[Closed] Monbiot on the psychology of left and right (political content)

Explain what makes me confused?
A TRUE Marxist regime would be the fairest, would it not?
But a TRUE Marxist regime will never ever work. People are at large stupid lieing self serving hypocritical barstards, weather they care to admit it or not.
Ergo there will always be some pigs more equal then other pigs.

A labour government has proven to be disasterous oh so many times to the economy and social fabric of this country, and with the denizen of this fair isle being stupid, self serving, and hypocritical they still get voted in. "Because my Dad voted Labour" "Because they look after the working man" "Because they wont cut my Dole"
Tie a red rag to a goat and some idiot will put an x next to its name, without giving a seconds thought as to why its better for the country to vote labour.

A Tory government is in the main made up from industrialists, captains of industry, trying to get richer from the sweat of your labour.
They are TRYING TO MAKE MORE MONEY.
This increases taxes, This increases capital in circulation this increases wealth for EVERYONE
Think about it. When you get a bonus, you mostly spend it.. On bike stuff, on car stuff, on meals out. This means LBS, car dealers restaurants, sandwich shops or whatever benefit from your increased earning. Thier earnings increase. This can stimulate GROWTH.
growth means the possibility of more people needed in work. These people earn. These people go out and buy.

Capiche?

Fair comment, I sometimes don't express myself as I would like to in written form.

Same here! Thanks for the understanding 🙂 (non sarcastic)

I think everyone should be forced to be nice, by law

That sounds great. The ultimate left-wing policy though isn't it? 🙂

"I don't like the government spending MY MONEY!!!"

It's not yours if you don't have a right to it in the first place.

A lot of people make the mistake of looking at the before-tax number on their payslip. It's bigger, so they get jealous.

£25k a year doesn't mean £25k a year, so why act as if it does then someone's come along and pilfered it?

U31:

The right wing are not just trying to make tons of money for themselves. The idea is that if people are allowed to create wealth then everyone should get at least some of it. That theory has holes, but in reality it's what's worked best so far. The countries with the highest standard of living are the capitalist ones. That includes Scandinavia etc - although they are more socialist than most of the West they are still capitalistic insofar as free enterprise is what drives the economy mostly.

The reality is that both the left and right wing paths would work in theory (given a capitalist system), but both have holes. I do however think that each path results in a different kind of society...

The Trickle Down Theory?

Which is WHY i state i have Marxist ideals whilst voting Tory, i understand that all political models have flaws, and the least flawed ( to the best of my knowledge )with our current societal values seems to be Tory.

Any political system that fails to take human nature into account is doomed to failure. Political ideology has to change to fit humanity, not the other way round.

Of course, what we define as human nature changes markedly over time, meaning that what worked as a political system in the past is seen as unacceptable now. No wonder no one can agree on anything.

Personally, I'm in favour of democratic socialism, small scale anarchism or a benign dictatorship.
Sadly, none of these have appeared on my ballot paper as a viable option for quite some time.

Of course, what we define as human nature changes markedly over time

Mmm yes. I wonder if the public respond to governments, or the other way round?

For example, in the 80s with Thatcher, did we all become that little bit more capitalistic?

In Scandinavia, people seem to value their countries' socialist ideals.

Very difficult question Molgrips.

I would say that with continued exposure to a certain ideology, the middle ground of public opinion moves accordingly.

More interesting still is how human nature changes over time in respect of attitudes toward violence, the rights of the individual, religious orthodoxy, moral relativeism & objectivity, nature v nuture, the nature of authority etc.

You can never just recreate the past, or assume that solutions that worked then will still work now.

In respect of the original post, I would say that Monbiot's point was definitely correct 30 or 40 years ago, but as the political middle ground has moved to the right it's not so clearly defined now.

That includes Scandinavia etc - although they are more socialist than most of the West they are still capitalistic insofar as free enterprise is what drives the economy mostly.

Not sure about that tbh, suppose it depends what you mean. Bby far the biggest driver of the Norwegian Economy is Statoil where the biggest shareholder is the Norwegian government.

Also, the unions in the whole of Norway are incredibly powerful. This results in making it much more difficult to sack people and much more expensive to make them redundant. What this tends to mean in practice is that people are kept on in an economic downturn but their working hours are reduced with an appropriate reduction in pay. This happened to a few of my friends but they are all back to full time now and the company has not lost any of it's skilled workers.

Compared to my friends in the UK this is a much better system for both the workers and the companies. The UK companies I have experience of simply fire or make redundant 1 in 5 people which will be a problem once the economy recovers.

I'm pretty sure that this is only possible due to the fact that the unions are so strong in Scandinavia.

Saying all that, I would still describe myself as right wing. I think that central government is not good for large countries. I think that 3 - 5 million is a good population for a country or autonomous government, whatever you want to call it. This allows people to interact with politicians much more closely and makes government more accountable. Hell, I drink in the same bar as the Norwegian minister for culture.

George Monbiot is trying to offer simple solutions to complicated questions, the sort of thing previously the province of religious apologists.

There will never be a "perfect" system that satisfies everybody. How could there be, given the range of aspirations spread across the population?

We live in the shifting political zeitgeist caused by the conflict between two ideological extremes. Which, ironically enough, meet each other if you go far enough to the end of the line, only to find it turns into a circle.

I feel that this will always be the case. The most important thing is to maintain the space to keep the conversation going (in the macro sense), rather than allowing it to slide into an ideological cul-de-sac, from whence come the various nasty end-games that have occurred throughout history: Nazi Germany, Khmer Rouge Cambodia, Soviet Russia, Maoist China, Fascist Italy and so on...

I see nobody bothered with my Pop Quiz. Here's another one, from the same source:

“If you want something said, ask a man...if you want something done, ask a woman." 😉

Woppit is right, but I don't share his opinion of Monbiot.

He is writing newspaper articles to get people talking remember, not just dumping his brain onto paper.

molgrips - Member
Woppit is right, but I don't share his opinion of Monbiot.

He is writing newspaper articles [b]for the money[/b].

T.FIFY.

I'd have a lot more respect for 'right-wing' people if they just admitted they believed in social darwinism or whatever you want to call it - rather than trying to dress it up with this bullshit about 'trickle-down' and 'helping people to help themselves' etc

I think he indeed needs the money as a professional journalist, but I also think there's a reason he's not writing about ex-big brother contestants in the Sun.

I'd have a lot more respect for 'right-wing' people if they just admitted they believed in social darwinism or whatever you want to call it - rather than trying to dress it up with this bullshit about 'trickle-down' and 'helping people to help themselves' etc

I'd describe myself as a right winger these days but more because I want devolved government. Like I said before, I think that 3-5 million or possibly even smaller is a pretty good population for fair society.

However, within that smaller population I admit that I'm very socialist in my outlook so I don't really know how to describe myself. Libertarian or anarcho-socialist maybe.

So where do i lie in all this?
I class myself as ideally a Marxist, yet i know it can never work in this world, so vote Conservative as the best working alternative

LOL what an utter load of cobblers.

An interesting article. I suspect for our society to work well elements of both sides have to succeed, but the general situation needs to be one of balance. We have suffered badly from the pendulum swing in this country, others have suffered from the pendulum being stuck on either side. (As indeed we did to some degree under both Thatcher and Blair.)

Ah yes, the pendulum.. Does the swinging from side to side mean that we can't get any long term projects achieved? Is short-term electioneering harming the country?

Or do they secretly know this and have an understanding behind the scenes?

Err - the pendulum seems to have been stuck on the Right for the past 30 years and will be there for at least another 5. When is it due to swing back?

Good question. Although it was on the left for the 40 or so years before that.

How to make it swing back?

'm guessing he's thinking of the huge number of US millionaires who donate large amounts of money to charity, for example Bill Gates, Warren Buffet...

I'm not sure that 2 is a huge number 😕

Another hard of thinking STWer?
Explain to me how it's cobblers?

The right wing are not just trying to make tons of money for themselves.

Yes they are!

The idea is that if people are allowed to create wealth then everyone should get at least some of it. That theory has holes, but in reality it's what's worked best so far.

It's the only thing that's been tried so far!

And when you say "worked best" - you have to ask "worked best for whom?"

Unfortunately the very underpinnings of our economy move wealth from the poor to the rich. That is indisputable. That's how the likes of Gates, Buffet etc got to where they are. Our system cannot do other than produce a small rich elite, a moderate sized well off and a massive number of poor. Fortunately for us we are ALL in the well off group, and the poor are all in India/China/Africa/South America etc.

It's the only thing that's been tried so far!

What about the Commuist states?

And when you say "worked best" - you have to ask "worked best for whom?"

The poor in the UK are better off than the poor in China or North Korea, aren't they?

Unfortunately the very underpinnings of our economy move wealth from the poor to the rich

Not at all. I am inherently a socialist but even I can see that the opposite is true. The poor would not have any money if it wasn't for the rich creating industries and markets. It has always been that way going right back to the first civilisations.

How can you get money from poor people? They are poor.

Dont try to win your argument by stating facts, Mol...

Heh 🙂

It tends to be a balance though - there comes a tipping point, even for self-serving filthy rich catflaps - when social improvement becomes beneficial. If the rich are too rich and the poor too poor then criminality increases and has a direct affect on their [s]insurance[/s] lifestyles.

The main problem we suffer from is a deeply flawed economic model that doesn't take into account social (apart from here HSE legislation contains them) and ecological costs. This means the rich truly become rich at the expense of everyone else.

However I do know people who are staunchly right wing and do have a high degree of empathy and compassion, only they tend to restrict it to other Daily Mail readers like themselves.

And don't get me started on the alleged Gates rags to riches story....

and ecological costs

Ah yes.. the environment.. the MAJOR flaw in the plan!

We are seriously gonna need a third way PDQ. Although, is it really a third way? We still need to keep on producing and consuming, but it's going to have to be something that has little or no impact on the planet.

Get your thinking caps on folks...

How can you get money from poor people? They are poor.

Oh dear.

You know all those goods that are made in sweatshops, minerals that are dug out of holes in the ground, crops that are grown overseas....?

Is it rich people doing that?

Money is just a proxy for labour, and when I last looked it seemed to be the poor doing most of the labouring and the rich thinking up the systems to stop them profiting from it.

Or am I wrong?

its almost as if there's a new dawning of common sense on this site 😯

I bow to Milton Friedman on this issue:

You know all those goods that are made in sweatshops, minerals that are dug out of holes in the ground, crops that are grown overseas....?

Is it rich people doing that?

Come on mate, let's keep this a grown up discussion.

Yes, I understand that people work to make things. However, they get paid to do it, so money is flowing TO the poor people.

The question of use of wealth and power to exploit poor people to make their lives miserable in the name of profit is different altogether.

I work, I get paid well. My counterpart in China is probably not getting paid well. What's the difference? I think it's legislation and government. Most western countries are now converging on a middle ground between protecting workers rights and allowing capitalism to make money and redistribute it amongst society.

A labour government has proven to be disasterous oh so many times to the economy and social fabric of this country

Err, there have only been 6 post-war labour governments (if you count different PMs as separate, only 4 if considering continuous periods in govt). This on it's own would seem to contradict your 'oh so many times' assertion. One of these was very successful, resulting in post-war reconstruction, the welfare state, NHS and near full employment. Another one was also pretty successful, resulting in 11 years of economic growth, massively improved investment in public services and very low unemployment until it was undone by an economic crisis caused by global macro-economic forces over which they had little control. And lets not forget the massively successful tory governments, like the Heath govt which resulted in a 3 day week, or Thatcher which ended with millions on the dole, the destruction of the country's industrial base (for which we are now paying the price), social breakdown and inequality. Not to mention the Major Govt which was such a massive success!

This increases taxes, This increases capital in circulation this increases wealth for EVERYONE

You've obviously been reading 'Economics for Dummies'. I think the situation is slightly more complex to be honest.

Capiche?

Jesus! You really are stuck in the 80s aren't you.

No, WEALTH is flowing away from them. The fact that they get paid a dollar a day isn't making them richer. It is hooking them into a system that exploits them.

My counterpart in China is probably not getting paid well. What's the difference?

Exactly. What is the difference?

Waht explanation is there except that the rules have already been set up so that your counterpart in China loses out (relatively speaking) to you? In other words, wealth flows from the poor to the rich.

[i]resulting in 11 years of economic growth, massively improved investment in public services[/i]

hmmmm, even Blair admits in his autobiography, by 2006 the Labour Govt. were spending waaaay too much money

I thought in keeping it at something akin to economics for dummies, i was squarely floating the concept at an intellectual level low enough for you to grasp..

Maybe i aimed to high?

Low unemployment? Sticking people out of work, on benefits other then jobseekers allowance - to massage the figures, doesnt mean Labour beat the unemployment issue, surely?

Also, is this the same Economic growth that was created by artificially creating the property boom?
Great idea that one. It was plain to see that this was unsustainable, the bubble had to burst.

No one on the first step of the property ladder can now afford a house, and people looking to rent are now at the mercy of private landlords.
Private landlords who are at the mercy of Buy to let mortgaging.
The rents taken on houses bought in that period are just about covering mortgage repayments because of the artificially inflated purchase price of the place. Meaning low income households are forced in to paying a massive portion of thier income in rent. Meaning they are better off on housing benefit. meaning they are better off unemployed.

i) Would the people and national finances of Zimbabwe/China/Romania be better off without investment and money coming in from the "rich west"?

ii) Would protectionist trade laws benefit first world countries? Would you rather have two million people employed on (relative to national average wage) poorly paid jobs employed in the UK, or two million people employed in India on (relative to national wage) very well paid jobs.

iii) free trade prevents wars, discuss! 😉

Also, is this the same Economic growth that was created by artificially creating the property boom?

Ermm who do you think artificially created this property boom?

I would reckon that we'd start at the late 60's (or was it early 70's) when the house price cap was removed.
Then the glorious <ahem> Thatcher years when everyone was encouraged to get a mortgage.
Followed by the allowance of two incomes to be used for mortgage applications - subtly undermining feminism by ensuring that both people in the house had to work.
Add a bit of loose'n'fast by the mortgage companies when flexing the 3x salary rule for a mortgage, then sprinkle a bit of middle England getting enourmous pay off's from their houses and disappearing south to foreign climes with their pensions.
Finally underpin with Hedge funds re-[s]laundering[/s]badging bad loans as good.

Then blame the gov't when it all goes bristols up. Despite the city flexing it's political muscle every election (just look at the vote swinging for the Major election after the city decided it wanted to keep the Tory gravy train rolling)

And relax 8)

'm guessing he's thinking of the huge number of US millionaires who donate large amounts of money to charity, for example Bill Gates, Warren Buffet...
I'm not sure that 2 is a huge number

lol, fair point. And checking Wikipedia the pledge Gates has made is for billionaires, and 50% not 99%. But I think my point still stands, being (filthy) rich doesn't mean you're necessarily lacking in empathy.

I think when Thatch was in power, we may have actually still been a manufacturing nation..

The last economic boom was almost purely based on tirtiary services, producing very little actual physical produce

...the unions in the whole of Norway are incredibly powerful. This results in making it much more difficult to sack people and much more expensive to make them redundant. What this tends to mean in practice is that people are kept on in an economic downturn but their working hours are reduced with an appropriate reduction in pay. This happened to a few of my friends but they are all back to full time now and the company has not lost any of it's skilled workers.

Compared to my friends in the UK this is a much better system for both the workers and the companies. The UK companies I have experience of simply fire or make redundant 1 in 5 people which will be a problem once the economy recovers.

I'm pretty sure that this is only possible due to the fact that the unions are so strong in Scandinavia.

The unions are pretty strong here in Spain, and would never accept members lowering pay - which basically means companies don't hire as many people as they could, and when they do hire it's short term contracts all round. Funnily enough Spain's at 42 in the World Economic Forum's global rating, and has had double-digit unemployment for the past 20 years.

dazh - Member
And lets not forget the massively successful tory governments, like the Heath govt which resulted in a 3 day week

Brought about in response to the Yom Kippur War and industrial action by the NUM.

Of course, We musn't overlook the massively successful Labour Government which oversaw the Winter of Discontent.....

My point being that it's very easy to look at any government through whatever biased prism you want. Painting broad brush generalisms such as 'A labour government has proven to be disasterous (sic) oh so many times to the economy and social fabric of this country' is pretty silly.

On a more general point though about the economy, I'd like someone from the 'it's all the labour's fault' camp to explain to me just what opposition the tory establishment and their supporters were voicing to the laissez-faire, light touch regulatory regime which caused this mess.

Funny how when the city was lining it's pockets they were all shouting 'Regulation is bad, leave it to us to make the country rich!', and then when it all goes tits up they shout 'It's all your fault for not regulating us properly!'.

i) Would the people and national finances of Zimbabwe/China/Romania be better off without investment and money coming in from the "rich west"?

Ah, now I see, when we invest in those third world countries it is for their benefit!!! Actually, the serious answer to your question is that I think many indigenous populations would have been "better off" had they been left to their own devices and that even now they are hooked into a global economy many poor people would still be better off if they weren't being exploited by the "rich west". Unfortunately, for historical reasons we are all tied to the dollar. For years China has been prepared to take dollars as payment for work done by its population, but those dollars are now only worth anything so long as China doesn't call in it's debts. Catch 22. China needs the US to keep buying goods it can't afford and for its own people to carry on working for virtually nothing.

Would you rather have two million people employed on (relative to national average wage) poorly paid jobs employed in the UK, or two million people employed in India on (relative to national wage) very well paid jobs.

I don't see why that has to be an either/or question. I think a more reasonable question would be "Is it right that a hundred human beings live in poverty to support one human being living in luxury?"

iii) free trade prevents wars, discuss!

I don't know. I can't think of any example of free trade in action.

Funnily enough Spain's at 42 in the World Economic Forum's global rating, and has had double-digit unemployment for the past 20 years.

Yes, I'd hate to live in Spain...

Yes, I'd hate to live in Spain...

You would if you (used to) work in construction.

Edit: I live here, and enjoy it - but then I'm in IT and live in a nice area in the countryside. Being unemployed in one of Madrid's poorer suburbs would be very grim, no different to anywhere else really.

Being unemployed in one of Madrid's poorer suburbs would be very grim, no different to anywhere else really.

Exactly (again). No different to anywhere else.

Probably no different even, to being poor in the county that is top of the World Economic Forum's global rating, whichever that is, because when you are poor, life is shit, and don't expect the rich to be giving you a hand up.

Given that, to maintain any sort of generally healthy society, it is necessary to create wealth, the only question is - how is it to be "distributed"?

How do you prevent, in a global economy, the wealth creators (owners of capital) seeking the cheapest cost base (wages/taxes/setup/materials) which may well be elsewhere, depriving your exchequer of vital funds?

We are currently seeing that question enacted here. I do not expect a comfortable outcome, given the vengeful attitude currently being put about (rightly or wrongly as it may be).

In other words, wealth flows from the poor to the rich

Still not convinced. A shedload of money has left the West and gone to the East to pay for all the goods and services we buy from them. A lot of businesses in emerging economies are there to make stuff for the West.

t I think many indigenous populations would have been "better off" had they been left to their own devices

I really don't think so. If you read the accounts of early world travellers, some frighteningly horrific things happened back then. You read about civilisations collapsing, fair enough - but what actually happened was tens of thousands of people starving to death.

Standards of living are improving across the developing world (as long as they can keep war and corruption out of it) because they are joining in the global economy.

YES there is a lot of exploitation which is terrible, but either way money is still going from us to them.

We almost certainly should be paying them more for less work, but labour is not necessarily exploitation. They want to work (within reason), we want the goods, no problem.

I have not read the whole thread but here is a thought for you. Thatcher had a real job as a food chemist. Her main achievement was Mr Whippy icecream. A way to beat air into it to provide a ice cream that 10 p worth looked bigger.

Only a tory would diddle children on icecream for profit.

Ah, now I see, when we invest in those third world countries it is for their benefit!!!

No, I'd suggest its for everyones benefit

Actually, the serious answer to your question is that I think many indigenous populations would have been "better off" had they been left to their own devices and that even now they are hooked into a global economy many poor people would still be better off if they weren't being exploited by the "rich west".

I think that is taking a very comfortable "western" view of living in an undeveloped world predominated by subsistence farming, its easy to sit on our laptops in comfortable homes with expensive bikes thinking "oh, they'd be better off without our profligate bourgeois capitalist rat race," but I'd suggest that if it came to the reality of growing your own food and living in a mud hut, then none of us would be quite so keen. I don't think someone in a yurt in mongolia in december with no health care would necessarily feel "better off", and I think us STW'ers would be crying into our turnip soup begging to go back.

Unfortunately, for historical reasons we are all tied to the dollar. For years China has been prepared to take dollars as payment for work done by its population, but those dollars are now only worth anything so long as China doesn't call in it's debts.

Fair comment on China and the stability of the Dollar, but I'd suggest that, had china not been so in hock to the states, and vice versa, then there would have been a serious military conflict between the two in the course of the last twenty years - again, if we look at the level of subsistence farming and poverty present in china just thirty years ago, along with the loss of live in large famines in and around the great leap forward then the change in conditions is massive, can it come further? clearly yes, but it will take time - the same applies to india for example.

What free trade leads to in the long term is a levelling of the playing field - we buy coffee off them, they buy mobile phones off us, we buy raw materials to make phones off another country, and they end up buying phones and coffee off both of us, the wheel turns another circle. As sure as eggs is eggs, if we put up the price of our phones to "exploit" them, then the cost of living there goes up, and in turn we get charged more for our coffee!

To the true libertarian, Freedom of movement is another arm allied to the principles of free trade, and we can see ourselves the effects of that in our own country, with the plethora of colours and cultures in any high street, look at the money which flows from here to abroad from people working here to improve the lot of themselves and their families at home (count the western union credit transfer signs in your high street) and consider that all these countries are in the ascendent, and I think are likely to equal or surpass us in the future - I don't view that as a bad thing.

Catch 22. China needs the US to keep buying goods it can't afford and for its own people to carry on working for virtually nothing.

Catch 22 both ways, america needs to keep china on side to keep their own people in cars and cheap TV's, if and when china does start calling that in, we could see huge rises in the standard of living in china, and huge drops in that of the states, but sooner or later you have to pay the piper - that doesn't mean that the west is going to be "less wealthy" to make up for the rise in chinese standards, but as we all know, we and the US have been living on credit for a while.

Still not convinced. A shedload of money has left the West and gone to the East to pay for all the goods and services we buy from them.

By definition, not as much as would have been spent producing the goods and services here. Therefore we are decreasing the relative wealth of the people doing the work.

QED

By definition, not as much as would have been spent producing the goods and services here. Therefore we are decreasing the relative wealth of the people doing the work.

Really, because it seems to me that £3 per hour is worth a lot more to someone in Zimbabwe than £4 per hour to someone in the UK. [b]for now at least[/b] (ie, in fifty years time, it could be us making cheap stuff for them!)

The true source of wealth creation is from resources - and trade allows every country to capitalise on this wealth (be it good soil for growing grapes, coal, manpower or mineral resources)

How can you get money from poor people? They are poor.

By not giving it to them in the first place.

What free trade leads to in the long term is a levelling of the playing field - we buy coffee off them, they buy mobile phones off us, we buy raw materials to make phones off another country, and they end up buying phones and coffee off both of us, the wheel turns another circle. As sure as eggs is eggs, if we put up the price of our phones to "exploit" them, then the cost of living there goes up, and in turn we get charged more for our coffee!

I wish it were true, but in the real world those pesky trade barriers prevent them from trading fairly with us, libertarianism in action there.

I was just going to post exactly what Z11 posted 🙂

How can you get money from poor people? They are poor.
By not giving it to them in the first place.

But we are giving it to them. We can safely give them a lot less than we'd give someone here and it still equates to plenty of money for them. Because they live in poor countries and their living costs are low.

They have a fixed resource - 8 hours a day of labour. We can either pay them fairly for it or not. Wealth is still flowing to them, the question is, is ENOUGH wealth flowing to them.

We do take their time and effort from them, that's true. However, if we didn't do that and give them money in return, they'd be packed off to the countryside to scrape out a subsistence living, which isn't really much fun.

Re free trade - trade is good, completely free trade is bad because market forces can cause trouble. Google NAFTA and the dumping of cheap surplus corn on Mexican markets thereby depressing the price and making it hard for the Mexican corn farmers to make living.

"Ah, now I see, when we invest in those third world countries it is for their benefit!!!"

No, I'd suggest its for everyones benefit

That's not my experience of global companies / capitalism. A few examples that come to mind are:

Union Carbide in Bhopal
BP in the Gulf of Mexico
Palm oil in Indonesia (now being touted as a sustainable fuel to burn!!!)
Coca-Cola in Kerala
Deforestation and slavery for beef production in Brazil - all for export to the west
Blood Diamonds in Africa
Sweatshops supplying Nike and Primark etc.
Shipbreaking in Bangladesh
Tigerprawn production / destruction of mangrove swamp (and livelihoods) in SE Asia
The industrialisation of illicit drugs and all that goes with it
Halliburton in Iraq
Shell in Nigeria

The list is pretty much endless. There are thousands of examples of western companies out for all they can get. Slash and burn and move on.

Rprt - those are all companies that did terrible things and exploited poor people.

HOWEVER

You do not HAVE to exploit poor people when you trade with a developing nation. And many companies do not.

Really, because it seems to me that £3 per hour is worth a lot more to someone in Zimbabwe than £4 per hour to someone in the UK.

Not if they want an ipod.

You do not HAVE to exploit poor people when you trade with a developing nation. And many companies do not.

You don't HAVE to, but, way, way too many do.

Like I said earlier on, we can only live the lives we live because there are shed loads (literally) of people far away doing things we don't want to.

Like I said earlier on, we can only live the lives we live because there are shed loads (literally) of people far away doing things we don't want to.

Do you think they'd rather be working in a factory on £3 per hour, or scratching in the fields in a subsistence farming agro economy?

As I said earlier, its easy to romanticise when its not us wondering where the next meal is coming from.

Think of it this way - in the UK we regard call centre workers as pretty low down the pecking order - in India its a prestigious well paid job that a great many people would bite your arm off for.

You don't HAVE to, but, way, way too many do.

Agreed. See the fair trade initiative though.

Like I said earlier on, we can only live the lives we live because there are shed loads (literally) of people far away doing things we don't want to.

Yes, but they are often happy to do it because there's either not much work otherwise, or it pays well.

People flock over here from Eastern Europe to pick fruit or some such horrible work - they are happy to because they make tons of money. As long as they don't end up with somoneone exploiting them.

In Spain a while back they decided to crack down on illegal immigrants - who were being paid low wages. They did it successfully. The fruit lay rotting in the fields and lots of people in Eastern Europe were out of a summer job.

Molgrips - worth mentioning that most of those Eastern European workers work like bastards and save their money, so they can sent it back to their families at home. Credit to them!

But we are giving it to them. We can safely give them a lot less than we'd give someone here and it still equates to plenty of money for them. Because they live in poor countries and their living costs are low.

They have a fixed resource - 8 hours a day of labour. We can either pay them fairly for it or not. Wealth is still flowing to them, the question is, is ENOUGH wealth flowing to them.

Wealth is not flowing to them. It works like this:

A worker in some third world country produces $11 worth of goods (at our prices).

We pay them $1 - that is $1 into their economy.

So that leaves $10 paid into our economy.

In other words their effort serves only to increase THE DIFFERENTIAL between their economy and our economy.

They will never be able to compete with us in buying resources, because we can always pay more for the things we really want.

However, this is a gross oversimplification due to a few other very big problems in the world.

1) We have finite resources and seem to be on (or beyond) the brink of using many of them.

2) As resources become rare more (not fewer) people will find goods and services beyond their grasp.

3) The US/China situation as mentioned above.

4) Our entire economy is based on debt. It REQUIRES economic growth to function.

In other words their effort serves only to increase THE DIFFERENTIAL between their economy and our economy.

If someone here did the work for $1 then there'd be $11 differential between their wealth and ours, instead of $10.

You're assuming they could make more than $1 elsewhere in their own country OR that they could make a $10 item on their own and that someone in their own country could buy it from them. Neither of which are a given.

Or to put it another way, if it wasn't for us there'd be no market for them to sell stuff, so no manufacturing and no job. (in some things not all).

Do you think they'd rather be working in a factory on £3 per hour, or scratching in the fields in a subsistence farming agro economy?

I think they'd rather be doing neither.

But while we have all the power and only give them those choices it's tough sh1t isn't it?

Monbiot is a simplistic fool. Who are 'the poor'? Are they all the same then? Can you lump them all into one mass and characterise them? Are people who graft the same as those that don't because they have the same income? Is everyone on benefits simply denied a chance? Is every wealthy worker uncaring? Simple caricatures tell you more about the prejudices of the writer than they do about the situation they describe. And its a fundamentally flawed piece of cod psychology. Other than that, no problems with it.

molgrips, you are making my point for me:

if it wasn't for us there'd be no market for them to sell stuff, so no manufacturing and no job

And you think that we take that responsibility seriously?

I agree with you that we have all the power.

My point is that we choose to exploit it ruthlessly.

If you had a brother and you were both on a desert island starving, then someone gave you a shopping trolly full of food. Do you think your brother should be grateful if you decided to let him have a biscuit?

And you think that we take that responsibility seriously?

No I don't!

My point is that we choose to exploit it ruthlessly.

I completely agree.

Hopefully, going forward, we can start to rebalance things a bit. Many major companies will stop using factories that don't meet minimum standards of conduct. IRONY ALERT: This is probably just because of market forces though, in that people don't want to buy from a company with a negative image 🙂

We also have stuff like fair trade, which is good even if it just raises the profile of these issues. Now "everyone knows" that some people are being ruthlessly exploited. A lot don't care, but at least it's common currency. After a while, it'll become commonplace to buy and stock fair-trade.. compare that with the free-range egg story.

And you think that we take that responsibility seriously?

I agree with you that we have all the power.

My point is that we choose to exploit it ruthlessly.

If you had a brother and you were both on a desert island starving, then someone gave you a shopping trolly full of food. Do you think your brother should be grateful if you decided to let him have a biscuit?

RPRT - are [b]you[/b] yes [b]you[/b] willing to trade it all in tomorrow?

Get rid of your bike, get rid of your computer, get rid of your comfortable western lifestyle and give three quarters of everything you own to others?

Nope, thought not!

In which case you're going to have to be realistic, accept you're part of the problem, and accept that you cant solve this tomorrow - but that by giving a proportion of our business, trade and wealth to those countries we can gradually improve their lot, to the point where, as I said before, we begin to level the playing field/

So what happens when China and India are the new USA? We look to Africa. Then they become the new Chindia and we have to start getting the penguins in Antarctica to make our washing machines for us...

I've just explained why I think that current arrangements aren't "improving their lot."

And what you refer to as "giving a proprtion of our business" I'm afraid I would characterise more as "taking a proportion of their resources"

The personal stuff is just silly.

Given that, to maintain any sort of generally healthy society, it is necessary to create wealth, the only question is - how is it to be "distributed"?

How do you prevent, in a global economy, the wealth creators (owners of capital) seeking the cheapest cost base (wages/taxes/setup/materials) which may well be elsewhere, depriving your exchequer of vital funds?

If you had a brother and you were both on a desert island starving, then someone gave you a shopping trolly full of food. Do you think your brother should be grateful if you decided to let him have a biscuit?

but that by giving a proportion of our business, trade and wealth to those countries we can gradually improve their lot, to the point where, as I said before, we begin to level the playing field

* if rptpor myself gave up all worldy goods it is difficult to see how the global world is a fairer or better place by this act- I see just one more poor person personally. If we took the FTSE 100 list and the top 10,000 richest folk and made them do it might make a bit more difference to the playing field

I've just explained why I think that current arrangements aren't "improving their lot."

Do you not think their lot has improved over the last 50 years?

And what you refer to as "giving a proprtion of our business" I'm afraid I would characterise more as "taking a proportion of their resources"

Same thing, isn't it? Resources are worthless without a market.

We have had capitalism/trade for at least a few centuries but I see little equality nationally or globally.

We've had capitalism and trade for five thousand years at least. However we've only had global trade on this scale for 50 years or so, more if you consider the British Empire as a trade network.

I think most people in poor countries would want us to take their resources, as long as we give them money in return.

most people in poor countries would want us to take their resources, as long as we give them money in return.

Nike + others do not set up in cheap countries except to make lots of money from them and the profit goes to the rich people in the west.

As far as I understood it, a lot (no idea of the percentage) of our goods are not made in Nike or whatever branded factories, but locally owned and run factories that have just been awarded contracts to make stuff like any other factory. I've read a fair few stories where a company (eg Gap) was accused of using sweat shop labour but they'd acted in good faith and it was the factory owners who'd been screwing their own staff.

We all agree here. They need our business, but we don't always play fair.

yes but we make more than them - what they need is a fair share of the wealth not just a biscuit from our trolley.

Yes, like I said a page ago.

Take the example of oil companies in the Niger Delta - there is loads of money being made, how much of it is going to the local poor do you reckon? Meanwhile the environment there is being completely raped so people can't fish or farm any more without poisoning themselves.

But of course they should be grateful for our kindness in investing in their povvy country in the first place.

For once, I agree with grum.

I think most people in poor countries would want us to take their resources, as long as we give them money in return.

[url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/gallery/2010/mar/05/curse-black-gold-nigeria#/?picture=360077948&index=0 ]Niger Delta photo essay[/url]

by giving a proportion of our business, trade and wealth to those countries we can gradually improve their lot

[url= http://www.edwardburtynsky.com/ ]Photographer Edward Burtynsky has documented (among other things) shipbreaking in Bangladesh - go to the "ships" section to see how we are "gradually improving their lot"[/url]

Standards of living are improving across the developing world

[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/14979580@N02/ ]Photographer Sebastiao Salgado documented gold mining in Brazil[/url]

Etc...