Slashdot Mirror

There had been no society in the history of the world that worked as you describe.

Wrong. Take a look at medieval Iceland. While the rest of Europe and Scandinavia was suffering under authoritarianism, Icelanders, with fewer natural resources, achieved a higher standard living and a more peaceful society.

in general, it's the countries with the higher welfare spending (and taxes, of course) that tend to have least poverty, best healthcare and education, and so on (Scandinavia, for example).

Wrong again. Take a look at Sweden? If they left the European Union and joined the United States, they would be the poorest of our 51 states.

You realize that multinationals, including Nike, tend to pay higher wages and have better working conditions than domestic companies in developing countries?

They can do this because they have access to better technology, management, and markets than the domestic industries do, and thus have higher productivity. Thus they pay more, and that is why people flock to work at maquilas.

Look at Johan Norberg's article about Nike workers in Vietnam. For example, they make three times the minimum wage of Vietnamese state-owned industries. The employees talk about how because of these factories, they can now afford to put their children in school, because in the old days they would have to keep the kids working on the farm all day.

I hope you are aware that Nike pays quite well compared to other jobs in countries where they operate.
http://johannorberg.net/?page=articles&articleid=5 3.

You know that most of Europe and a few other countries for some reason or other backs Kerry

We do?

Well, it wouldn't be surprising, considering what we're being told, over and over again.

(Translation of the Swedish quote in that blog:
"And I don't think that Swedish media have any responsibility whatsoever to be impartial regarding the US election. It's not like we have any reason to be impartial and report on the views of both sides like we would in a Swedish election. It's not like we do this in other international matters. We wouldn't do so about the election in Tunisia, or about Saddam Hussein, or anything else.")

You Americans are complaining about the embarrassing bias and anti-intellectualism of one of your many TV channels; Fox. From what I've seen of that (granted, it's clips selected by Swedish media) it seems pretty disgusting. But here all channels are like Fox, only in reverse, and there are practically no alternatives. With 70% of the journalists voting socialist or communist, it doesn't matter much who owns the media.
Bush is mean and stupid, and to the right. Kerry is not Bush, so he must be good and smart and to the left, just like everyone of us (despite him being American, which is Bad, but during the election the ABB agenda is in effect - Anyone But Bush).

I'm sorry to see similar sectarianism here on Slashdot, so I'll post anonymously, so my precious karma can be saved for "news for nerds" topics when this damn election is over.

Note that he's using the word liberalism on his page in the european sense, ie an american would say libertarianism.

/August.

If they had to be paid US minimum wage, they would be out of a job.

Please read The Noble Feat of Nike, by Johan Norberg, where he visits a Nike factory in Vietnam and talks with the workers about why they like working for them.

I could comprehend this sort of ethical myopia if it were regarding some necessity of life. If my personal survival depended on Wal-Mart keeping its prices low, I probably wouldn't care how they did it. But to refuse to worry about their business practices because they supply you with "cheap electronics?" I don't think the word "disgusting" begins to cover your attitude.

I recently watched a very interesting documentary by Johann Norberg entitled Globalisation is Good (shown on Channel 4 in the UK a few weeks ago) in which he argued quite compellingly that the low labour cost "sweatshop economy" phase is a necessary transitional step from a third world to a successful modern economy. He also showed how the reality for people working in the "sweatshops" is often a lot better than commonly portrayed in the media.

I think Norberg has a point. The ethical issues are certainly a lot more complicated than people who take your kind of moral tone like to admit. I'm sure you have the best of intentions, but try to look beyond the anti-globalisation banners occasionaly for ethical perspective. Wal-mart is probably helping the countries it buys from, as well as the American consumer, and probably the American economy as well.