|
 Originally Posted by rpm
this honestly baffles me. please answer these questions:
- do you believe that, say, US-owned clothing companies which decide to set up factories in bangladesh are motivated by personal self-interest, or the greatest good for the greatest number? do you think the outcomes of these ventures reflect the greatest good for the greatest number? or do you think the wealth of these (already very profitable) companies could be spent in a way which would achieve more good for more people (ie the schools or sanitation or food it could provide)
I don't have time to reply to everything right now but this is an easy one.
Basically, yes, outsourcing to Bangladesh is a universal good. It enables the limited human resources of the United States to be put to more valued uses. It minimizes to the prices of goods and services in the world, increasing the standard of living for all. It throws the people of Bangladesh a lifeline which will eventually pull that country out of abject poverty. Note that the clothing jobs that people work in Bangladesh are voluntarily chosen over the dismal alternatives, and that choice is important. If it weren't for the sweatshop job they could be making even less scavenging in the streets or prostituting themselves.
This is the beauty of capitalism, clothing companies act out of self interest and exploit labor in third world countries, yet everyone benefits. A big part of realizing this is rejecting the idea of a zero sum game. Free trade is a positive sum game because everyone who agrees to a trade is getting something of more subjective value than they give, and this is how wealth is created.
|