Trust Poirot to rush in with the arguments for starvation.

I remember when the Chinese were waving Mao’s litte red book, and starving by the millions, under the wonderful Marxist system that you are in favour of. (Oh that’s right, not even Marx agrees with you.)

And now through bitter experience of what a distaster statist collectivism is, they are getting on with improving their lives, and all we hear from the left wing is complaints about how dreadful it is.

India recently passed laws banning child labour, urged on by the ILO and no doubt supported by you. But like you, and like it says in the article, they thought only of the immediate effects of their policy, and didn’t think it through to its conclusions for all groups. The ban was followed by a huge upsurge in child prostitution. Well what did you expect them to do? Starve?

And what about the poor children who couldn’t even make a living by prostitution? Would it make it easier for you to understand what you are arguing for, if the cause of death was entered in the official reports as “Economically illiterate meddling by comfortable well-fed Westerners”?

Arjay, if what you were saying were true, Australians would have to compete with Vietnamese workers by working for 30 cents a day. The reason they don’t do that, is because they don’t have to, do they? This means your theory is wrong.

Sarnian
So the environment in China is "totally destroyed"? There's none left? They have no land, no farms, no rivers, no forests?

Starvation is better than freedom apparently?

You are all back to the fallacy of thinking that free trade causes poverty. If that’s true, why not abolish it altogether?

You guys should try thinking with your forebrains about the consequences of your policies, instead of emoting with your mid-brains about how wonderful you are, paid for at the cost of the starvation of innocent people who don’t deserve to die because of your ignorance.

To reinforce Peter's point, the UN website has a wealth of data on poverty levels, life expectancy, infant mortality and other objective measures of human welfare. All are improving dramatically in tandem with China's stellar economic growth.

"Protectionism by its very logic only ever succeeds in feathering the nests of vested interests while simultaneously striking a blow against the principles underlying freedom and society at home and abroad."

Multinationals, by their very logic only ever succeed in feathering the nests of vested interests while simultaneously striking a blow against the principles underlying freedom and society at home and abroad.

Free trade is basically multinationals who go wherever resources are currently the cheapest.

What happens after they leave is none of their business.

Governments, which are hopefully for the people by the people, should have more long term interests about their country.

No correlation has ever been found between free trade and the Human Development Index.

At the end of the day, free trade will marginally improve the standard of living of the very poor countries, but at the same time reduce the standard of living of the rich countries by a very sustantial amount. There can be no other possible outcome. You are living in la la land if you think otherwise. The current economic turmoil is just a foretaste of things to come.

David

Peter Hume,

Thanks for that..."starvation" not being an emotive word.
And yes, China has marginally improved the lot of many many of its people, but the sheer cost to the environment renders the continuation of such a model unsustainable. India has enjoyed stellar growth as well, but hasn't been nearly as successful at looking after its population. It falls way behind China on the Global Hunger Index.

I'm just wondering, Peter, what your thoughts are about libertarian capitalism regarding China's success. It seems China's industrial revolution has a lot in common with Britain's before reforms were enacted.

A useful insight, Poirot. This could indeed be a valuable and salutary model, that we can examine in forensic, dispassionate detail, and possibly learn something.

>>It seems China's industrial revolution has a lot in common with Britain's before reforms were enacted.<<

The genesis of Britain's industrial revolution was, in some commentators' eyes, the introduction in 1709 of coke smelting to the ironworks at Coalbrookdale in Shropshire. It set the pattern of high energy-consuming processes supplanting manual labour, and was further assisted by innovations on the land that reduced the labour requirement there also. This allowed the mass migration from the land to the industrial centres.

http://www.fatbadgers.co.uk/britain/revolution.htm

The resulting increase in pollution is also well documented. London's "Great Stink" of 1858 highlighted the problem of effective sewerage, which was tackled by Sir Joseph Bazalgette's system of concrete-lined sewers in the 1860s. But air pollution was not fully conquered until the mid-twentieth century. I have personal memories of some dramatic London smogs, which eventually led to the Clean Air Act of 1956.

So, if we look at the timeframe involved in that industrial revolution, what we learn is that we need to think in terms of many decades. We need to come to terms with the less attractive by-products of China's successful transition to a more comfortable lifestyle - one that as developed nations we have aspired to over the centuries, and ultimately achieved.

The question must be asked. What, apart from indignantly flapping our arms about, should we do about it?

To gain some perspective on the question it may be useful to ask what, in hindsight, should the rest of the world have done about the impact on Britain's environment of its industrial - and economic - development?

Any thoughts, Poirot?