John Humphreys, Agree with your post John.

As for Bronwyn and tubley, lack of insight or understanding has never been an encumberment to their ignorant misrepresentations in the past. so I doubt such considerations will effect them today.

Their creed presumes philanthropy is practiced by no one except Marxist socialist governments and anyone who remembers the Berlin Wall will recall how East Germans expressed their feelings on that matter.

If you want strong economies, you have to have markets to service and sell to. It is very difficult for any nation to practice xenophobic of trade protectionism whilst actively seeking market expansion for those products it does produce competitively and has a natural economic advantage with.

Rather than going to Calcutta (tubleys question) I would suggest try visiting Silicon Valley – if you want to learn about something it is always better to learn first how it “should be done” rather than how it “should not be done.”

As for off site discussions with tubley - Ha that would be fun now…. Oh how I am tempted.

Joh Humphries, Old Collywaffle, Economics is a reletively easy science. It is interesting that some seek to confuse economics for their own selfish ends.

tubley & Bronwyn, always enjoy your posts, I do not have indept knowledge on this particular subject, so will refrain from comment, as some others might have done.

tubley & Bronwyn, if either of you would like to discuss on email any topic my address is: shonganewman@bigpond.com I also have hotmail, but won't adversise it here, all the best to you both, Scout, you also are most welcome to contact if you would like,

Regards,Shaun

Leo,

Did you know that Gandhi didn't like the blacks of South Africa?

COLONIALISM /GREED/ HUMAN NATURE

How different things might have been, if the British took a different approach to China,India and Africa.

Colonialism itself is not a bad or evil thing. The idea of bringing a wider sense of commonality, language,structure and Security to volatile places is quite noble. History teaches us clearly and unambiguously that Nation A will either Rule Nation B or be ruled by it. This is based on the mutual understanding of family/tribal/city/national aspiration which seldom ends with a status quo of ‘equality’ which in international relations is rather nebulous and meaningless. Instead, nations/tribes are held at bay from each other by self interest, treaties, natural obstacles etc and alliances and balances of power.

The problem with colonialism was the greed which drove much of it. Imagine India without the exploitation which intruded into EVERY manufacturing process, owned by English to the complete exclusion of the Indians. Imagine China without the Opium trade,
Imagine Africa without the Slave trade.

Imagine New Zealand without the deceptive Treaty of Waitangi written in Maori and English, but saying slightly different but crucial things.

So the problems with Colonialism are more with the people who ran it. The greedy monarchs etc.
Yet, in some senses, Colonialist expansion was inevitable in the interests of survival. England or France or Spain or Holland alone could not withstand the accumulated military and economic power of any one of them to which a large colonial commonwealth was added.

Treaties are as important today as they were in early Arabia. Our Anzus treaty involves mutual obligation. Ours to support the USA in its protection of interests, they to protect us. Their protection is vital, we could not withstand a concerted attack by a vastly numerically superior enemy hell bent on subdueing us. A scary thought given nearly 200 million Muslims are on our northern doorstep.

Yes, complex, not perfect, but we are free. I am free to proclaim the Gospel of Christ, no special branch police will visit me after reading this. Hearers are free to accept or reject. Such freedom is worth preserving.

There is one serious flaw in your thinking tubley.

"It is a fact that the people given the task of making these things work in conditions highly comparable to slave labour"

If the conditions in which these people worked was in Auburn or Darebin, you would be fully justified in your attitude. However, they live in communities for whom work of any kind is manna from heaven, and work for above-average wages is absolute bliss.

You might like to consider a couple of alternatives.

Nike (or whoever) refuses to build factories in third world countries, because they would be "exploiting" the local population. Result: no injection of capital, wages, knowhow etc., and the local economy bumps along as before at starvation levels.

Nike (or whoever) refuses to build factories in third world countries, because they would be asked to pay the same wages as in any other location, thus making it uneconomic (that is, not worth doing).

China Shoe Corporation (or whoever) is in the same position. If they were to pay "world rates" - whatever they might be - to their staff, their product simply wouldn't be affordable (inside China) or attractive to overseas markets, because the price is too high.

Your approach would actually chain these people to their poverty. At the same time, we would be paying twice or three times (at least) the amount for locally produced footwear, which would have a very damaging effect on the poorest people in our own community.

Is this starting to make sense now?

Pericles, whilst I do acknowledge the message of your post, I find your acceptance of virtual slave labour mildly troubling. It is another example of comparing extremities and then deciding ‘it’s all too hard’, whilst ignoring any possibility of compromise.

As you may or may not know, pairs of Nike shoes are estimated to cost around $16.75 US with Indonesians who actually make them earning an average of $786 a year (although this figure could have risen slightly as it is only current to 2000). Now is this acceptable? Your argument appears to be that it is, since these people are getting employment and miraculously ‘lifting’ themselves from poverty by earning 15 bucks a week (I shudder to think the amount of hours that are actually worked in one week).

I do not deny that foreign investment can have its benefits, and that any employment is better than nothing. Nor do I totally blame the corporations – they are profit-making institutions accountable to their shareholders, how else could you expect them to act? But contrary to popular opinion, I do not find it ‘OK’ or normal that a human being can be paid barely poverty line wage rates so that a shareholder in a different country can receive an ‘extra tasty’ dividend that quarter and therefore afford to buy the latest plasma 456ft television.

Plainly, I do not see any problem with arguing for an increase in 3rd world wage rates. I’m relatively certain Nike and their shareholders have the financial capacity to absorb at least a doubling of current levels. Unlike pericles, I do not think that it would lead to a doubling or tripling of shoe cost. I can provide you a direct example of sneakers that are produced at elevated wage rates in Indonesia. Yet are actually cheaper than most other sneakers: http://www.newint.com.au/catalog/sneakers.htm?gclid=COnD7ayo34ICFQpNDgodZSygjA .

As I think with most of these matters, given the human importance of such issues, the question is not why, but why not? Manufacturing surely isn’t “uneconomic” just because labour costs are more than 3 dollars per day a worker