Victoria’s Secret Revealed in Child Picking Burkina Faso Cotton

reply to post by v1rtu0s0


Great video, a perfect example...you'd like the one I posted a few pages back (probably saw it already).
Predatory Capitalism, that's a very appropriate name for what we're under.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


It's simple, responsible consumership is being made impossible by the companies who buy these products. We can change that. It's just a choice to be responsible, nothing more or less. Many companies can bring a reasonable and reliable product to market without relying on slave labor. Our economy is driving this bus, and we need to take responsibility for that. I know, it means being responsible for our actions and being fiscally accountable, but it's really not that hard. It's just less profitable. The issue is not slave trade or bankruptcy, the issue is enormous profits, and until we stop rewarding companies for their inefficiency on a management level our world will never readjust. The many don't need to suffer for the few. That is not communism, that is being reasonable. Things keep getting worse, and they will continue to unless there is a change. I can't believe that people are content to see this as the issues of the third world. We bought into that world by promising those people freedom. Wouldn't it be nice to say that we as a nation didn't propagate income disparity and serfdom somewhere?

Interestingly, the Fair Trade people are trying to combat this child labor issue with boycotts, but it is diabolical that it is being portrayed as a perversion of Capitalism, when the govt is still communist and has vast state run farms and allows child labor on private farms, but private farms are not allowed to sell their product outside the govt, which to my mind muddles the private/public thing. So Fair Trade boycotts the cotton of Uzbekistan, the biggest exporter of cotton, and cotton is the main product there.

The World Fair Trade Organization (WFTO) joins the boycott of Uzbek cotton amid reports of Uzbekistani government’s refusal to stop organized forced child labour and adapt international labour standards in the country's cotton industry.

www.wfto.com...

reply to post by VivaDiscordia


The issue I have is that people are calling this free market economics and Capitalism, when in fact Uzbekistan still runs mostly by communist rule. Democratic socialists are still trying to blame all human rights violations on the evils of Capitalism.
If VS wants to support the poor people of Uzbekistan by purchasing their supposedly certified Fair Trade product, then finds out that the govt allows child labor, then Bloomberg's tries to mask the communist part of it by suggesting that VS had some kind of dirty deal with a private partner.
And people here fall for it.
We have a people here yapping about denying bargaining, but it never occurred to that person that Uzbekistan is still primarily communist. Then we have another person suggesting that communism is free market capitalism which is absolutely the most illogical thing I've heard in my life.
I hate to use the face palm cliche but....

reply to post by VivaDiscordia


So what are you trying to say, that we should not purchase any cotton from Uzbekistan due to this child labor because we don't need VS panties(the horrid consumers that we are) and we sure don't need to buy their cotton at artificially high Fair Trade prices, and oh let's just have them sell it to China instead.
Good thinking. Why didn't I think of that.


And by the way, the issue of the OP and the Bloomberg piece is child labor. But Bloomberg is conveniently putting all the blame on the evil VS and not on the communist govt for allowing child labor, and/or forcing people in general to work on the cotton farms. None of that every came into the Bloomberg piece because the author of the article did not look into it deeply.


Ironically, Salon.com has called Bloomberg news service "just a liberal propaganda mill". Is that akin to shooting yourself in the foot or what?
open.salon.com...

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


I don't deny that Uzbekistan should be responsible for it's people, but this wouldn't occur if there wasn't a market for it in the US. We are the consumers, and it's our dollars these production states compete for. The buck stops here, or at least it should. Let's stop blaming countries we acknowledge as corrupt for our choice to buy from them. It's one of Adam Smith's founding tenants of Capitalism that responsible consumership forces a market to adjust accordingly. We throw our economic weight around all the time, let's do some good with it.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


You consider the price of reasonable work conditions an artificial expense? You believe it's not the consumer's responsibility to spend wisely. I'm not saying live like cavemen here, I'm just saying we should spend responsibly, and to adress you concerns, I don't think we have to worry anytime soon about China cornering the global underwear market.

reply to post by VivaDiscordia


There is nothing Adam smithish about social engineering in the marketplace. His theory is that when people are allowed the freedom to pursue a living based on free market ecnoomics, they are willing to work very hard to achieve their goals and in doing so, provide a service for the community.
en.wikipedia.org...

In economics, invisible hand or invisible hand of the market is the term economists use to describe the self-regulating nature of the marketplace.[1] This is a metaphor first coined by the economist Adam Smith. The exact phrase is used just three times in his writings, but has come to capture his important claim that by trying to maximise their own gains in a free market, individual ambition benefits society, even if the ambitious have no benevolent intentions.

By the time he wrote The Wealth of Nations in 1776, Smith had studied the economic models of the French Physiocrats for many years, and in this work the invisible hand is more directly linked to the concept of the market: specifically that it is competition between buyers and sellers that channels the profit motive of individuals on both sides of the transaction such that improved products are produced and at lower costs. This process whereby competition channels ambition toward socially desirable ends comes out most clearly in The Wealth of Nations, Book I, Chapter 7.

Even that wiki entry was likely written by more of a liberal person than a conservative one, as he she later suggests that "Economists who emphasise the distorting effects of these forces include Marx and Keynes and Stiglitz."

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Victoria's Secret .. the OTHER secret ... women don't really look like those models and putting those clothes on (or TRYING to put those clothes on ) doesn't make you look like a super model but Victorias Secret wants you to think you will so you'll spend $$ on their clothing.

Hmmm.
This post seems oddly placed and personally bitter.
To that I can only say, speak for yourself.
Not everyone is mad at VS because they are out of shape.

Originally posted by VivaDiscordia
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

You consider the price of reasonable work conditions an artificial expense? You believe it's not the consumer's responsibility to spend wisely. I'm not saying live like cavemen here, I'm just saying we should spend responsibly, and to adress you concerns, I don't think we have to worry anytime soon about China cornering the global underwear market.

It is not my consideration to be had. I was citing what I researched about Fair Trade and their mechanism. Although their exact term is not "artificial" but I used that as a synonym for placing a price floor higher than that of the market price which makes it "artificial". Perhaps "arbitrarily" higher than market value is more accurate.
Please see the wiki link for a graph depicting a price floor mechanism, which the US govt also uses to subsidize our farmers in the States. The US govt also uses price ceilings when it suits them.

Here is another explanation of price floors

Price Floor: Regulated price, cannot charge below this price. A price floor will be binding if it is set above the true equilibrium price. A binding price floor will lead to surplus because the price is too high (Qs > Qd).

A Price Floor is designed to benefit producers by raising the price they receive, while hurting consumers as they
must pay a higher price.

www.uwec.edu...'t_intervention_303.pdf


This is technically govt intervention and not the true value of the self-correcting marketplace.

Let me know when you get sick of inflation.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


That's not entirely true. Smith was a moralist and believed in the impetus of consumers to spend wisely and work hard. Keynes took it a step further by implying that something like Locke's social contract existed between the producers and the means of production. Let's end this debate with an easy question. Do you want slavery to continue anywhere on earth? We have the power to be part of the solution.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


That why I encourage regulation. There are ways to make a product cheaper, but some of those ways are morally unacceptable. Sure, companies should look for ways to deliver products to market at the lowest cost, but we must accept that there are some lines that shouldn't be crossed. I would hate to see an end to ingenuity, but slavery is not ingenuity. Its a condition that is to be risen above

To respond to your edit, the price floors set on items such as the one in question exist to control competition from international interests by providing a stable base to sell from and ensuring reasonable profits for domestic goods. Inflation is largely due to devaluing of currency by monetary circulation, not trade prices. Our national debt creates the peaks and valleys of economy, which in the long run produces healthier business PTA ices, unless they get bailed out.

Originally posted by VivaDiscordia
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

That's not entirely true. Smith was a moralist and believed in the impetus of consumers to spend wisely and work hard. Keynes took it a step further by implying that something like Locke's social contract existed between the producers and the means of production. Let's end this debate with an easy question. Do you want slavery to continue anywhere on earth? We have the power to be part of the solution.

While he may have believed that consumers should spend wisely, does that also mean that a consumer should feel so responsible for the producers of a product that he is willing to pay a price higher than the market value? I thought that was classified as consumer advocacy. I guess you are not a fan of Ralph Nader, or the FTC for that matter

The Federal Trade Commission is the nation's consumer protection agency. The FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection works For The Consumer to prevent fraud, deception, and unfair business practices in the marketplace. The Bureau:

www.ftc.gov...


That being said, free marrket economics implies that there is an agreement between a buyer and a seller at an agreed upon price.
So Fair Trade is still relatively within the realm of what the market will bear as long as people feel a moral responsibility to pay a higher price for a commodity.

Of course you tried to end this debate with a direct question to me implying that I somehow agree with the abject horror of child slavery. This, even after I have gone to great lengths to prove that this is not an error of Capitalist venture, but as usual, you and others still want to make it that.
With the activism of OWS demanding things like direct democracy and and an end to Capitalism, let's end this discussion with my question to you, do you advocate the ending of Capitalism?

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


Fair enough, it is a conceit and a trap of a question and for that I apologize. To answer you question, no but I think we need to acknowledge a slippery slope of responsibility, and if that doesn't start with child slavery, than where will it start. On a prsonal note, thank you for your civillity. This is one of the few fact driven debates I've had on ATS.

Originally posted by VivaDiscordia
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

That why I encourage regulation. There are ways to make a product cheaper, but some of those ways are morally unacceptable. Sure, companies should look for ways to deliver products to market at the lowest cost, but we must accept that there are some lines that shouldn't be crossed. I would hate to see an end to ingenuity, but slavery is not ingenuity. Its a condition that is to be risen above

To respond to your edit, the price floors set on items such as the one in question exist to control competition from international interests by providing a stable base to sell from and ensuring reasonable profits for domestic goods. Inflation is largely due to devaluing of currency by monetary circulation, not trade prices. Our national debt creates the peaks and valleys of economy, which in the long run produces healthier business PTA ices, unless they get bailed out.

edit on 18-12-2011 by VivaDiscordia because: (no reason given)

Whatever the reason for the price floor, it really acts as an intervention in the free market economy, eliminating natural controls of market value. In the case of Fair Trade, it is a mechanism of using a charitable market solution to ostensibly lift a segment of poor workers out of poverty.
I'm aware of the mechanism by which printing money out of thin air creates inflation. I have familiarized myself with G Edward Griffin's "Creature from Jekyll Island" . But that is not the only mechanism for inflating prices.
I do not support central banking private or nationalized. Some here are advocating nationalizing the Fed instead of eliminating it.

Here is another mechanism of inflation

Another common cause of inflation is a rise in production costs, which leads to an increase in the price of the final product. For example, if raw materials increase in price, this leads to the cost of production increasing, which in turn leads to the company increasing prices to maintain steady profits. Rising labor costs can also lead to inflation. As workers demand wage increases, companies usually chose to pass on those costs to their customers.

and this

Finally, inflation can be caused by federal taxes put on consumer products such as cigarettes or fuel. As the taxes rise, suppliers often pass on the burden to the consumer; the catch, however, is that once prices have increased, they rarely go back, even if the taxes are later reduced. Wars are often cause for inflation, as governments must both recoup the money spent and repay the funds borrowed from the central bank. War often affects everything from international trading to labor costs to product demand, so in the end it always produces a rise in prices.

www.wisegeek.com...

Originally posted by VivaDiscordia
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

Fair enough, it is a conceit and a trap of a question and for that I apologize. To answer you question, no but I think we need to acknowledge a slippery slope of responsibility, and if that doesn't start with child slavery, than where will it start. On a prsonal note, thank you for your civillity. This is one of the few fact driven debates I've had on ATS.

ok, yes emotions often run high.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


Economics and morality can coexist, and as things degrade further, they must. We didn't ask the Uzbekistan government to enable this but we can improve things. I won't lecture you further. There's no need. Debates are for the audience, not the debaters.

Originally posted by VivaDiscordia
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

Economics and morality can coexist, and as things degrade further, they must. We didn't ask the Uzbekistan government to enable this but we can improve things. I won't lecture you further. There's no need. Debates are for the audience, not the debaters.

I remember as a pre-teen, a friend gave me a book detailing the true story of a family exiled to Siberia during the communist revolution in the Soviet Union. It had quite an impact on me, as it detailed how they worked on the potato farms and ate potatoes forever. I cannot now remember the name of the book, but this is why it makes me furious when people claim that communism/socialism will or should replace all the evils of capitalism.


For the record, I just read a blog by a self described Marxist who claims never to buy Fair Trade because she likes her corn curls and processed cheese lifestyle and also criticizes Fair Trade because in her (Marxist) opinion, all trade is unfair....although she lauds the intent of Fair Trade to attempt to minimize exploitation of the evil Capitalism, she still believes it to be unfair empiricism.
Here is the blog(strictly for educational purposes, as I do not advocate Marxism)
freedomroad.org... n

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


We can agree there. I like knowing that we live in a society with upward mobility. Capitalism, for all its pitfalls, allows for a greater flexibility and a faster evolution of ideas than a Socialist or Communist economy.

Originally posted by rbnhd76

Originally posted by Kryties
reply to post by Domo1

 

Capitalism at it's finest.

Wait, what?

How the hell did you come up with that?

So, what's so much better?

Communism?

Nope, you get what the state gives you, child labor or not.

Socialism? LMAO

Some people..

On the OP..

I agree Domo, nobody should be picking cotton anymore..

Don't they make a machine for that?

Since, like, a hundred years ago?

WTF

edit on 17-12-2011 by rbnhd76 because: Forgot to respond to OP

Yes let's get them those machines and eliminate their jobs. Surely that will make life easier and better in third world nations. This is all so simple, and besides it makes me feel much better about myself. /end sarcasm/