U.S. rattled as Mexico drug war bleeds over border

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Also what's missing from that picture are ethics issues arising from things that don't directly affect the consumer - sweat shop labour in clothing factories in the far east (to the extent of having the child labour stitching on the labels that say "this is not a product of child labour") or organized crime murdering union workers at Coca Cola factories in Colombia, battery chicken farming etc.

Of course while you have some consumers who take issue with such practices and boycott products (like Tesco importing fruit and veg from Zimbabwe as the native population starves), many people are content to ignore such things because it affords them cheap and plentiful goods with no concern for the big picture beyond their own immediate needs.

It would seem to me to be an extremely amoral view of the world - based on those who have the economic power, and who are willing and capable of exploiting people who don't - to their own advantage and profit.

This is actually one of the big objections to free market theory (as Matt must surely know), that it has the potential to create unprecedented tyranny.

Child labor is a very interesting issue to place on a business. First, as you know, it is the concern of a business to sell their product for the highest price they can command at the lowest cost to themselves.

Children and younger members of the workforce are less skilled than adults and veterans of the workforce, so naturally their labor will command a lower price, and as they advance to higher skill levels, they will command a higher wage as they become more marketable. I used to mow people's lawn and wash their cars when I was a kid, and I made about 2 dollars per car, and about the same for mowing a lawn. The going rate at the local car wash company was about 5-6 dollars. Note, I did this voluntarily. If I didn't work, I wouldn't be able to purchase Transformers toys. My labor was less valuable than the car wash company, and my wage reflected that.

Now, onto the extreme absolute. A child working in a sweatshop in Asia. If this child is working to earn money for food and basic necessities of life, then you must assume that the wage of this child's family is not sufficient to cover these expenses. Second, you must assume that this job is "valued" more than any alternative available. Some children scavenge waste dumps, sifting through disease-ridden trash looking for food or scraps of metal to sell. These children may very well rely on these incomes to survive. It's sad, really. I know it is. But it's the responsibility of the child's owners, their parents, to raise them in the way they see fit. Just remember, if the family didn't desperately need the money, then I highly doubt there would be any need for their unskilled child(ren) to work. Again, these are ethical issues in which you need to look at the parents of the child, not the business. The business could very well be ensuring this child's survival.

When you look at the situation from that perspective, you may become very ambivalent towards the subject of child labor. While I don't actively seek to purchase products made by voluntary child labor, it is not my decision, or anyone elses, who works, and who buys those products.

The business is culpable when it comes to operating in ways that would seem exploitative, unethical or illegal from the perspective of the customers it markets its products to, because it makes the buyer complicit.

This is the criticism that was directed at google for colluding with the Chinese government to regulate and filter their internet communications; or at the exteme end - the company that made the gas that was used in the concentration camps (and is still in business today)

Its certainly very easy for people to turn a blind eye to this sort of thing, or to simply remain ignorant. If it weren't likely noone would buy a coke, or a mcdonalds hamburger ever again. As we know of course - they will and do. Of course this says as much about individual ethics as it does about businesses. The only way out of the dilemma is either to deny or relativise the issue - neither of which is terribly satisfactory or honest.

But again this is why it has been suggested that unfettered free markets (especially when you throw ethics out the window) could exacerbate tyranny. I can certainly appreciate the argument.

[NickD 202]

Wife was watching that entertainment channel on all those celebrities that had everything, but died on drug overdosages, even Heath, but that was on legal drugs.

I would be more concerned about the quality of these drugs, since much is processed by people on crack in not the cleanest of environments. And the transmission of Aids by sharing needles. Why even care about these people if they don't even care about themselves?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Now that I think about it - isn't the real proof for this idea in the pudding already?

McDonalds marketing and production practices have been in the public domain for years now - from the fact that they set up a company called "100% Prime Beef" so that they could claim that their meat is "made from 100% Prime Beef^TM" to movies like Supersize Me where you saw how the food damaged the guy's liver; or more simply - campaigns by animal rights groups (McCruelty To Go - which I believe McDonalds has taken to court to silence) showing exactly what McDonalds burgers are made of (boiled cow heads), so its not like people don't *know* these things (although I'm sure a fair few are ignorant), but McDonalds still exists, is still highly profitable and yet still sells the same nasty old #######...

What does this tell us?

That people like McDonalds? Are people not free to purchase what they like? If I found a razor blade in my McNugget and it slices my mouth up, I deserve to be retributed, but it doesn't mean that people have to avoid going there.

However, I probably wouldn't eat there again. And I'm sure most people who I know that eat there, would be hesitant as well.

Does that mean we need the central government to mandate that no razor blades be served in the McNuggets? Should a Federal Inspection panel physically X-Ray each McNugget to ensure they're razor-free?

Actually I'm wondering why people haven't en masse voted with their feet to boycott mcdonalds or demand better quality food knowing as we do, what goes into it and how nutritionally barren it is.

I expect you wouldnt eat a cows head on a plate if it was served to you, but its ok for mcdonalds to sell it because they attach pervasive, highly expensive marketing campaigns to promote it.

Its actually why western countries have problems with obesity - because the makers of these processed foods have advertising budgets that vastly outstrip the advertising budgets for things like fruit and vegetables.

[Peikko 1,575]

Who knew?

[NickD 202]

McDonalds wouldn't even exist if they depended on my wife or me for business. But neither would Hardee's Wendy's, Culvers, Chips, Arbee's, Now, or any other of those fast food places.

[mRx 16]

That's being stupid, no manufacturer is going to insert unnecessary items into the food, particularly not something so expensive and pointless as a razor blade - but, salmonella? Sure, we can sprinkle a bit of that in, along with our slightly over the edge meat that we didn't quite get to use up last week even though it's just a tad over the sell by date. Sure, let's slip some more of that in, why not? Salmonella isn't that bad now, is it?

Well, why not take a look at the company who sprinkled a little Salmonella in their products. See how they're faring?

Did the champion regulation shut them down? No, in fact they knew about the issue weeks before it broke out in the US and did nothing.

Can we boycott the advice of the FDA because they have failed us? Can we have an alternative? No...

Really? They are 'free' to do that are they? Free to 'bargain' for a better wage? I see you have this all so nicely thought out

Again, what's the alternative? Should they starve to death, or continue digging through dumpsters? Obviously they value the labor that they're performing more than what they were doing before. This is a praxeological fact. So again, where's the alternative, and how do you quantify exploitative? Sounds rather subjective to me...

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If you get rid of centralized standards who is going to investigate the contamination?

I mean... These things rely on standardized lab procedures and standardized chemical tests.

Who do you trust if there is no single yardstick of quality and methodology?

Furthermore how do you convey this information to the public?

Edited March 3, 2009 by Paul Daniels

[EstebanTrabajos 7]

dang!

Is this going to be the 24-hr debate? I better bring me a Lazyboy

[mRx 16]

If you get rid of centralized standards who is going to investigate the contamination?

I mean... These things rely on standardized lab procedures and standardized chemical tests.

Who do you trust if there is no single yardstick of quality and methodology?

Furthermore how do you convey this information to the public?

Again, these standards can be set by certain respected professionals in the private sector. Eventually, an accepted standard will emerge, or two, or three. Look at Underwriter's Laboratories. Perfect example of a private company which creates the standards and quality yardsticks and is universally accepted as quality standard.

The only thing that will happen when you abolish centralized government controlled certifications and inspections, and open it to competition, is that it will force certification/inspection companies to be responsible, or else face losses, and lose business to competitors.

[Peikko 1,575]

That's being stupid, no manufacturer is going to insert unnecessary items into the food, particularly not something so expensive and pointless as a razor blade - but, salmonella? Sure, we can sprinkle a bit of that in, along with our slightly over the edge meat that we didn't quite get to use up last week even though it's just a tad over the sell by date. Sure, let's slip some more of that in, why not? Salmonella isn't that bad now, is it?

Well, why not take a look at the company who sprinkled a little Salmonella in their products. See how they're faring?

Did the champion regulation shut them down? No, in fact they knew about the issue weeks before it broke out in the US and did nothing.

Can we boycott the advice of the FDA because they have failed us? Can we have an alternative? No...

Really? They are 'free' to do that are they? Free to 'bargain' for a better wage? I see you have this all so nicely thought out

Again, what's the alternative? Should they starve to death, or continue digging through dumpsters? Obviously they value the labor that they're performing more than what they were doing before. This is a praxeological fact. So again, where's the alternative, and how do you quantify exploitative? Sounds rather subjective to me...

Yes, the alternative is starvation. Exactly so. However, what you didn't answer was how a US business should respond to this kind of competition? Obviously, if the US clothing manufacturer is paying reasonable wages and providing reasonable conditions then the finished product is going to be a tad more expensive than clothing produced by these happy urchins in the third world. So, do US manufacturers stop making the clothes(they probably have at this point anyway)? Or, do they demand that US customers pay more 'realistic' prices determined by being given a fair wage for a fair days work?

What is the consumer's responsibility? How do they assume the responsibility if they are not given accurate information?

Justifying child labour because the alternative is their starvation just seems puerile and can lead to all kinds of spurious justifications. Like, oh I don't know, subjugating a class of people to be the 'workers' so that the more privileged to enjoy the fruits of this labour. How does that strike you? A decent plan?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If you get rid of centralized standards who is going to investigate the contamination?

I mean... These things rely on standardized lab procedures and standardized chemical tests.

Who do you trust if there is no single yardstick of quality and methodology?

Furthermore how do you convey this information to the public?

Again, these standards can be set by certain respected professionals in the private sector. Eventually, an accepted standard will emerge, or two, or three. Look at Underwriter's Laboratories. Perfect example of a private company which creates the standards and quality yardsticks and is universally accepted as quality standard.

The only thing that will happen when you abolish centralized government controlled certifications and inspections, and open it to competition, is that it will force certification/inspection companies to be responsible, or else face losses, and lose business to competitors.

There are already professional associations that do this in many fields - the government standard isn't something someone arbitrarily pulled out of their #######...

[mRx 16]

That's being stupid, no manufacturer is going to insert unnecessary items into the food, particularly not something so expensive and pointless as a razor blade - but, salmonella? Sure, we can sprinkle a bit of that in, along with our slightly over the edge meat that we didn't quite get to use up last week even though it's just a tad over the sell by date. Sure, let's slip some more of that in, why not? Salmonella isn't that bad now, is it?

Well, why not take a look at the company who sprinkled a little Salmonella in their products. See how they're faring?

Did the champion regulation shut them down? No, in fact they knew about the issue weeks before it broke out in the US and did nothing.

Can we boycott the advice of the FDA because they have failed us? Can we have an alternative? No...

Really? They are 'free' to do that are they? Free to 'bargain' for a better wage? I see you have this all so nicely thought out

Again, what's the alternative? Should they starve to death, or continue digging through dumpsters? Obviously they value the labor that they're performing more than what they were doing before. This is a praxeological fact. So again, where's the alternative, and how do you quantify exploitative? Sounds rather subjective to me...

Yes, the alternative is starvation. Exactly so. However, what you didn't answer was how a US business should respond to this kind of competition? Obviously, if the US clothing manufacturer is paying reasonable wages and providing reasonable conditions then the finished product is going to be a tad more expensive than clothing produced by these happy urchins in the third world. So, do US manufacturers stop making the clothes(they probably have at this point anyway)? Or, do they demand that US customers pay more 'realistic' prices determined by being given a fair wage for a fair days work?

What is the consumer's responsibility? How do they assume the responsibility if they are not given accurate information?

Justifying child labour because the alternative is their starvation just seems puerile and can lead to all kinds of spurious justifications. Like, oh I don't know, subjugating a class of people to be the 'workers' so that the more privileged to enjoy the fruits of this labour. How does that strike you? A decent plan?

Well, I disagree in forcing children into starvation. Are you suggesting that these children are working just because they are exploitable and easily taken advantage of? Because that would be puerile.

What is a reasonable wage? Reasonable is subjective. If I offer a job paying $1/hr. and someone takes it, I would consider the job reasonable, and if I offer a job paying $.01 and nobody takes it, then I would consider it unreasonable, as no one accepted my offer to perform labor. Reasonable is between the employer and employee; not you or I.

Again, business is concerned with obtaining the highest profit at the lowest cost, and consumers are concerned with obtaining the highest quality at the lowest price. Certain ethical factors may or may not affect whether or not the consumer would experience a gain, regardless of how appealing the price is. Which is why some people refuse to shop at Wal-Mart, buy products made in China, or other choices. But these choices are up to the individual consumers, and they're made aware of possible ethical issues by competitors. I feel like I'm repeating myself... No one can force anyone to do anything in a voluntary exchange market.

[mRx 16]

If you get rid of centralized standards who is going to investigate the contamination?

I mean... These things rely on standardized lab procedures and standardized chemical tests.

Who do you trust if there is no single yardstick of quality and methodology?

Furthermore how do you convey this information to the public?

Again, these standards can be set by certain respected professionals in the private sector. Eventually, an accepted standard will emerge, or two, or three. Look at Underwriter's Laboratories. Perfect example of a private company which creates the standards and quality yardsticks and is universally accepted as quality standard.

The only thing that will happen when you abolish centralized government controlled certifications and inspections, and open it to competition, is that it will force certification/inspection companies to be responsible, or else face losses, and lose business to competitors.

There are already professional associations that do this in many fields - the government standard isn't something someone arbitrarily pulled out of their #######...

This government standard isn't some passive document published weekly. It's the coercive control of entire industries.

Remove the coercive control, and allow the professional associations to establish standards and quality benchmarks. All I'm saying.

[Peikko 1,575]

That's being stupid, no manufacturer is going to insert unnecessary items into the food, particularly not something so expensive and pointless as a razor blade - but, salmonella? Sure, we can sprinkle a bit of that in, along with our slightly over the edge meat that we didn't quite get to use up last week even though it's just a tad over the sell by date. Sure, let's slip some more of that in, why not? Salmonella isn't that bad now, is it?

Well, why not take a look at the company who sprinkled a little Salmonella in their products. See how they're faring?

Did the champion regulation shut them down? No, in fact they knew about the issue weeks before it broke out in the US and did nothing.

Can we boycott the advice of the FDA because they have failed us? Can we have an alternative? No...

Really? They are 'free' to do that are they? Free to 'bargain' for a better wage? I see you have this all so nicely thought out

Again, what's the alternative? Should they starve to death, or continue digging through dumpsters? Obviously they value the labor that they're performing more than what they were doing before. This is a praxeological fact. So again, where's the alternative, and how do you quantify exploitative? Sounds rather subjective to me...

Yes, the alternative is starvation. Exactly so. However, what you didn't answer was how a US business should respond to this kind of competition? Obviously, if the US clothing manufacturer is paying reasonable wages and providing reasonable conditions then the finished product is going to be a tad more expensive than clothing produced by these happy urchins in the third world. So, do US manufacturers stop making the clothes(they probably have at this point anyway)? Or, do they demand that US customers pay more 'realistic' prices determined by being given a fair wage for a fair days work?

What is the consumer's responsibility? How do they assume the responsibility if they are not given accurate information?

Justifying child labour because the alternative is their starvation just seems puerile and can lead to all kinds of spurious justifications. Like, oh I don't know, subjugating a class of people to be the 'workers' so that the more privileged to enjoy the fruits of this labour. How does that strike you? A decent plan?

Well, I disagree in forcing children into starvation. Are you suggesting that these children are working just because they are exploitable and easily taken advantage of? Because that would be puerile.

What is a reasonable wage? Reasonable is subjective. If I offer a job paying $1/hr. and someone takes it, I would consider the job reasonable, and if I offer a job paying $.01 and nobody takes it, then I would consider it unreasonable, as no one accepted my offer to perform labor. Reasonable is between the employer and employee; not you or I.

Again, business is concerned with obtaining the highest profit at the lowest cost, and consumers are concerned with obtaining the highest quality at the lowest price. Certain ethical factors may or may not affect whether or not the consumer would experience a gain, regardless of how appealing the price is. Which is why some people refuse to shop at Wal-Mart, buy products made in China, or other choices. But these choices are up to the individual consumers, and they're made aware of possible ethical issues by competitors. I feel like I'm repeating myself... No one can force anyone to do anything in a voluntary exchange market.

You probably are, repeating yourself but you have sort of confirmed what I think we already knew. Business has no interest in ethics so, the end results are not always something that forwards the 'human condition' in any tangible way.

I particularly like your portrayal of child labour as something beneficial for that child. That's a classic by the way. I think the 19th century industrialists would have liked you on their team, after all it was those pesky unions that stopped child labour, unfairly low wages, unsanitary and unhealthy working conditions - all those things that the third world hasn't quite got right, or perhaps wrong, just yet

[mRx 16]

That's being stupid, no manufacturer is going to insert unnecessary items into the food, particularly not something so expensive and pointless as a razor blade - but, salmonella? Sure, we can sprinkle a bit of that in, along with our slightly over the edge meat that we didn't quite get to use up last week even though it's just a tad over the sell by date. Sure, let's slip some more of that in, why not? Salmonella isn't that bad now, is it?

Well, why not take a look at the company who sprinkled a little Salmonella in their products. See how they're faring?

Did the champion regulation shut them down? No, in fact they knew about the issue weeks before it broke out in the US and did nothing.

Can we boycott the advice of the FDA because they have failed us? Can we have an alternative? No...

Really? They are 'free' to do that are they? Free to 'bargain' for a better wage? I see you have this all so nicely thought out

Again, what's the alternative? Should they starve to death, or continue digging through dumpsters? Obviously they value the labor that they're performing more than what they were doing before. This is a praxeological fact. So again, where's the alternative, and how do you quantify exploitative? Sounds rather subjective to me...

Yes, the alternative is starvation. Exactly so. However, what you didn't answer was how a US business should respond to this kind of competition? Obviously, if the US clothing manufacturer is paying reasonable wages and providing reasonable conditions then the finished product is going to be a tad more expensive than clothing produced by these happy urchins in the third world. So, do US manufacturers stop making the clothes(they probably have at this point anyway)? Or, do they demand that US customers pay more 'realistic' prices determined by being given a fair wage for a fair days work?

What is the consumer's responsibility? How do they assume the responsibility if they are not given accurate information?

Justifying child labour because the alternative is their starvation just seems puerile and can lead to all kinds of spurious justifications. Like, oh I don't know, subjugating a class of people to be the 'workers' so that the more privileged to enjoy the fruits of this labour. How does that strike you? A decent plan?

Well, I disagree in forcing children into starvation. Are you suggesting that these children are working just because they are exploitable and easily taken advantage of? Because that would be puerile.

What is a reasonable wage? Reasonable is subjective. If I offer a job paying $1/hr. and someone takes it, I would consider the job reasonable, and if I offer a job paying $.01 and nobody takes it, then I would consider it unreasonable, as no one accepted my offer to perform labor. Reasonable is between the employer and employee; not you or I.

Again, business is concerned with obtaining the highest profit at the lowest cost, and consumers are concerned with obtaining the highest quality at the lowest price. Certain ethical factors may or may not affect whether or not the consumer would experience a gain, regardless of how appealing the price is. Which is why some people refuse to shop at Wal-Mart, buy products made in China, or other choices. But these choices are up to the individual consumers, and they're made aware of possible ethical issues by competitors. I feel like I'm repeating myself... No one can force anyone to do anything in a voluntary exchange market.

You probably are, repeating yourself but you have sort of confirmed what I think we already knew. Business has no interest in ethics so, the end results are not always something that forwards the 'human condition' in any tangible way.

I particularly like your portrayal of child labour as something beneficial for that child. That's a classic by the way. I think the 19th century industrialists would have liked you on their team, after all it was those pesky unions that stopped child labour, unfairly low wages, unsanitary and unhealthy working conditions - all those things that the third world hasn't quite got right, or perhaps wrong, just yet

If you cannot provide a counter argument to my claims that a child earning a wage is bettering that child's life, then feel free to take the course of the ad hominem argument, as you clearly have.

I have shown countless times in this thread how business transactions forward the 'human condition'; C’est la vie