrams! It's part of the 'economic cycle'. The key thing for a poor country is how much of income, welath or GDP/GNP is extracted from the country via overseas profits, and how much GDP/GNP is increased. I would argue that although a lot of what you say is true (re, terrible labour conditions, partial tax breaks, the power of big companies in negotiations) - there is no better alternative for helping poor countries. I would dispute that it makes them worse off.

In terms of the corruption of company boards etc, I think you have to be careful how you talk about 'profits'. They seem to have become a dirty word these days, as if it's BAD to earn money? Earing profit is just another way to generate wealth - it is a reward for taking on risk. It is a reward similar to rents on land resources and salaries on labour resources. You have to remember who gets the profits in the end.... ordinary people. Although some of these people are very wealthy - so be it. There are also many normal people who invest in large companies who benefit too.

In my opinion, the corruption of power is best dealt with in the legal system, through more openness with shareholders, openness with the public and greater transparency all round. Company law has been heading this way gradually over the past, which is a good thing.

A capitalist director or CEO is duty bound to be focussed on profit. They're employed to make the best return on the money risked by shareholders (and anyone investing in a dotcom sure knows those risks!) by law. In terms of factors outside 'profit', these should be looked after in other ways. Either through laws made to prevent activities that are bad to the public as a whole (e.g. dumping waste illegally), or through public initiatives or through the state welfare system/safety net. I believe this to be the most efficient way to balance things across society. We're moving this way - we haven't hard such large multinationals that long, in the context of 'history', so things are still developing.

These debates are so wide open, there's so much to say and try and articulate (and not do typos in) ... and undoubtedly, I have formed most of my opinions based on study I have done in Economics and Politics and reading I have done. I find it difficult explaining to people why I believe in the ideas I do without getting all economicsy. And then you're getting into the definition of 'efficiency' and 'allocative efficiency' and it all gets very ugly indeed.....!

Arghht! That was about three times longer than it was supposed to be. Sorry guys.

if any of you haven't read no logo, i suggest you do.

Nike is not the company in these areas, its manufacturing contractors, who in order to get the contract to supply nike/adidas/etc, look for the lowest price.

Also the majority of these factories are located in poor countries, but are not bound to the labour rules and laws of the country they squat in - because they almost always housed within free trade zones - where they pay little or no tax, have no labour laws or unions, and can basically do what they like. These poor countries hope that by doing this, they will increase the revenue for their citizens, 90% of the time this is sadly not the case because the countries need the manufacturers more than the manufacturers need the countries, as with most things, theres always a lower bidder. Thus these contractors can get away with environmental and human relations obscenities.

It was the outsourcing of manufacturing by nike that has caused this, as it is cheaper to become merely an R&D and marketing company - making stuff just ain't profitable.

And most of the workers in these plants are from rural areas, who previously existed on a subsistence living, and are often sent to these factories to earn money for their families.

These jobs aren't real jobs, its slave labour - pure and simple. The amounts these people work for is a complete fucking joke.

but its human nature to look to get more from less.

so we're all fucked! lets hope nz doesn't turn third world, otherwise we could all be making shoes.

oh, and thats just what i can remember from reading no logo - and the writer of that has been to these places, and seen them firsthand.

Yeah, I'm not disputing the bad conditions (read my posts). Just commenting that in most cases it's better than the laternative (subsistence) and that judging it my 1st world standards of living is somewhat dubious, in my opinion. You're just repeating the points that have already been made and that I have agreed with somewhat, are you not?

So, if the countries in question get nothing out of the big companies (no benefits), why do they "need the manufacturers..." as you put it? What do they rely on the manufacturers for, in your opinion?

I think that what dpt was trying to say is that they don't need the manufacturers and would be better off without them....

i only skim read the other posts, far too much to read and take in there while at work! hehe..

but yeah - i'd say that these workers are worse off than previously. Also the countries are worse off than previous, environmentally and socially

the countries need the manufacturers, because they do gain revenue from having them in the country, but at what social and environment cost (sadly there is no accepted way to measure these costs - resulting in both these factors being grossly undervalued) If we had true valuation of environmental and social costs, we'd all be paying a SHITLOAD more for our shoes.

Well, I suppose it depends on how you define social costs. I guess you'd also have to set them off against social benefits, as in a lot of the poor people would otherwise be unemployed, which is often linked to criminal activity.

If the workers are worse off, why do they 'choose' to work for Nike and other big companies? I'll tell you why - because it's better than earning no money and starving. They may not like the conditions or the inherent work (and who can blame them), but compared to being in complete poverty, I daresay they are quite grateful.

Environmentally is a different issue. There is quite a bit of literaure that shows that as countries become wealthier they can afford to spend more money on environmental issues. I think that once again on this issue we judge poor countries by Western standards, and Western valuations put on environmental damage. This is not to say that poor countries should be cutting down rainforest.

I think that in most manufacturing cases there are not a lot of environmental costs most of the time.

Well, I'm not going to repeat myself again with regards to me earlier thoughts, dpt, there aint much point in that is there? So yes. If you're interested in other ways to look at it, read the earlier posts sometime you've got a spare year.

its not a matter of choice usually though, many of these 'workers' (i use that term loosely) often do not have the choice of where they work. 99% of these workers are often young females who have been sent from rural families to work in these factories. Previously they have been living subsistence level. They 'choose' to work because they believe it will lead them to a better life.

None of us are poor like these people are, we have no idea about how they make their decisions, or what influences their decisions.

Its more the fact of these manufacturers preying on the fact that there is little or no other choice, and thus paying them accordingly.

It seems interesting that VIU that you defend the use of sweat shop labour (excuse the emotive term) under western standards of wealth and capatalist culture.
then when it comes to environmental issues swing the other way.
And as for the claim of development and environmental spending, USA most developed nation, biggest creator of pollution. They may spend more on clean p but still do the most damage

VIU, Please don't take this as a personal attack but your arguments are a little bit blinckered by ideology.
You are judging the value of industrial investment in purely monetary terms and ignoring the social costs. And because no value has ever been put on things like clean air and rainforests, they don't count.
On issues such as this they can not be judged by the the morality of the system that creates them. That is the same as Hitler standing outside the gas chamber and saying 'Jah this is good, cause i say so'
Yes a CEo who maximises profit is 'good' if viewed from a view point that only considers value from a profit view point. But this ignores the other effects
The social costs of industrial development are obvious if you the chain of events are looked at.
Those massive and growing disease ridden slums that spring up around factories in third world cities are not just an unhappy co-incidence.

Also the simple fact is that corruption is rife in third world nations, supported encouraged and welcomed by multi national investors. It is a lot better to pay a bribe in the right places to obtain resources than spend real money building them yourself. This is of course to the detrament of the local population. Any questions see Shell oil and the Nigerian government. Funny how the richest nation in Africa has on of the lowest standards of living.
On top of this the Nigerian government was more than happy to remove (by way of a firing squad) the leadership of the local population in an area that Shell wanted to drill.

No, I am not ignoring those costs, but I am saying that you guys overstate them. I argue that there are social benefits. People working (even for shit pay in shit conditions) are better than people unemployed and poor. I am saying that people, even poor, make these choices to work voluntarily - and therefore they view it as better than the alternative.

Would you go in and shut Nike down? Deprive all these people of their jobs? It sounds like you see this as the 'best' thing for the workers.

Multinational corporations most certainly do NOT support corruption. it harms them! have you seen the outflow of money from Zimbabwe and Argentina since political instability set in, largely due to alleged corruption? Bang.... investors do not like corruption. I agree that corruption is rife, and the people of these countries need to get governments that can sort this out. There is a slow tend towards it, and under a lot of pressure from nations such as the US, and world organisations such as the UN, IMF, World Bank etc. One of their first conditions for lending is the implementation of a solid legal system and stamping out of corruption.

Remeber - as i said above (why do I have to repeat myself?) both the US and the UK went through these periods of industrialisation. They both survived and both countries are doing well now... does that not demonstrate that there is a natural progression? Economic development over time? Would you deprive these countries from moving forward?

How would YOU improve their standard of living? Doing it on their own certainly hasn't worked, has it? You're against a lot of things, but what are you for? What steps would you take in these countries to increase national income?

My arguments are not idealogical. They are based on past evidence with much of Western society and the stages that Western countries have had to go through to get where they are, and attain their wealth. I would have thought that was pretty practical really!

I'm not an economist by any stretch, and alot of
the semantics are lost on me. However if we
look at history and the stages countries such as
the US and UK went through to attain their first
world status, isn't the advent of socialism and
the formation of unions a major part in the mix,
that allowed change and better rights for the
working class.

Well, yes, you're probably correct - good point. However, I thought socialism and the welfare state were invented at about the same time as these countries were becoming wealthier, and could therefore afford such things.

I'm not sure though, but the welfare state is, to me, a luxury of wealthy countries. Having >30% tax in a poor country to fund a welfare system is not going to help a country develop particularly well - that's if 30% tax could actually cover a decent level of welfare. The poverty in these countries tends to be so great proportion to national income that even if you had a non-corrupt legal system you'd need a 500% tax to support everyone! That's why to me injections of foreign money, no matter how small, can improve things over the counterfactual/status quo.

But that's just my opinion, when balanced against the alternatives. I'd be even less quick (and I don't do it lightly anyway) to dismiss or disagree with the anti-capitalism / anti-globalists if I thought they offered an alternative strategy for improving the wealth of these countries, instead of bemoaning all the bad points of foreign investment and the like. I'm still waiting to hear some (alternatives that is)!

VIU The USA and the UK went through their industrial development under their own steam, not through external investment. The growth of industrialisation was paced by the growing waged work force. As the 'buying power' and demand for industrial goods grew so did industrail development. Over a period of about 200 years.
Furthermore this was for a local market goods were produced as they were required by the local and colonial market (taking advantage of the third world once again)
Also the high living standards that you state are the off shoot of this development did not become a reality to the majority of the population until the 1950's and 60's. People were still living in hellish condictions in these 'developed nations' up until the 1930's.
Also social reforms occured in this time due to the great depression. This was at a political level not as a good deed by industrialists.
Your study of ecomonics would benefit by a little bit of historical study

Finally there is a massive difference between corruption and political instability. Of course no one wants to do business in an unstable and openly violent nation eg Zimbabwee. But a nation where a large investor can basically control the power structure is another matter.
When you can prevent the social and labour reforms of the 20th Western world it makes production so much cheaper and easier. Not having to abid by pesky health and safety laws, and basic worker rights.
If nations are to 'develop' (by Western standards)it needs to be internal development. Not the construction of factories that pump out consumer products towestern markets.
How long would a Nike employee have to work b4 they could afford a pair of the shoes they make.

Condictions in the third world are not going to change under the current system. The west needs cheap labour to maximise profits for the top 5%.

And it is wonderful to have a little bit of intelligent discusion on this board

yes molatov - congrats to those who have posted on this page so far, there has been some brilliant debate. i haven't had time to write recently (damn work) but enjoy skim reading it when i can...

Sorry about my disappearance, jsut haven't had the time to do a decent amount of thnking on this one! I'm also glad to have this debate - even though it appears it's me vs. everyone else! *laughs*

molatov: Yes, I agree that the development of the UK and the US are different than that which current 3rd world counties need to undergo, but their growth was underpinned by the fact that they were both at the forefront of technological development driving them forwards.

"Developing" countries now face a difficult sitution as they are not at the forefront. Instead they are more in a 'catch up' situation which changes the ways in which they can develop. Whilst the UK and US (and other European countries I am not forgetting, but just omitting for succintness) developments were driven by research, development and putting resources forward to advance technology, the developing countries cannot generate wealth in this way as they are so far behind. Foreign investment allows significant injection of foreign skill, technology and resources that the poor countries could not hope to develop on their own. Internally, they do not have the skills without foreign help to 'modernise' their economies and infrastructure so if they wish to catch up, the foreign world must help by putting in resources, technology and skill.

I admit that my knowledge of history isn't top notch, but I do the best with what I've got. I don't think I have been inacurate with my description, if not a little vague. We can't be experts at everything, man - as I'm sure you know! In this case, I'm an expert at neither.

In terms of the social reforms, I suppose that's a pretty wide area to cover. Restricting it to the level of the 'welfare state', this was a result of the great depression, yes, due to the advance of Keynesian economics, and the use of fiscal policy to move out of depressions. Undoubtedly this is a useful tool of government, but it was a quirk of economic history that sparked it off (the great depression that is). It's ironic that the great depression as in fact caused by bad government policy on the most part anyway, due to contracting monetary policy and other such blunders. I guess my point is that although the welfare state was born around this time, it has only been sustainable due to the fact that the countries which have welfare states are advanced and can afford such systems.

I'm not claiming they're due to the good deeds of industrialists, but just trying to say that witout the development that had taken place up to that point (especially in the development of capital markets for government debt!) the massive injection of money into welfare systems may not have been affordable or possible. It would have just ended up with the government debasing currencies and otherwise destroying things for the entire economy.

I don't think business has much impact in any attempt to prevent labour reforms etc. Once governments have developed the infrastructure and wealth of their country (through foreign investment) they become less dependent on business for their tax income (as their citizens are more skilled, wealthier and generate more income internally) and hence can afford to lose some investment, and eventually gain bargaining power.

You ask the interesting question:

"How long would a Nike employee have to work b4 they could afford a pair of the shoes they make?"

Interesting. It would probably be a long time, I agree. Consider this:

Assume these countries had no foreign contact at all, no imports of Western technology, no investment into infrastructure - and had to develop all the technology and resources internally to make shoes of the quality and standard of Nikes. How long would it take them to do that? Then how long would it take for one of those workers to get a pair of Nikes?

I don't think isolation would help these countries - although I do see your point - and it is valid. It doesn't seem fair, and in many ways it isn't - that these people are so much worse off than us. I just disagree with your strategies for making these people better off. Sure, they have to do the work internally, for themselves - but I think Western countries can best assist by providing access to technology, money and resources via investment, and allowing them free access to western markets to export their goods. Unfortunately, many Western countries are too selfish to even manage this last task, wich I find disgraceful. The US and Europe are the chief culprits in this area, much to my disgust.

VIU.
You do make some good points.
Indeed third world nations are not going to 'develop'to a modern state of industrial development without external assistance. But this mostly due to a post coloinal hangover from hell.
However, investment from multi nationals does not provide the skills and tech knowledge that are required to bring these nations to a higher standard of living.
The jobs that are produced by factory work are things like machinists press operators box makers packaging staff. the skills are specialised and narrow and useless outside the factory.
These nations need things like engineers, teachers skilled people. This would allow the construction of roading power plants hospitals schools. Basic infrastructure. Sadly multi national production plants drain the existing infrastructure rather than adding to it. Nike don't build power plants they make shoes.

The only realalistic way that these nations are going to obtain a better standard of living is if the West acknowledge their own responsibility for the situation, see the colonial history of Africa and south America, puts Hitler to shame. And actually help the people through the building of basic infrastructure. A hand up so that the locals can start to help themselves.

Most MN industry exists in these nations under tax exemption so they do not contribute anything to the local government.

With regards to your last question. In their present state. Third world nations left to themselves would never reach the level of development that the west has. Why? the vast majority of their natural resources were raped and shipped of to Europe over the past 400 years. You can't make a power plant when all your nations copper is in the London power grid
The west reached the point they are at of the expense of the same nations that multinationals now exploit.

i like nike. its cool. i dont care who makes it. as long as i get it.

molatov: Hey dude, back to work and hence nothing better to do than type big long replies. Hope you had a good weekend.


Anyway, you allude to the colonial hangover. I must admit I do not know a lot of the detyails of this, but I do know that many colonised ountries have done very well, the US, NZ and Australia in particular, so colonisation alone cannot necessarily be blamed. I suppose, on the other hand, you could say that colonisation was worse in these countries. I'm not sure, it proabbly depends which countries you are talking about - I wasn't aware the central african countries had been colonised, for instance, yet they are still poor.

You're right in saying that some of the skills introduced in factories and suchforth are not particularly useful outside the factory. But in some ways working in these places is personal development I imagine, and can lead these people to ditch the shitty job and have some confidence to get other jobs. The money injected into the economy can be used by governments (providing corruption is reduced) to fund education spending and other initiatives to try and upskill.

I don't believe foreign investment is a miraculous cure to all the problems, but the inflow of money is a starting point.

I think you're only looking at half the multinationals here. There is much foreign money that is going into infrastructure in fact. Take a look at the worldwide power industry, in particular, independent power projects are popping up everywhere - in part to provide electricity to big manufacturers such as Nike.

I'm also a bit suspicious about your tax exemption assertion - it's just not the impression I got. But maybe I've been reading different stuff than you. I haven't seen many good comprehensive surveys of the situation from multiple standpoints, that's all.

Regardless of what happened in the past, and how horrible it was, the key now is deciding what the best thing is to do in the future, right? I think foreign investment is the most realistic way of helping. Donations and free assistance for these countries would be nice, but I can't see it happening, and when it comes down to it, most taxpayers don't want to help the 3rd world 'that' much. A harsh reality, but probably the truth.