Politics

[Whiskeyjack]

Appreciate your rational perspective; often on these boards that goes out the window.

That said, I agree with you that there are costs to everything...and I think by your Churchillian comment, that you'd agree that capitalism has saved and improved more lives than it has made worse or destroyed...

Materially, yes. The average human today is healthier and wealthier today than at any previous point in history. My concerns about global capitalism focus mainly on civil society and community, though someone who's in danger of starvation doesn't worry about such things. Capitalism (and the technological advances it fosters) have lifted billions out of abject poverty, and will likely do the same for billions more in the coming years.

That said, it's often discussed as an absolute good, or an immutable law of the international order. This tends to blind us to its costs, and virtually ensures that its negative side effects continue to worsen. The forces of global capitalism do at least as much to undermine civil society as "big government", yet I've never heard a conservative politician mention it.

 

[Cackalacky]

Materially, yes. The average human today is healthier and wealthier today than at any previous point in history. My concerns about global capitalism focus mainly on civil society and community, though someone who's in danger of starvation doesn't worry about such things. Capitalism (and the technological advances it fosters) have lifted billions out of abject poverty, and will likely do the same for billions more in the coming years.

That said, it's often discussed as an absolute good, or an immutable law of the international order. This tends to blind us to its costs, and virtually ensures that its negative side effects continue to worsen. The forces of global capitalism do at least as much to undermine civil society as "big government", yet I've never heard a conservative politician mention it.

Yes. The idea that Capitalism is the pinnacle of human financial ideas and the base of a pinnacle society is a blinding one indeed. Anyone paying attention will notice that although most of the greatest inventions, ideas, commodities, etc. have been a joint effort between public governments and private companies, at some point profit motive overtakes the value of human life (usefulness) and should true capitalism take over, we can rest assured that more Texas fertilizer plants will start to happen again, wages and benefits will go down, and a growing disparity between the haves and have not's will surely occur.

Insurance companies are a prime example. If their algorithms of risk versus reward for you does not equate to them turning a profit, you are **** out of luck. You are nothing but a cost/benefit ratio to them.

 

[Emcee77]

No, I meant global capitalism. The problems it creates can't be solved simply by crying "moar regulation!"

Before someones goes all Joe McCarthy on me, I'm not anti-capitalist. As Churchill might say, it's the worst system of distribution, except for all those others that have been tried. But we still need to be honest about the human costs it entails.



Clothing manufacturers relocate to Bangladesh precisely because of its lack of regulation and cheap labor.

Whiskey, I'm curious what you see as the problem with global capitalism, in the context of the Bangladesh disaster, if not that it allows corporations to evade laws and regulations designed to protect workers by relocating production to jurisdictions that don't have any such laws and regulations. That was definitely what I thought you meant by posting that picture. Not that I'm anti-capitalist either; just curious what you are getting at.

The forces of global capitalism do at least as much to undermine civil society as "big government", yet I've never heard a conservative politician mention it.

Boy is that the truth. Wish I had a better idea. That Churchill quote really says it.

I'm reading "Cloud Atlas" right now. Has anyone read it? Great book, at least aesthetically. Talk about anti-corporate though. Def not for those doing the corporate thing.

Yes. The idea that Capitalism is the pinnacle of human financial ideas and the base of a pinnacle society is a blinding one indeed. Anyone paying attention will notice that although most of the greatest inventions, ideas, commodities, etc. have been a joint effort between public governments and private companies, at some point profit motive overtakes the value of human life (usefulness) and should true capitalism take over, we can rest assured that more Texas fertilizer plants will start to happen again, wages and benefits will go down, and a growing disparity between the haves and have not's will surely occur.

Insurance companies are a prime example. If their algorithms of risk versus reward for you does not equate to them turning a profit, you are **** out of luck. You are nothing but a cost/benefit ratio to them.

Yep, all this. Crack Slacky, read "Cloud Atlas".

I used to do insurance coverage litigation. I now do criminal law. I felt dirtier doing insurance coverage litigation.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Whiskey, I'm curious what you see as the problem with global capitalism, in the context of the Bangladesh disaster, if not that it allows corporations to evade laws and regulations designed to protect workers by relocating production to jurisdictions that don't have any such laws and regulations. That was definitely what I thought you meant by posting that picture. Not that I'm anti-capitalist either; just curious what you are getting at.

You're correct in that Bangladesh's lack of regulation was the proximate cause of this particular disaster. But it's a cartoonishly Progressive response to argue that the solution here is simply protectionist regulations at home and/or enforceable supranational regulations abroad, because the problems global capitalism creates are much larger than this.

For instance, after NAFTA came into existence, American companies built lots of factories in Mexican border towns. Lots of Mexicans left their families to take jobs in those factories. So now the family might be more materially secure, but the communities those Mexicans left have been seriously undermined. Are they better off?

We see the same thing here in the States. People change jobs and move to new cities all the time. Our culture promotes this sort of "churn", and our economy depends on it. But where's the community? So now the family lives in a cookie cutter suburban home with a big screen TV and 300+ channels, but they barely know their neighbors and have no one around to rely upon if and when tragedy occurs.

It strikes me as fundamentally hostile to human flourishing. And I don't have an alternative system to recommend. I just wish we were more cognizant of the costs involved.

 

[Emcee77]

You're correct in that Bangladesh's lack of regulation was the proximate cause of this particular disaster. But it's a cartoonishly Progressive response to argue that the solution here is simply protectionist regulations at home and/or enforceable supranational regulations abroad, because the problems global capitalism creates are much larger than this.

Whoa, I didn't say that; I was saying I thought you were saying that by posting the picture. I'm not sure I even think that. The proximate cause was the gangster/slumlord owner of that building not giving a **** about the safety of the workers who were enriching him by slaving for wages that are minuscule on the global scale.

For instance, after NAFTA came into existence, American companies built lots of factories in Mexican border towns. Lots of Mexicans left their families to take jobs in those factories. So now the family might be more materially secure, but the communities those Mexicans left have been seriously undermined. Are they better off?

We see the same thing here in the States. People change jobs and move to new cities all the time. Our culture promotes this sort of "churn", and our economy depends on it. But where's the community? So now the family lives in a cookie cutter suburban home with a big screen TV and 300+ channels, but they barely know their neighbors and have no one around to rely upon if and when tragedy occurs.

It strikes me as fundamentally hostile to human flourishing. And I don't have an alternative system to recommend. I just wish we were more cognizant of the costs involved.

All great points.

But what's it got to do with Bangladesh? Was your caption to the picture just a rhetorical flourish? I'm not sure a tighter community would have saved those workers.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Whoa, I didn't say that; I was saying I thought you were saying that by posting the picture. I'm not sure I even think that. The proximate cause was the gangster/slumlord owner of that building not giving a **** about the safety of the workers who were enriching him by slaving for wages that are minuscule on the global scale.

I guess that's a more accurate use of "proximate cause". My point is that GoIrish was technically right in pointing out the lack of regulation as playing a role here, but it's not really what I was getting at.

But what's it got to do with Bangladesh? Was your caption to the picture just a rhetorical flourish? I'm not sure a tighter community would have saved those workers.

It was mostly just my musing on the big picture:

• Western culture is heavily consumerist, which creates (among lots of other things) demand for cheap clothing.
• Global capitalism drives clothing manufacturers to Bangladesh due to the lack of regulation and cheap labor.
• Focus on profits instead of the well-being of stake holders results in tragedy.
• I push my shopping cart through Wal-Mart with a vacant expression on my face, grab a packet of cheap off-brand under shirts, and wonder why I feel so empty.
• Maybe I need a new job? Bet I could make more money on the coast...

My point wasn't clearly related to that picture, though. Just got me thinking.

 

[GoIrish41]

You're correct in that Bangladesh's lack of regulation was the proximate cause of this particular disaster. But it's a cartoonishly Progressive response to argue that the solution here is simply protectionist regulations at home and/or enforceable supranational regulations abroad, because the problems global capitalism creates are much larger than this.

For instance, after NAFTA came into existence, American companies built lots of factories in Mexican border towns. Lots of Mexicans left their families to take jobs in those factories. So now the family might be more materially secure, but the communities those Mexicans left have been seriously undermined. Are they better off?

We see the same thing here in the States. People change jobs and move to new cities all the time. Our culture promotes this sort of "churn", and our economy depends on it. But where's the community? So now the family lives in a cookie cutter suburban home with a big screen TV and 300+ channels, but they barely know their neighbors and have no one around to rely upon if and when tragedy occurs.

It strikes me as fundamentally hostile to human flourishing. And I don't have an alternative system to recommend. I just wish we were more cognizant of the costs involved.

If this country's morality dictates that we need better working conditions, more safety, and livable wages, why then are we so willing to look the other way when they are not applied in other countries that are manufacturing products that are sold to us. If we insist on regulation here to keep the unthinkable from happening, why do we insist on closing our eyes when the countries we do business with do not. I think the only credible answer to that quesiton is pure greed. And while I am not suggesting that capitalism is evil, I am suggesting that unrestrained capitalism would clearly result in more photos like the one you posted. To me it does not matter if it is local, state, federal or international, the problem of the pursuit of wealth at the expense of others requires regulation. The particular instance that is shown in that photo would have been avoided by the insistence of regulations in India, or at least, insistence that we won't do business with people who have disturbing records of treating their workers as more than a line on a balance sheet.

abadee abadee abadee .... That's all folks!!!

 

[Whiskeyjack]

If this country's morality dictates that we need better working conditions, more safety, and livable wages, why then are we so willing to look the other way when they are not applied in other countries that are manufacturing products that are sold to us. If we insist on regulation here to keep the unthinkable from happening, why do we insist on closing our eyes when the countries we do business with do not. I think the only credible answer to that quesiton is pure greed. And while I am not suggesting that capitalism is evil, I am suggesting that unrestrained capitalism would clearly result in more photos like the one you posted. To me it does not matter if it is local, state, federal or international, the problem of the pursuit of wealth at the expense of others requires regulation. The particular instance that is shown in that photo would have been avoided by the insistence of regulations in India, or at least, insistence that we won't do business with people who have disturbing records of treating their workers as more than a line on a balance sheet.

Obviously. So how do you propose we get profit-driven companies to seriously consider the interests of all stake holders, instead of just their shareholders? Black-balling all goods from companies/ countries that don't meet our own employment standards would result in a dramatic increase in consumer prices; you think that's politically feasible? Any ideas on how to change our relentless consumerist culture so there isn't such a massive demand for cheap goods?

Global capitalism was made possible by the radical individualism at the center of Western liberal philosophy. So the Progressive calls for "more regulation" strike me as particularly tin-eared; it might prevent this sort of tragedy from happening in the future, but it doesn't even begin to address the larger problems at issue here. And, in fact, will probably make them worse, as it's more of the same.

 

[GoIrish41]

We just had an election in which half our population voted for candidates who advocated easing regulation. The point of my original post was that the picture you poster is what that could look like. I wold have made the same point if you posted a picture of the hole that used to be West Texas.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

We just had an election in which half our population voted for candidates who advocated easing regulation. The point of my original post was that the picture you poster is what that could look like. I wold have made the same point if you posted a picture of the hole that used to be West Texas.

And I'm not arguing for deregulation. I'm arguing that global capitalism (and the Western liberalism that supports it) is hostile to the communities people need to thrive. Though that point is only tangentially related to the picture I posted. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[BobD]

You're correct in that Bangladesh's lack of regulation was the proximate cause of this particular disaster. But it's a cartoonishly Progressive response to argue that the solution here is simply protectionist regulations at home and/or enforceable supranational regulations abroad, because the problems global capitalism creates are much larger than this.

For instance, after NAFTA came into existence, American companies built lots of factories in Mexican border towns. Lots of Mexicans left their families to take jobs in those factories. So now the family might be more materially secure, but the communities those Mexicans left have been seriously undermined. Are they better off?

We see the same thing here in the States. People change jobs and move to new cities all the time. Our culture promotes this sort of "churn", and our economy depends on it. But where's the community? So now the family lives in a cookie cutter suburban home with a big screen TV and 300+ channels, but they barely know their neighbors and have no one around to rely upon if and when tragedy occurs.

It strikes me as fundamentally hostile to human flourishing. And I don't have an alternative system to recommend. I just wish we were more cognizant of the costs involved.

Remember when mom's stayed home? When most businesses closed at 5 and never open on Sundays? When the one TV in the house was only on for a bit in the evening? When kids played outside? .....Sigh.

 

[Black Irish]

Interesting coincidence. As I am reading these posts about Bangladesh, the news show I have on is talking about a MIT/Harvard study that shows that people will choose higher-priced, "fair trade" clothing if they are given more information about how all the clothing was made. Is it just lip service? Who knows?

I know when I buy a pack of socks, the last thing I'm thinking about is "was this made in a 3rd world sweatshop?" Even though the curmudgeon in me harumphs at those feel good product labels, they probably would alter my buying habits if the information was right in front of my face at the time of purchase.

 

[GoIrish41]

Interesting coincidence. As I am reading these posts about Bangladesh, the news show I have on is talking about a MIT/Harvard study that shows that people will choose higher-priced, "fair trade" clothing if they are given more information about how all the clothing was made. Is it just lip service? Who knows?

I know when I buy a pack of socks, the last thing I'm thinking about is "was this made in a 3rd world sweatshop?" Even though the curmudgeon in me harumphs at those feel good product labels, they probably would alter my buying habits if the information was right in front of my face at the time of purchase.

Good post. I think a lot of people would alter their purchases if they had more knowledge at the time of purchase.

 

[phgreek]

Interesting coincidence. As I am reading these posts about Bangladesh, the news show I have on is talking about a MIT/Harvard study that shows that people will choose higher-priced, "fair trade" clothing if they are given more information about how all the clothing was made. Is it just lip service? Who knows?

I know when I buy a pack of socks, the last thing I'm thinking about is "was this made in a 3rd world sweatshop?" Even though the curmudgeon in me harumphs at those feel good product labels, they probably would alter my buying habits if the information was right in front of my face at the time of purchase.

...I'm probably pretty aligned with this rationale. As frustrated as I am/was with Detroit, I still weigh driving American made cars from American companies pretty heavily. I've not driven a foreign car since 1995.

In terms of items I'd call commodities (ie generally low relative cost and consumed in 24 months or so) like clothes, car tires, some electronics, bullets, home maintenance items like paint screws, nails etc...whatever, I tend not to be sensitive at all to their origin. If someone merchandised screws, for instance, such that they organized American made separately from foreign made, and told me with some signage, if the cost delta wasn't insane I'd choose the American product.

 

[Cackalacky]

Interesting coincidence. As I am reading these posts about Bangladesh, the news show I have on is talking about a MIT/Harvard study that shows that people will choose higher-priced, "fair trade" clothing if they are given more information about how all the clothing was made. Is it just lip service? Who knows?

I know when I buy a pack of socks, the last thing I'm thinking about is "was this made in a 3rd world sweatshop?" Even though the curmudgeon in me harumphs at those feel good product labels, they probably would alter my buying habits if the information was right in front of my face at the time of purchase.

I in fact do look at where products are made. That does not necessarily mean all of the product (or components of the product) was made there so there is truly no way to know, but I try. This was helpful for me:
Green America: 9 Cool Ways to Avoid Sweatshops

I also use bamboo paper whenever possible and never wood pulp paper.

 

[Ndaccountant]

Good post. I think a lot of people would alter their purchases if they had more knowledge at the time of purchase.

At a work event last year, we were debating different strategies with some consultants and what our role as a business should be to our cutomers, to our shareholders, to our employees and to the communities around the world where we operate.

One of the debates focused on being "green" and promoting "green" and what it meant to our cost structure and what sort of benefits we could expect for the stakeholders I mentioned above. To spare you the details of what transpired and the facts the consultants were able to provide, the result was that if the perception of your company was one in which comanded price premiums (think high quality / high service / most advanced / etc) you could actually profit (not just B/E) from "socially conscience" priorities. It is an enormous upfront cost that requires great strategy and even better execution. If done right, in the long run, everyone wins.

The issue is what happens to those who can't command a premium, which is what derails most companies. We live in a country that hates Wal-Mart, yet, oddly enough, people still shop there. We vote with our wallet and while some people may alter their shopping habits, how many and to what extent still is unknown to most organizations. Companies that have razor thin margins can't take the risk. And you know what, we probably shouldn't want them to. Afterall, if they fail, and the company tanks and so many people lose jobs / investments / community security, etc, is the downside worth the upside? It's a tough choice and one that is hotly debated in many boardrooms.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

If someone merchandised screws, for instance, such that they organized American made separately from foreign made, and told me with some signage, if the cost delta wasn't insane I'd choose the American product.

One difficulty with this is creating and maintaining confidence in the "signage". As I understand it, the little flag symbol with "Made In America" doesn't mean much. Such a product may have been only assembled here, with all of its constituent parts created in sweat shops, etc. Supply chains are so international now that buying local has become a serious challenge.

Which brings us back to the madness of our consumerist culture. We're presented with so many choices on a daily basis that it's nearly impossible to consume responsibly. Who has time to do all the research?

 

[GoIrish41]

At a work event last year, we were debating different strategies with some consultants and what our role as a business should be to our cutomers, to our shareholders, to our employees and to the communities around the world where we operate.

One of the debates focused on being "green" and promoting "green" and what it meant to our cost structure and what sort of benefits we could expect for the stakeholders I mentioned above. To spare you the details of what transpired and the facts the consultants were able to provide, the result was that if the perception of your company was one in which comanded price premiums (think high quality / high service / most advanced / etc) you could actually profit (not just B/E) from "socially conscience" priorities. It is an enormous upfront cost that requires great strategy and even better execution. If done right, in the long run, everyone wins.

The issue is what happens to those who can't command a premium, which is what derails most companies. We live in a country that hates Wal-Mart, yet, oddly enough, people still shop there. We vote with our wallet and while some people may alter their shopping habits, how many and to what extent still is unknown to most organizations. Companies that have razor thin margins can't take the risk. And you know what, we probably shouldn't want them to. Afterall, if they fail, and the company tanks and so many people lose jobs / investments / community security, etc, is the downside worth the upside? It's a tough choice and one that is hotly debated in many boardrooms.

I'm not sure I think that these companies should do anything different than they are currently doing -- except that a system by which cunsumers can have access to real information. As Whisky pointed out, the made in America lable doesn't mean much, at least not anymore. I suspect that it used to have much more meaning than it does today. Perhaps the reason for this is that nobody has faith in the information. Nobody assumes when they see the "made it America" lable that it really means the whole product was made, soup to nuts, in America. I think it is more likely that they think it is a marketing gimick and the company put a bunch of parts that were made in sweat shops together in the United States and it was technically assembled in America. I just think the words should mean what they say. I'm tired of everything being some sort of marketing technique designed to pull the wool over my eyes. I believe that if Americans were confident that the lables meant something (anything) that they would make more informed choices ... even be willing to pay a little more for products. It isn't so easy to be socially aware when everyone is trying to deceive you.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I just think the words should mean what they say. I'm tired of everything being some sort of marketing technique designed to pull the wool over my eyes.

Exactly. The advertising we're constantly bombarded with makes the adults cynical and it brain-washes our children into the same destructive consumerism. I can't think of much downside to much stricter regulation of the practice, in all its forms.

 

[Ndaccountant]

Exactly. The advertising we're constantly bombarded with makes the adults cynical and it brain-washes our children into the same destructive consumerism. I can't think of much downside to much stricter regulation of the practice, in all its forms.

Well, the easy answer there is how to regulate / how to enforce / cost of compliance.

In a world where even the good things are spoiled by special interest, I cannot reason why this would be any different.

 

[GoIrish41]

Well, the easy answer there is how to regulate / how to enforce / cost of compliance.

In a world where even the good things are spoiled by special interest, I cannot reason why this would be any different.

It might keep some 11-year-old girls from having to work in horrid conditions so American kids can wear the latest Labron James model Nikes or Hollister Jeans. The workers' quality of life (or lack thereof) comes at a cost (or a discount). The question is are we willing to accept a discount of a few bucks and allow these conditions to continue. We shouldn't avoid doing things because they are hard or we can't come up with an easy implementation plan. There is no question that this could be expensive and difficult. Usually the things that matter most are. And, since we are talking about human beings, I think the costs and effort are worth it.

 

[ACamp1900]

It might keep some 11-year-old girls from having to work in horrid conditions so American kids can wear the latest Labron James model Nikes or Hollister Jeans. The workers' quality of life (or lack thereof) comes at a cost (or a discount). The question is are we willing to accept a discount of a few bucks and allow these conditions to continue. We shouldn't avoid doing things because they are hard or we can't come up with an easy implementation plan. There is no question that this could be expensive and difficult. Usually the things that matter most are. And, since we are talking about human beings, I think the costs and effort are worth it.

What are your thoughts on the living conditions and human rights violations in regions of the world where our direct military involvement may be the answer to much greter suffering than child labor....?

 

[Ndaccountant]

It might keep some 11-year-old girls from having to work in horrid conditions so American kids can wear the latest Labron James model Nikes or Hollister Jeans. The workers' quality of life (or lack thereof) comes at a cost (or a discount). The question is are we willing to accept a discount of a few bucks and allow these conditions to continue. We shouldn't avoid doing things because they are hard or we can't come up with an easy implementation plan. There is no question that this could be expensive and difficult. Usually the things that matter most are. And, since we are talking about human beings, I think the costs and effort are worth it.

But the question isn't whether you think it is or if I think it is or even if corporations think it is. Joe Six Pack is who matters and while there could be a temporary surge of "conscience" purchases, I cannot for the life me fathom that people have the available mental capacity and willpower to weigh these decisions every day.

Thus, as with everything, we would return to the same habits that we have today as a whole. Sure, certain people would change their habits. But broadly speaking, our attention would be focused on the newest crisis and we would leave it up to the regulators to figure something out. When that happens, special interest groups take over and what was once a pure and noble idea becomes a commercialized and politicized cluster.

It's sad, but it's reality.

 

[Buster Bluth]

We see the same thing here in the States. People change jobs and move to new cities all the time. Our culture promotes this sort of "churn", and our economy depends on it. But where's the community? So now the family lives in a cookie cutter suburban home with a big screen TV and 300+ channels, but they barely know their neighbors and have no one around to rely upon if and when tragedy occurs.

It strikes me as fundamentally hostile to human flourishing. And I don't have an alternative system to recommend. I just wish we were more cognizant of the costs involved.

You would make a fine urban planner with that mindset. To sum all of this up in a few words: we don't build neighborhoods anymore. We haven't had policies which built neighborhoods since pre-WWII days.

We are in luck though, as a growing percentage of the newest adult generation is turning away from the boring suburbs and seeking neighborhoods. The tide is turning, it is demonstrable too.

 

[GoIrish41]

What are your thoughts on the living conditions and human rights violations in regions of the world where our direct military involvement may be the answer to much greter suffering than child labor....?

I'm against war in almost all cases. Forcing ourselves on other cultures with military might has made much of the world hate America. There are many examples of retaliation against the United States around the globe, and sadly, right here at home for playing the bully. I'm no apologist nor am I an isolationist, but I don't think everything has to be handled with the threat of military involvement.

Many of these regions are in chaos because of the continued fallout of American and European imperialism, when we abandoned regions or even continents and drew symetrical borders on the way out the door with no understanding of ancient tribal or ethnic hatreds. Frankly, too much time has passed for us to affect any kind of change in those cases without inflaming even more problems. We cannot be the police of the world nor should we.

But there are better, more peaceful ways to affect change, and we should explore those when we can. I think there is an important distinction in forcing others to bend to our will through the use or threat of violence, and having people come around because we are willing to, say, do business with countries who do not treat their workers (children or no) as chattel. I would much rather the United States do what it can do in the background (economically or through providing resources for education, healthcare, technology, etc.) to win the hearts and minds of the people instead of on the front lines of yet another conflict.

 

[GoIrish41]

But the question isn't whether you think it is or if I think it is or even if corporations think it is. Joe Six Pack is who matters and while there could be a temporary surge of "conscience" purchases, I cannot for the life me fathom that people have the available mental capacity and willpower to weigh these decisions every day.

Thus, as with everything, we would return to the same habits that we have today as a whole. Sure, certain people would change their habits. But broadly speaking, our attention would be focused on the newest crisis and we would leave it up to the regulators to figure something out. When that happens, special interest groups take over and what was once a pure and noble idea becomes a commercialized and politicized cluster.

It's sad, but it's reality.

Maybe you are right, and maybe you are wrong. Maybe I'm naive, but I give people more credit than that. What we are talking about is a cultural shift, and cultural shifts are difficult. But I've seen them happen in my lifetime. The civil rights movement, the womens rights movement are examples. We are going through one of these changes right now with the marraige equality debate. There is a long, long way to go there, but it doens't take much foresight to see where that is going to end up. People evolve. It is a matter of getting them behind an issue -- preparing for the heaving lifting ahead, and gaining their commitment. The American people are among the most charitable in the world, and when they see something horrible, they are usually willing to step up. And, you are right, the trick is getting it to stick. I doubt anybody still donates money to the 9-11 fund, but they give blood and donate to the Red Cross every day. When it comes right down to it, Americans care about people. They give to countless charities because they believe in them. So, the question becomes, how do we get people to believe in an issue like this at their very core. I think the answer is that it cannot be tied to a specific incident like, say, the building collapse in India. It has to be more of a moral shift that captures their attention -- one that they can't shake ... when it comes socially unacceptable to think any other way. It may take a charasmatic leader or, better, a political party making it the center of its agenda. And when that type of thing starts to happen, people begin to talk about it at their kids' soccer games and across the back yard fence. It becomes an issue vote in the polls, and when enough people are committed policy is made, laws are passed. After this kind of shift happens, decisions don't have to be made every time we purchase a sweater or a pair of pants. It becomes part of the American fabric.

 

[Ndaccountant]

Maybe you are right, and maybe you are wrong. Maybe I'm naive, but I give people more credit than that. What we are talking about is a cultural shift, and cultural shifts are difficult. But I've seen them happen in my lifetime. The civil rights movement, the womens rights movement are examples. We are going through one of these changes right now with the marraige equality debate. There is a long, long way to go there, but it doens't take much foresight to see where that is going to end up. People evolve. It is a matter of getting them behind an issue -- preparing for the heaving lifting ahead, and gaining their commitment. The American people are among the most charitable in the world, and when they see something horrible, they are usually willing to step up. And, you are right, the trick is getting it to stick. I doubt anybody still donates money to the 9-11 fund, but they give blood and donate to the Red Cross every day. When it comes right down to it, Americans care about people. They give to countless charities because they believe in them. So, the question becomes, how do we get people to believe in an issue like this at their very core. I think the answer is that it cannot be tied to a specific incident like, say, the building collapse in India. It has to be more of a moral shift that captures their attention -- one that they can't shake ... when it comes socially unacceptable to think any other way. It may take a charasmatic leader or, better, a political party making it the center of its agenda. And when that type of thing starts to happen, people begin to talk about it at their kids' soccer games and across the back yard fence. It becomes an issue vote in the polls, and when enough people are committed policy is made, laws are passed. After this kind of shift happens, decisions don't have to be made every time we purchase a sweater or a pair of pants. It becomes part of the American fabric.

But what you are asking for is for people to mentally make decisions. All of the movements you mentioned above don't involve constant mental work. For example, I don't have to think about gay rights when I want to purchase a blanket. Nor do I have to compare two different blankets for which company supports gay rights and whether or not any price premium I pay is worth it. That constant mental activity would be tiresome to most.

Maybe I am wrong. Maybe people would just establish a new habit and move forward. I just have a hard time accepting that considering most people are so consumed mentally in everything else that they do that devoting mental energy to every transaction isn't practical.

 

[GoIrish41]

But what you are asking for is for people to mentally make decisions. All of the movements you mentioned above don't involve constant mental work. For example, I don't have to think about gay rights when I want to purchase a blanket. Nor do I have to compare two different blankets for which company supports gay rights and whether or not any price premium I pay is worth it. That constant mental activity would be tiresome to most.

Maybe I am wrong. Maybe people would just establish a new habit and move forward. I just have a hard time accepting that considering most people are so consumed mentally in everything else that they do that devoting mental energy to every transaction isn't practical.

Nobody in my family has purchased gasoline from Exxon station since the Valdez oil spill. To me, it is a habit that has become as natural as putting one foot in front of the other when I walk. So, I get what you are saying, but it doesn't require an astonishing amount of thought to make these kinds of decisions. It is simply a matter of not buying Dockers because they are made in sweat shops and buying Hagger instead because they aren't (disclaimer, I have no idea if either of those examples is true and I have serious doubts that either are made anywhere else but in a sweat shop). More access to real information would make the process a whole lot easier for Joe Six Pack.

 

[Ndaccountant]

Nobody in my family has purchased gasoline from Exxon station since the Valdez oil spill. To me, it is a habit that has become as natural as putting one foot in front of the other when I walk. So, I get what you are saying, but it doesn't require an astonishing amount of thought to make these kinds of decisions. It is simply a matter of not buying Dockers because they are made in sweat shops and buying Hagger instead because they aren't (disclaimer, I have no idea if either of those examples is true and I have serious doubts that either are made anywhere else but in a sweat shop). More access to real information would make the process a whole lot easier for Joe Six Pack.

But what happens when Dockers switches where they make their clothing? What happens when Dockers runs an ad campaign to point out that Hagger uses yarn made by kids?

Like I said, maybe I don't give people enough credit, but I would imagine that like everything else, this would result in an ad war and would make each consumer check and recheck the label. I doubt most would mentally want to do this.

Again, this would be for every purchase you make.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I just have a hard time accepting that considering most people are so consumed mentally in everything else that they do that devoting mental energy to every transaction isn't practical.

I agree. GoIrish41 seems to think that many of these problems could be solved if we were merely more conscientious consumers, but the problem is really the culture of consumerism itself. It leaves no time for such things, and the nihilism that underlies it ultimately destroys any serious campaign to affect meaningful social change through it.