An Economy of Liars

[ksbluesfan]

Gerald P. O'Driscoll Jr. writes about capitalism and regulation in the Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704508904575192430373566758.htm)

...If we want to restore our economic freedom and recover the wonderfully productive free market, we must restore truth-telling on markets. That means the end to price-distorting subsidies, which include artificially low interest rates. No one admits to preferring crony capitalism, but an expansive regulatory state undergirds it in practice.

Piling on more rules and statutes will not produce something different than it has in the past. Reliance on affirmative principles of truth-telling in accounting statements and a duty of care would be preferable. Deregulation is not some kind of libertarian mantra but an absolute necessity if we are to exit crony capitalism.

I'm not an economist, so this makes no sense to me. Is O'Driscoll saying we should just allow the corporations that have been lying to start telling the truth and that we will achieve this through deregulation? Didn't we go through a period without regulation until the 1920s or 1940s? How were consumers protected then?

[Aepervius]

It is absolute non sense. The result of the current crisis was *deregulation* when many oversight was removed.

[PixyMisa]

The current crisis has many parents, including deregulation, bad regulation, and near-zero real interest rates.

[drkitten]

I'm not an economist, so this makes no sense to me.

I think (charitably) is that what he's saying is that most of the existing rules and regulations could be jettisoned if companies would simply start telling the truth (and acting in accordance with a duty of care).

Which is true in a very naive fashion, in the same way that we could get rid of most of the criminal code and replace it with a law stating "Be Excellent To Each Other."

The problem, of course, is that some people would NOT be excellent to each other, and some companies would NOT tell the truth, and that people would disagree about what "excellent" (or "the truth" or "care") meant,... and we'd end up with just as complicated a set of rules and regulations emerging from the inevitable court cases where the court decided that, while "being excellent" demands that I mow my own law, it doesn't demand that I mow yours (no matter how "excellent" you would find it).

[Loss Leader]

Well, I agree with him that subsidies change how the market would behave without them. Beyond that, I don't think asking companies, "Are you really, really sure you want to lock in your answer?" constitutes sufficient oversight.

[uruk]

It's all about human nature. Socialism suffers because people are lazy, Capitalisim suffers because people are also greedy.

The only way both systems can work properly without some form of regulation is if there is a fundamental change in human nature. After several hundred thousand years of development, I am not hopefull.

Capitalisim cannot work unless there is some form of regulation. History bears this out.

[dudalb]

It's all about human nature. Socialism suffers because people are lazy, Capitalisim suffers because people are also greedy.

The only way both systems can work properly without some form of regulation is if there is a fundamental change in human nature. After several hundred thousand years of development, I am not hopefull.

Capitalisim cannot work unless there is some form of regulation. History bears this out.

Something Libertarians simply do not understand.

[kevinquinnyo]

It's all about human nature. Socialism suffers because people are lazy, Capitalisim suffers because people are also greedy.

The only way both systems can work properly without some form of regulation is if there is a fundamental change in human nature. After several hundred thousand years of development, I am not hopefull.

Capitalisim cannot work unless there is some form of regulation. History bears this out.

"If one rejects laissez faire on account of mans fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action." -Ludwig von Mises

[drkitten]

"If one rejects laissez faire on account of mans fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action." -Ludwig von Mises

Ludwig von Mises is simply wrong.

One of the best-known and most reliable ways of controlling for fallibility and moral weakness is transparency in collective action. For example, even the private sector has generally accepted that two people are less likely to collaborate to embezzle money from the company than a single person -- hence many (most) companies have a multi-signature system for spending money (at least for large purchases). Similarly, "juries" and "boards" are used even by private organizations to improve the quality of decision making.

Rejecting laissez-faire in favor of collective action is simple common sense.

[uruk]

"If one rejects laissez faire on account of mans fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action." -Ludwig von Mises

How did Regan put it? "Trust, but verify"?

Laissez faire only works if those who are "left on thier own" were guided by some moral or ethical guide lines to prevent them from abusing the leeway they have been given.

History shows that unrestricted laissez faire more often than not results in abuse rather than moderation. Recent history (i.e. Enron, Goldman Sachs , AIG, etc..) appears to support this notion.

When it comes to money, all bets are off. Todays mantra is "get as much money as you can, anyway you can" regardless of the consequences.

[kevinquinnyo]

How did Regan put it? "Trust, but verify"?

Laissez faire only works if those who are "left on thier own" were guided by some moral or ethical guide lines to prevent them from abusing the leeway they have been given.

History shows that unrestricted laissez faire more often than not results in abuse rather than moderation. Recent history (i.e. Enron, Goldman Sachs , AIG, etc..) appears to support this notion.

When it comes to money, all bets are off. Todays mantra is "get as much money as you can, anyway you can" regardless of the consequences.

No, that's just you being really cynical.

So 3 companies out of 30 million = "...more often results in abuse?"

[uruk]

No, that's just you being really cynical.

So 3 companies out of 30 million = "...more often results in abuse?"

True, But these are just the ones who did the grand wholesale ripoffs and criminal activities that made it to the news recently.
This doesn't even scratch the surface of the little, easily looked over things corporation do on a daily basis. I guarantee that if you dig long enough you will catch a corporation doing any number of illegal, unethical, and imoral things. Either by actions of an individual or condoned by thier boards.


History is replete with other examples. Child labor, 70 to 80 hour work weeks, no days off, no vacations, company stores, sweat shops, slave labor, improper, hazzardous waste disposal, unsafe working conditions, usurp governments, war profiteering, black mail, payoffs, graft, payola, bribery, illegal labor, insider trading, stockmarket rigging, strong arming small business, forced byouts and mergers, monopolies (both vertical and horizontal), sabotage, supressing competition, (so much for the free market), undercutting, price fixing, bait and switch, theft, murder, perjury, and so on.

I may seem cynical but I've work for enough companies (big and small) in my short 45 years to have seen a few things.

You know how people are when it comes to money. What they are willing to do to get it.
A corporation is a group of people with same goal in mind.

[daenku32]

Ludwig von Mises is simply wrong.

One of the best-known and most reliable ways of controlling for fallibility and moral weakness is transparency in collective action. For example, even the private sector has generally accepted that two people are less likely to collaborate to embezzle money from the company than a single person -- hence many (most) companies have a multi-signature system for spending money (at least for large purchases). Similarly, "juries" and "boards" are used even by private organizations to improve the quality of decision making.

Rejecting laissez-faire in favor of collective action is simple common sense.
What often seems to poke out at me during the arguments about the individual vs government, is that non-governmental collaboration is often just glossed over.

[drkitten]

What often seems to poke out at me during the arguments about the individual vs government, is that non-governmental collaboration is often just glossed over.

Of course. That's because Libertarianism can only survive by "glossing over" inconvenient facts. And because there are so many inconvenient facts that completely destroy Libertarianism that you end up covering the entire world in a shimmery sheen.

The basic problem is that very few things in the world are pure, and purist views -- especially reductionistically purist ones -- are almost invariably oversimplified to the point of being wrong. Libertarianism is a reductionistically purist view of government, and is therefore wrong.

And Kevin is not just a libertarian, but an anarcho-capitalist, a group that can be roughly defined as "libertarianism without the bits that make sense."

[H'ethetheth]

It's all about human nature. Socialism suffers because people are lazy, Capitalisim suffers because people are also greedy.And both of them suffer because people don't really care much about people they don't know.

[kevinquinnyo]

True, But these are just the ones who did the grand wholesale ripoffs and criminal activities that made it to the news recently.
This doesn't even scratch the surface of the little, easily looked over things corporation do on a daily basis. I guarantee that if you dig long enough you will catch a corporation doing any number of illegal, unethical, and imoral things. Either by actions of an individual or condoned by thier boards.


Well, are you talking about corporations specifically, or all companies?


History is replete with other examples. Child labor, 70 to 80 hour work weeks, no days off, no vacations, company stores, sweat shops, slave labor, improper, hazzardous waste disposal, unsafe working conditions, usurp governments, war profiteering, black mail, payoffs, graft, payola, bribery, illegal labor, insider trading, stockmarket rigging, strong arming small business, forced byouts and mergers, monopolies (both vertical and horizontal), sabotage, supressing competition, (so much for the free market), undercutting, price fixing, bait and switch, theft, murder, perjury, and so on.


I don't want to sound like a corporate apologist here, first. I hate corporations, especially big ones that abuse their power.

Consider that many of the items on your list are actually symptoms of a problem, not problems themselves.

We had to work long hours in the past, because we were less productive. The world had less wealth, less tools, less manufacturing processes, less roads, less transportation systems, etc, etc. Life used to be really hard for the average person. This isn't because of unethical employers so much as it's simply that life sucked, because we could only produce so much "stuff" or wealth with x amount of hours of work. That's everyone in every class, across the board.

Sweat shops, again, are a symptom of the problem of countries with poor property rights and oppressive governments. They aren't the problem. In fact, sweat shops help people in 3rd world countries, because even 10cents an hour is better than 0 cents an hour.

If you don't like sweat shops, then try to improve the property rights and infrastructure in those countries, you can't blame the company.

And I'm not denying there are abuses, but for you to say that "most of the time companies are unethical" is just wrong.

Corruption, collusion, abuse, or otherwise sociopathic behavior is rare, and an exception, not the rule.



I may seem cynical but I've work for enough companies (big and small) in my short 45 years to have seen a few things.

You know how people are when it comes to money. What they are willing to do to get it.
A corporation is a group of people with same goal in mind.

Again, corporations, or companies? Corporations are more prone to sliminess because they lobby the government for exclusive rights to markets, no-bid contracts, kickbacks, back room deals, etc

[drkitten]

Again, corporations, or companies? Corporations are more prone to sliminess because they lobby the government for exclusive rights to markets, no-bid contracts, kickbacks, back room deals, etc

Because, of course, no proprietorship or partnership would possibly engage in such behavior....

[uruk]

Well, are you talking about corporations specifically, or all companies? What is the significant difference when both have identical goals to further thier bottom line? I am refering to both so for this argument I am using them interchanably.

I don't want to sound like a corporate apologist here, first. I hate corporations, especially big ones that abuse their power.

Consider that many of the items on your list are actually symptoms of a problem, not problems themselves. I understand this. But this statement is really irrelevent.

It is thier unrestraint persuit of profit that is the problem. That is the cause of the symptoms.

We had to work long hours in the past, because we were less productive. The world had less wealth, less tools, less manufacturing processes, less roads, less transportation systems, etc, etc. Life used to be really hard for the average person. This isn't because of unethical employers so much as it's simply that life sucked, because we could only produce so much "stuff" or wealth with x amount of hours of work. That's everyone in every class, across the board. I disagree with your assement here. Remember there was also less people back then. There was less demand for "stuff" and services.
To be fair in some areas of working conditions there was very little knowledge about toxic materials and processes so I give a little leeway, but for the most part there were no labor laws or regulation back then to limit what the companies and corporation could do.

There was no incentives or enforcable laws that made companies think about or consider the safety or benefit of thier employees. To the companies and corporations labor was just a resource no different or deserving of any more consideration than any of the other resources used to produce goods and services.

That is why labor unions formed. That is why the people forced the government to enact labor laws. That is why regulations are necessary.

Sweat shops, again, are a symptom of the problem of countries with poor property rights and oppressive governments. They aren't the problem. In fact, sweat shops help people in 3rd world countries, because even 10cents an hour is better than 0 cents an hour. America had sweatshops up untill the 40's. Did we have poor property rights and an oppressive government back then? What changed?

And I've heard the .10 cents and hour is better than 0 cents and hour argument before. Hey what about $1.00 and hour? what about $5.00 and hour? Don't those also sound much better than 0 cents and hour?

Oh, wait, It'll upset the local economy and create chaos and cause the poor country to finally developing a small middle class. There's no concern about the poor country developing a small upper rich elite. That doesn't seem to throw the poor country into any economic chaos that anyone seems to care about.

don't like sweat shops, then try to improve the property rights and infrastructure in those countries, you can't blame the company. Corporations and companies like sweatshops in other countries. It provides for them a huge, cheap labor force where there are no labor and regulatory laws. Sounds like the good old days to me.

Nike et.al has children making the running shoes and the clothes we all are wearing. Where are the child labor laws in those countries?

A few years ago there was a rash of babies being born with out brains (anacephaly) in a few cities near where I live along the Mexican/American border. The defects were due to tantalum contamination in the water supply (since we get our irregation water from the Rio Grande river). The tantalum was traced back to an electronics manufacturing plants in Mexico owned by an American corporation/company. (Remember NAFTA and maquiladoras? Look here if you don't remember - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maquiladores)

They were dumping waste material into the Rio Grande river. Do you think that a manufactering facility could do that here in the U.S.?

And I'm not denying there are abuses, but for you to say that "most of the time companies are unethical" is just wrong. You are just aware of the abuses that make it to the media. Did you ever hear about those contaminated, anacephalic babies where you live? How aboutr some of these issues: http://www.bing.com/search?q=tantalum+contamination+along+mexican+bord er&src=IE-SearchBox

Any of those ring a bell? And that is just concerning the unregulated dumping of chemicals by U.S. manufacturers in Mexico.

A side note here, Many U.S. corporations have moved thier facilities to other countries partialy because Mexico is enacting environmental laws and the people are demanding higher wadges. Good bye Mexico, hello China, India, Indonesia, etc...

Corruption, collusion, abuse, or otherwise sociopathic behavior is rare, and an exception, not the rule. Not as much as seem to think. Again, most people are only aware of what gets reported to the media, which is the big news worthy stuff.

In many ways corporations and companies are like the general public. There are people who are for the most part honest, but that does not mean that do not do some small illegal or unethical things from time to time. God knows we are all not saints, Why would that be different for companies and corporations?


Again, corporations, or companies? Corporations are more prone to sliminess because they lobby the government for exclusive rights to markets, no-bid contracts, kickbacks, back room deals, etc I refer to both. Both are organizations composed of people who are concerned about profit and costs. In that respect there is very little difference.

Lassiez-Faire for compainies and corporations is like anarchy for people. It is a bad idea to let people carry on without laws or enforcing/regulating bodies because the individual cannot be trusted to behaive honestly and properly. The public, without laws, will degenerate into chaos and suffering will abound.

Why would this be different for corporations and companies? History showed this to be the case, that is why there are labor laws, unions, regulations and regulatory bodies.

[kevinquinnyo]

It is [companies'] unrestraint persuit of profit that is the problem. That is the cause of the symptoms.

This is where I disagree, and I implore you to consider that you're wrong about this.

"Pursuit of profit" is not a problem. The problem is that the people that are working at sweatshops in other countries have to. They don't have another choice. You can bet that if there were opportunities to start their own Nike, they would do it in a heartbeat. Right now, investment capital does not flow into those countries. Even the high stakes gambler investors are terrified to put money into those countries. But why? It should be an opportunity for an unbelievable payoff.

The main reason, by far, that the risk of investment is so high, is because property rights are poorly defined. Were for instance, land rights clearly defined, contractual, and enforceable, and the people were freer to pursue entrepreneurship, money would flow into those countries like a firehose. It wouldn't take long for those countries to become wealthy.


I disagree with your assement here. Remember there was also less people back then. There was less demand for "stuff" and services.
To be fair in some areas of working conditions there was very little knowledge about toxic materials and processes so I give a little leeway, but for the most part there were no labor laws or regulation back then to limit what the companies and corporation could do.

There was no incentives or enforcable laws that made companies think about or consider the safety or benefit of thier employees. To the companies and corporations labor was just a resource no different or deserving of any more consideration than any of the other resources used to produce goods and services.

That is why labor unions formed. That is why the people forced the government to enact labor laws. That is why regulations are necessary.


Yes, there were fewer people then. The fact that we have a bigger population now is one of the biggest factors in our increased productivity, and you're absolutely right about that. But the other big factor in increased productivity, is simply innovation. It took nearly 100 times as many man-hours to produce enough food to feed one person in the late 1800s as it did in the 1950s.


America had sweatshops up untill the 40's. Did we have poor property rights and an oppressive government back then? What changed?


We became more productive. Life got better. You can't just legislate a country out of poverty. It takes actual infrastructure and productivity. These are real things that make the gears of a country turn faster, and the wealth grow.


And I've heard the .10 cents and hour is better than 0 cents and hour argument before. Hey what about $1.00 and hour? what about $5.00 and hour? Don't those also sound much better than 0 cents and hour?


How about $10 an hour, or 10,000, how about a million dollars an hour for everyone...

The problem with your argument is that you don't differentiate between money and wealth.


Corporations and companies like sweatshops in other countries. It provides for them a huge, cheap labor force where there are no labor and regulatory laws. Sounds like the good old days to me.


So do the people who work there. I'm sure you're surprised to hear that, but they do. Compared to how they were working before, longer, for less, and many of them not at all, it is a better job.

But again, it's NOT the good old days. [edit: I know you know the good old days weren't so good. It's the reason why they weren't that we disagree. Just wanted to make that clear.] If you look at a developing country, it's like looking back in time to the U.S. It wasn't a great time. IUt was a brutal time. 200 years from now, future historians will view the 40-50 hour work week as brutal. That's because we will be so productive by then that we can afford to barely work. Life will be much better.


Nike et.al has children making the running shoes and the clothes we all are wearing. Where are the child labor laws in those countries?

Yes, well, consider that child labor laws, as important and necessary as they are, are a luxury of the wealthy nations. They could have such a law though, and probably be just fine, as long as the government eases trade, allows the people to be free to be entrepreneurial, and property rights are defined. It would not be long before the families would demand such a law.


A few years ago there was a rash of babies being born with out brains (anacephaly) in a few cities near where I live along the Mexican/American border. The defects were due to tantalum contamination in the water supply (since we get our irregation water from the Rio Grande river). The tantalum was traced back to an electronics manufacturing plants in Mexico owned by an American corporation/company. (Remember NAFTA and maquiladoras? Look here if you don't remember - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maquiladores)

They were dumping waste material into the Rio Grande river. Do you think that a manufactering facility could do that here in the U.S.?


No, I'm not arguing against laws that correct for neighborhood effects.



You are just aware of the abuses that make it to the media. Did you ever hear about those contaminated, anacephalic babies where you live? How aboutr some of these issues: http://www.bing.com/search?q=tantalum+contamination+along+mexican+bord er&src=IE-SearchBox


Seems like those made it to the media, since we know about them. Again, how about the other 29,999,996 companies?


Not as much as seem to think. Again, most people are only aware of what gets reported to the media, which is the big news worthy stuff.

Well, if it's not documented, how do you know it's true? Do you just assume that the media hasn't covered it, or they are all conspiracies of some kind? We'll need some evidence that "most companies are abusive."


In many ways corporations and companies are like the general public. There are people who are for the most part honest, but that does not mean that do not do some small illegal or unethical things from time to time. God knows we are all not saints, Why would that be different for companies and corporations?

Yes, why would it?


Lassiez-Faire for compainies and corporations is like anarchy for people. It is a bad idea to let people carry on without laws or enforcing/regulating bodies because the individual cannot be trusted to behaive honestly and properly. The public, without laws, will degenerate into chaos and suffering will abound.

This is a strawman argument. Laissez faire != lawless.

[uruk]

This is where I disagree, and I implore you to consider that you're wrong about this.

"Pursuit of profit" is not a problem. The problem is that the people that are working at sweatshops in other countries have to. They don't have another choice. You can bet that if there were opportunities to start their own Nike, they would do it in a heartbeat. Right now, investment capital does not flow into those countries. Even the high stakes gambler investors are terrified to put money into those countries. But why? It should be an opportunity for an unbelievable payoff. I said that unrestraint persuit of profit By companies, corporations, and individuals was the cause of alot of the problems.

Why invest in these countries when you can have direct access to the countries resources? (i.e. A local politician in the city I live in was an owner of vast orange orchards in Belize and used the locals as a cheap labor force. That was before he died recently.)

One of the reason that these countries do not develop investment capital and opportunities is due to an extent to the people in power. The people in power are invariably the rich people.

In many of these countries there is a huge divide between the poor and the rich. And the rich seem to want to keep it that way. These people usually deal directly with the U.S. corporations such as Nike so any profit to made from the deal with the U.S. corporation is not with the government but with the person in power. The public is placated in that they are now working and getting paid, but they are not getting paid enough so that they can form a middle class with some influance. The status quo is maintained.

The main reason, by far, that the risk of investment is so high, is because property rights are poorly defined. Were for instance, land rights clearly defined, contractual, and enforceable, and the people were freer to pursue entrepreneurship, money would flow into those countries like a firehose. It wouldn't take long for those countries to become wealthy.
There seems to be no poorly defined issues of the U.S. companies ownership of the land the factories are occuping.

This has more to do with the government of these other countries wanting the U.S. factories for either jobs for thier citizenry or for the kick backs the U.S. companies and corporations give to the political leaders or both.

Now here is the other issue. Companies and corporations started to move thier factories overseas back in the late 70s and early 80s. This movement caused the shut down of factories and massive layoffs all over the country. Tens of thousands lost thier jobs and cities and towns were slowly being abandoned because of the people leaving and seeking work in other areas.

Michale Moore got his start with Roger and Me where he documents and comments on the demise of Flint Michigan due to GM moving it's factories over seas.

The blame for the lost jobs was deftly shifted over to the illegal immigrants flooding our borders. No one seems to realize now that the loss of good paying American jobs was due to the companies and corporations moving the jobs over seas. And they are still doing it as one by one all of our jobs are being "outsourced" to other countries over seas.

The benefit of all this to us is that now our DVD players, computers, TV and what-not are cheaper. Which I suppose is a good thing because most of the people who were dispalced by the closings usually had to settle for lower paying jobs.

One side note to this that is of personal interest to me is that the cheaper electronic products and durable goods mean that local mom-and-pop electronic appliance repair shops were not able to support themselves and closed down. Why would you pay someone $40 and hour to fix a DVD player that costs you $25? You just throw the busted DVD player away and buy a new one.

I teach electronic rpair and computer maintenance at a local community college. Our electronic servicing degree plans have been "sun-setted" due to lack of enrollees. The only electronic servicing jobs are in Mexico. I live and work along the border. I see the manufacturing and service facilities for RCA, Microsoft (Xbox), SamsungUSA, PanasonicUSA, etc.. right across the border from where I work. I have visited these facilities in person.

Yes, there were fewer people then. The fact that we have a bigger population now is one of the biggest factors in our increased productivity, and you're absolutely right about that. But the other big factor in increased productivity, is simply innovation. It took nearly 100 times as many man-hours to produce enough food to feed one person in the late 1800s as it did in the 1950s.

We became more productive. Life got better. You can't just legislate a country out of poverty. It takes actual infrastructure and productivity. These are real things that make the gears of a country turn faster, and the wealth grow. I am not arguing that the government should control our economy. That is a bad idea. I am saying that government regulation of companies and corporations is sometimes necessary because these organization do not always have the people's best interests in mind.
History has shown that these organizations are more concerned with profit than the well being and saftey of their employees and the public in general.

There are several incidences both recently and in the past where this has been made clear.
Unsafe conditions are still present especialy in industries such as meatpacking plants. I have a friend who used to work for a nationaly reconized meat packing plants. Alot of his accounts are rather chilling.
And in the auto industry resistance to adopt automobile safety regulations. GM et.al actualy resisted to making thier cars safer by installing seatbelts and stronger windshields, plus other redesigns, because of the added costs and public perception.

How about $10 an hour, or 10,000, how about a million dollars an hour for everyone... The point is that both the foriegn country and the U.S. corporations/companies do not want the country to develop a middle class. This would jeapordize the status quo in that country that allows both the U.S. companies/corporations and the country's leaders they do business with to aquire large profits.

Did you ever notice why there are U.S. factories in Mexico employing thousand s of Mexican citizens yet there are still thousand of Mexicans still crossing the border?
Onr reason is that they know they can get paid more over here working in the fields and cleaning houses than working in a maquiladora. That is even though an illegal gets paid much less than his American counter part. The employer benefits in that the illegal gets paid under the table to avoid taxes and the employer does not need to offer health care coverage to the illegal.

The problem with your argument is that you don't differentiate between money and wealth. There is a difference between the wealth of a nation, the wealth of a company/corporation, and an individual. To an individual wealth can be aquired through the purchasing power of money. That in one of he reason a persons wealth is measured in dollars rather than GNP. The people who run companies and corporations aquire money in t form of salaries, bonuses, severence packages, golden parachutes, Stock options, and investments that return dividens.

So do the people who work there. I'm sure you're surprised to hear that, but they do. Compared to how they were working before, longer, for less, and many of them not at all, it is a better job. I said the people are happy because they are working and getting paid. But they don't realize that is really is not enough to make any real difference to thier condition. Theses people do not hold any upwardly mobile positions within the factory. They do not become mangers or supervisors or operations officers. Those higher paying positions are usualy helad by American nationals or the relatives of the political leaders. Of course I only have my personal experiance with the Mexican maquiladoras to go by.

But again, it's NOT the good old days. [edit: I know you know the good old days weren't so good. It's the reason why they weren't that we disagree. Just wanted to make that clear.] If you look at a developing country, it's like looking back in time to the U.S. It wasn't a great time. IUt was a brutal time. 200 years from now, future historians will view the 40-50 hour work week as brutal. That's because we will be so productive by then that we can afford to barely work. Life will be much better. No doubt technology and innovation will continue to progress, but human nature is progressing at a snails pace ib comparison.
I sure hope that is the case. But that con only be if we try to limit the set backs and abuses. I don't think you can argue that that incidents like Enron, Goldman Sachs, and the bail out progresses our economy.
The other argument is has the U.S. factories in foriegn conuntries really improved the standard of living for thier people. I can say that after 20 years in Mexico there has been no real change especialy along the border. (unless some from Mexico can show me otherwise)

Yes, well, consider that child labor laws, as important and necessary as they are, are a luxury of the wealthy nations. They could have such a law though, and probably be just fine, as long as the government eases trade, allows the people to be free to be entrepreneurial, and property rights are defined. It would not be long before the families would demand such a law. Unfortunately I do not see that happening soon. Not unless there is a change in gonvernment where the well bing of the population is a real and honest concern.
For now it seem the people in charge are happy with things the way they are. They seem to be doing very well for themselves.

No, I'm not arguing against laws that correct for neighborhood effects. I never said you were. I was showing you an example of an a little reported incident that shows a corporation's/company's lack of interest in the saftey of the people around them.


Seems like those made it to the media, since we know about them. Again, how about the other 29,999,996 companies? Yep, what about them. You can't every single companie or incident. Everybody does something immoral or illegal sometime. How many of us get caught doing it?
The world is not a perfect place where every single crime goes exposed and punished. The criminal gets away more often than caught.



Well, if it's not documented, how do you know it's true? Do you just assume that the media hasn't covered it, or they are all conspiracies of some kind? We'll need some evidence that "most companies are abusive."
The world is not a perfect place where every single crime goes exposed and punished. The criminal gets away more often than caught.
You cannot know what you are not aware of you can only go by what you know and make an estimate. There are 30 million companies and corprations as you say. you cannot be aware of what they are doing all the time. Just like there are 5 hundred million Americans, you cannot be aware of what everyone is doing at all times.

How many people do you know who down load music and movies illegaly? Lie on a tax form, cheat on a test, Call in sick when they are not, lie to another person, take home a pen from work etc. I can say that is safe to say that everyone has done at least one of these things at some time in thier life and will do it in the future at some time.
It is human nature.


Yes, why would it? Because companies and corporations are organisations of human beings, and it is human nature to do all those illegal and imoral things. if one person can engage in these activities then so can several people.


This is a strawman argument. Laissez faire != lawless.
Most definitions for lassez faire I have read have to do with runing business without government intervention restriction and regulation. That is essentially leaving the company or corporation to it's own devices. If it is a bad idea to let people have that leeway I would think that it would also be a bad idea to let companies and corporation have that same leeway.

An American citizen has freedoms but laws and regulations that serve to protect the person and others around them.

Why should that not be the case with business?

[uruk]

Sorry about the horrible grammar in my last post. I was somewhat distracted when writing it. I'll respond to any requests for clarification.

[Toke]

Today's headline in "Information"* is on how Maersk in El Salvador is forcing it's truck drivers to take lie detector tests. The primary purpose appear to be intimidation in order to keep unions at bay.

I worked at the Danish part of the company, without lie detectors.
My conclusion is that without regulation companies will go completely overboard in suppressing and exploiting the workers.

*Somewhat similar to the British Independent.