- Joined
- Apr 13, 2011
- Messages
- 34,951
- Reaction score
- 16,311
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Socialist
Yes because of human rights issues...
pretty much that. everyone tempted to vote yes should ask themselves what the effect on the poor would be of a 30% overnight hike in their cost of living.
Yes because of human rights issues...
Yes because of human rights issues...
It's capitalism, deal with it.
You can't force Americans to pay more for their goods just because you think they should.
Probably more as 90 % of 'ideas, intellectual property' have been already stolen by China and its countrymens in western companies.
Globalizm is invention of liberals, socialists and all politically correct do-goodies without brains.
So-called "human rights" were invented by liberals. A 'human' for those is always sombody who share leftism and hate conservatism.
I wouldn't stop it but I would instead add heavy tariffs evening the field perhaps even to a degree that goods here would be made cheaper to purchase.
Globalizm is invention of liberals, socialists and all politically correct do-goodies without brains.
Seeing how I grew up poor I can answer that question. Pawnshops,clearance sales,Regular store sales, thrift stores,coupons, flea markets, 2nd hand stores,rent-to-own, Fingerhut and that all time favorite method of obtaining brand new expensive is Lay-A-Away. Pretty much what the poor are already doing today.
If you support capitalism, then you should support the right of people to buy the best product for the lowest price without interference from the government.
If jobs will be back poor can work again and get more as today.
Ask somebody in Detroit what he think about China and gobalizm.
with a national security exception. trade restrictions on regimes such as Iran, North Korea, and the like can trump the desire to have a smoothly functioning economy.
Developing Countries Betrayed by EU and USA
...Contrary to popular perception, the 1999 trade meeting in Seattle didn't fall apart because of protests. It collapsed because developing countries faced demands for environmental and labor standards without getting, in return, increased market access. If that happens in Cancun, developing countries may drop out of the trade talks. This would be a shock to the multilateral trade system. And it could end the wave of economic and political liberalization that has made life better in many parts of the world.
During the last century, many developing countries followed inward-looking, anti-liberal policies because they couldn't tap into the world market. In the early 20th century, Latin American countries such as Argentina and Uruguay were among the richest in the world because of their agricultural exports. But in the 1930s, the U.S. and Europe reintroduced protectionism. In turn, Latin American countries turned to import substitution and state-led industrialisation, and to a succession of military dictatorships. Those policies gave Latin America a temporary economic boost after the Second World War -- but the region ran on outdated technology and insufficient market access. In the end, these nations wound up poorer. They accumulated huge debts, which still affect the world economy. And, in Africa and Asia, many states that weren't welcome in the Western markets fell into communism and all its errors.
Some of the same is happening today and many poor countries feel betrayed. They were promised progress if they liberalized. But when they did, they weren't allowed access to the world economy. We dumped our subsidized goods in their countries. But they weren't allowed to export their goods to us. Brazilian President Lula da Silva has said that all his country's efforts and exports are useless "if the rich countries continue to preach free trade on one side and practise protectionism on the other side." South African President Thabo Mbeki has said that there is a real threat of famine in Africa, because of Western protectionism: "It remains an inexcusable shame." ...
Cheep manufacturing in China cost us millions of our working places and destroying of our countries, maybe we should stop purchasing of China's commodities, I am right, thoughts?BTW I do not talk about stealing of our technologies by China.
Of course we should. They have very little environmental and labor laws which is how they can make products so cheap. We essentially endorse near slave labor when supporting so much of China's economy. Want green? Want fair labor practices and wages? Buy American. It costs most because we do more. Plus why should we be sending all our money to a commie nation anyway?
Of course we should. They have very little environmental and labor laws which is how they can make products so cheap. We essentially endorse near slave labor when supporting so much of China's economy. Want green? Want fair labor practices and wages? Buy American. It costs most because we do more. Plus why should we be sending all our money to a commie nation anyway?
I do really think that in our trade agreements and such, there should be consideration of environmental and labor laws and that should be weighed properly into the system.
Environmental and labor laws will come with economic development. Let's not forget that we didn't have many environmental/labor laws in THIS country until the first half of the 20th century.
That's not because people in the 19th century were immoral or irresponsible; it's because environmental/labor laws are a luxury that countries can afford once they've attained a certain level of economic development.
In China, they'll come with time just as they did here. If we want to help them improve their environmental and labor conditions, the best way to do it is to help them grow their economy as quickly as possible. And encouraging free trade is the best way to do that.
Probably more as 90 % of 'ideas, intellectual property' have been already stolen by China and its countrymens in western companies.