14 Jan 2004 | Zelnox said...

Lesser of two evils?

14 Jan 2004 | Sean Devine said...

The goal of a repressive regime is to eliminate hope from the conscious mind of the masses. The Cambodian workers who "want" to work in a sweatshop can't even imagine a personal reality where they aren't exploited. If we support a global economy that perpetuates this type of repression, we will prevent a meaningful middle class and free society from developing in second and third world nations.

We can help the repressed people by pressuring their government to guarantee the human rights that they are entitled to. Furthermore, we can refuse to participate with "trading partners" that don't adhere to a minimum human rights standard that the US constitution describes. Anything short of this hurts the lower class of developing nations and the lower and middle classes of the United States.

14 Jan 2004 | velodev said...

I listened to the NYT this morning on my iPod (I love audible) and believe you need to add to your quote...

There was a piece of info I found rather concerning where the woman, in the example, actually picks garbage for $0.75 a day. This is the reason $2 is a dream job.

14 Jan 2004 | JF said...

Are the protesters against third world sweatshops and NAFTA and free trade missing the reality of the situation?

Yes, I do believe they do. I believe their goals are noble, but they ignore reality. Anything is better than picking through garbage dumps for $0.75/day. Putting people to work is a good thing. In order for economies to grow, or for the standard of living to increase people need to be employed. Now, the conditions inside the factories are probably horrid to us westerners, but, as the article states, they are a dream to the people who live in those countries. Over time, as more and more people work, conditions will get better. Standards will get better. Unions will form. Things will get people for these people. Things already are. It's a gradual process that happens naturally.

The same thing happened in this country a century ago.

14 Jan 2004 | Darrel said...

Understand that, as it is now, 'free trade' is isn't really what it sounds like. It is still a very imbalanced global system that isn't really favouring the workers in any country.

14 Jan 2004 | Darrel said...

Understand that, as it is now, 'free trade' isn't really what it sounds like. It is still a very imbalanced global system that isn't really favouring the workers in any country.

Over time, as more and more people work, conditions will get better.

In theory, that's what should happen. In reality, what happens, is once conditions get better, the parent corporation cancels all contracts and ships the jobs somewhere else where they can, again, exploit labour at ridiculously low costs.

The same thing happened in this country a century ago.

It did, and, as you can see, we're now loosing all those jobs because it's 'too expensive'.

14 Jan 2004 | Zelnox said...

Why aren't they paid $4 a day?

14 Jan 2004 | One of several Steves said...

The protesters are frequently missing the reality of a lot of situations related to trade and globalization. It's not the panacea that a lot of supporters say it is, solving all of the developing world's problems, but neither is it the unmitigated evil that the protesters make it out to be.

It's horribly complex. An approach like mentioned about refusing to trade with countries that don't recognize minimum standards, etc. sounds appealing on several levels. But, consider a place like China where huge proportions of the population have seen their quality of life vastly improve, including on the human rights front (although there's still a long way to go). I don't think China would have ever gotten there if it hadn't become such a manufacturing power, and the only way that was going to happen was for post-industrial countries like the United States, EU and Japan to trade with them. Same can be said for India, Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand (some of those without the human rights issues).

Leaving countries such as those in isolation because they pay substandard wages or don't follow the same rules we do would not help them. Just look to North Korea or Albania or Zimbabwe to see how much isolation "benefits" a country.

On the other hand, just exploiting cheap labor pools doesn't really help out, either. There has to be a middle ground, but I'm not smart enough to figure out where it is.

14 Jan 2004 | Benjy said...

In theory, that's what should happen. In reality, what happens, is once conditions get better, the parent corporation cancels all contracts and ships the jobs somewhere else where they can, again, exploit labour at ridiculously low costs.

In some cases this occurs, but often as lower skilled manufacturing moves on to other lower wage locations the manufacturing sector becomes more sophistocated as wages increase. They move from manufacturing textiles and toys to making electronics and computers. Look at Japan, Singapore, Taiwan, South Korea. They all once manufatured simple items that were cheap. As the sector grew and investment was made to train and educate the labor pool, they moved into cars, electronics, etc. and the jobs making textiles and toys moved to China, Malaysia, Sri Lanka, etc. Now Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, etc. are not only manufacturing the most sophistocated of good but they are also designing the manufacturing processes and the products themselves. And now Malaysia, China, etc. are moving into the manucaturing of computers, etc. as their labor force becomes better trained.

This cycle has continued across the globe for decades, and should continue for decades to come. While it'd be nice to bring everybody to first world standards tomorrow that's not feasible in the real world. But the current system has continued to bring groups of nations to a higer standard of living over time.

14 Jan 2004 | Zelnox said...

While it'd be nice to bring everybody to first world standards tomorrow that's not feasible in the real world.
If everyone on this planet consummed like G8 citizens, resources would run out fast. Scary.

14 Jan 2004 | RS said...

It's horribly complex.

That's the most important thing for someone on either side of the debate to realize, imho.

Most extreme positions ("Corporations are evil!" / "Capitalism is a moral imperative!") are alike in their refusal to acknowledge complexity.

14 Jan 2004 | Darrel said...

There has to be a middle ground, but I'm not smart enough to figure out where it is.

We should start a political party based on that motto! ;o)

15 Jan 2004 | nathan said...

Voluntary employment is by definition not exploitation.

Take away these factory jobs and you force people to go to their next worse alternative (subsistence farming or prostitution anyone?) Typically "greedy" international corporations pay higher wages than any local employer could.

I have a sneaking suspicion that much of the angst about 3rd world labor is spread by labor unions who have only succeded in pricing themselves out of work.

15 Jan 2004 | dan s said...

I take issue with nathan's definition of exploitation. Browsing dictionary.com's various definitions, the idea seems to be more about using someone in an immoral fashion than using them against their volition. It is quite possible to exploit someone through coercion, where they act voluntarily but are still far from happy about their alternatives. (The bully is not innocent because the smaller kid voluntarily handed over his lunch money.)

Still I do not buy the Marxist notion that in a Capitalist system all labor is exploited labor, and don't know what to think about this specific issue, so I would be ripe for the plucking by Darrel's new party.

15 Jan 2004 | Wintermute said...

Sweatshop protests are not against people earning a wage that seems exploitative compared to our Western rates.

The NY Times knows this, but deliberately muddies the issue for reasons I'll explain at the end of this post...

Sweatshop protests are about workers, sometimes children, being employed in factories were so little has been spent on safety that their record for amputations and fatalities would lead you to believe you are in a war zone.

Sweatshop protests are against artificially low wages.

In poor countries where there are few employment opportunities, and the law does not guarantee even subsistence wages, the only way workers can force employers to pay them enough to live on is through collective bargaining.

In some countries wages are kept below subsistence levels by killing union leaders and workers who go on strike.

My two points above are about sweatshops, not factories in the third world in general. The NY Times seems to want to confuse the issue by talking about all factories in poor countries as sweatshops.

It's like showing someone a hundred corporate Websites, then saying "See, there's no porn on the Internet!".

The NY Times has run this, and similar stories, a few times over recent years. I wonder why the newspaper, and more importantly it's advertisers, are pushing this line so hard?

Well... sweatshops can be moved. If workers manage to put pressure on the owners, the factory can be relocated to another, more repressive country, where sweatshop conditions can be maintained.

What multinationals that operate sweatshops are terrified of is pressure from consumers. What can they do if people start boycotting their products because of child labour in their factories?

One thing is to try and change their image, cheaper than actually making any real changes in their sweatshops.

Combined with a media campaign to confuse the issue, and convince people that sweatshops are not so bad....

Seems to work on some people!

15 Jan 2004 | Darrel said...

Take away these factory jobs and you force people to go to their next worse alternative (subsistence farming

Many cultures did quite well until we convinced them that subsistence farming was 'wrong' and that commerce was the way to go.

I have a sneaking suspicion that much of the angst about 3rd world labor is spread by labor unions who have only succeded in pricing themselves out of work.

Yea. I'm sick of unions expecting living wages. Greedy bastards.

15 Jan 2004 | Carl said...

Remember that living wages in 3rd world (or developing) countries is NOT the same as in the West. It's easy to get pissed when you see someone is making only a few bucks a day, but that may be a living wage where they live.

15 Jan 2004 | Caleb Jaffa said...

This reminds me of some students who went to Iraq to protest the war. Upon getting there they rode in a cab to get to where they were going to protest, and they were talking with the driver, who told them how grateful he was that the US was going to bring them freedom from Saddam. It kind of hit the students that there might be more to it then what they saw back home.

15 Jan 2004 | p8 said...

JF: "Over time, as more and more people work, conditions will get better. Standards will get better. Unions will form."

A recent UN report says you are wrong:

"Globalization has been a mixed blessing for human rights around the world, undermining the economic power of national governments but strengthening a sense of world community, according to a new analysis from the United Nations University."

"International law has been very slow to adjust to the fact that in the (social and economic rights) realm, the implications of globalization are immense, seriously affecting the power of states to relieve the (social and economic) concerns of their populations, says Ruth Gavison, professor at Jerusalems Hebrew University and one of the authors of the report.

Factors that undermine social and economic improvement in many countries include the mobility of industry, labor and capital, huge disparities in the cost of labor around the world and the vulnerability of developing world leaders and people created by dependence on Western technologies and capital."
...
Contributor Henry Shue, a senior research fellow in the department of politics and international relations at Merton College, Oxford, says international inequalities have become much worse as a result of globalization.
Globalization has done more for the rich and powerful because it was designed, by the rich and powerful, to do precisely this, says Shue. "

It's pretty simple: How is a country going to get richer if people aren't paid minimum wage? Where will they find the money to invest?
And where are most of the profits going? Out of the country?

Aren't China, the US, EU and Japan the perfect examples of protective markets? Compared to for example Russia, Argentina.

Is globalisation going to improve overall conditions or diminshes them? Will the recent plans of IBM to outsource over 4500 jobs to Asia put pressure on US wages and working conditions?

15 Jan 2004 | p8 said...

Why does Nicholas D. Kristof call the cambodian mimimum wage of $2 a day ($45 a month) exploitation?
How does Kristof define exploitation? Does he mean forced overtime without pay and long hours?
Or is Kristof just another journalist who doesn't know what he's talking about? Did he just interview a factory owner or did he do some research?

From my link:

... along with rapid growth came chronic labor problems such as forced overtime without pay, long hours and salaries that are lower than the $45 a month minimum wage. A September report by the International Labor Organization found that more than 80 percent of surveyed factories underpaid their employees.

Does Kristof also think workers aren't beaten enough?

Chhorn said workers had been beaten by hired thugs, offered bribes by management to stop their union organizing and even shot at.

Slaves lived under far better conditions compared to slaves after slavery had been abolished. The slave owners took care of 'their' property. Just like everyone treats their own car a lot better than a rented car. Is Kristof also in favor of introducing slavery again?

15 Jan 2004 | Bill Brown said...

The reason why Cambodians aren't making $5.15/hour is because the work they're doing isn't worth $5.15/hour. If the Cambodian government imposed a minimum wage of $5.15/hour, then the result would be widespread unemployment. It's basic economics. The only reason we have a minimum wage that is so high is because most jobs are worth more than that, so setting the bar that high doesn't cost a lot of jobs.

The thing to remember is that these Third World wages represent real opportunities for the wage earners. There was a time in American history when wages were really low for most industries because we were the Third World at the time (okay, well, perhaps Second World). Wages kept increasing over time (even before the institution of the minimum wage) because our productivity and skills kept increasing. Wages will increase over time because these Third World wage earners will spend their wages in their own economies or save them to start their own businesses. At any rate, the work is more lucrative than what came before.

p8 asks how they're going to be able to save any money to invest if their wages aren't at our minimums. He forgets that their cost of living is a minute fraction of ours. If they're paid $2/day and their cost of living is 50¢/day, that $1.50 is going to seriously improve their living standards. Even if it's $1 or $1.50 per day, their situation will still improve. If they can eke out enough to start a business, they could become self-sufficient and perhaps wealthy.

The problem in the Third World is a lack of stability and legitimate government. If the government is corrupt and starting a business requires lining the pockets of every piss-ant bureaucrat in the country, the situation will never improve because the entrepreneurial spirit is stifled. If the government is constantly changing hands (sometimes violently), long-range planning is impossible. Why bother thinking about the future when you could become a vassal of the state and have all of your property looted when some generalissimo with infinite ambition could take over in a month?

15 Jan 2004 | Jonny Roader said...

"It's easy to get pissed when you see someone is making only a few bucks a day, but that may be a living wage where they live."

Until, say, your child falls ill and you need to pay for treatments patented by Western pharmaceutical giants. Or the harvest fails and local food prices rocket. Or the corporation benevolently employing an entire community in a factory we wouldn't ourselves entertain working in relocates somewhere where scrutiny is less fierce.

The simple fact of the matter is that millions of people - including children - are 'voluntarily' working for very low wages principally because:

a. they have no other choice,
b. we demand cheap products.

Their lives are quite literally subsidising our lifestyles. There are myriad ways of making yourself feel less guilty about this, but in the end the luxuries we take utterly for granted have human costs, and articles like this sideline that as an issue.

15 Jan 2004 | Carl said...

Until, say, your child falls ill and you need to pay for treatments patented by Western pharmaceutical giants.

Patented and invented by Western pharmaceutical giants. How dare those who invest and invent actually charge for their labors. But that's a whole 'nother topic.

15 Jan 2004 | p8 said...

Bill Brown:"p8 asks how they're going to be able to save any money to invest if their wages aren't at our minimums. He forgets that their cost of living is a minute fraction of ours. If they're paid $2/day and their cost of living is 50/day, that $1.50 is going to seriously improve their living standards."

Read again, the cambodian minimum wage is around $2 a day ($45 a month). The minimum wage == cost of living. That's why it's called minimum wage. Or is the US minimum wage 4 times US costs of living?

And 80 % of the factories don't even pay minimum wage.
How can they improve or even maintain their living standards is they don't even earn costs of living?

15 Jan 2004 | Darrel said...

"It's easy to get pissed when you see someone is making only a few bucks a day, but that may be a living wage where they live."

If we're embracing a world market and free trade, than that equally applies to wages. Right now, we have an incredibly lop-sided 'free trade' system.

"Their lives are quite literally subsidising our lifestyles."

Excellent point.

"The minimum wage == cost of living."

Since when? I was under the impression that there was really no correlation between the two.

15 Jan 2004 | Jonny Roader said...

"Patented and invented by Western pharmaceutical giants. How dare those who invest and invent actually charge for their labors. But that's a whole 'nother topic."

'Actually charge for their labors' is an exaggeration of the issue at hand, a deadly serious issue that should demand more respect than such a cheap shot.

AIDS is the illustrative case. Before concerted pressure was applied by people as varied as Bill Clinton and Bono the major drug firms were charging some of the poorest and most afflicted people in the world around $1.50 a day for the anti-retroviral drugs they needed. Even you must admit would quite some dent in a daily income of $2! That price is now around $0.40 (I believe) and guess what - the companies still turn in handsome profits.

And that, in a nutshell, is what this is all about: profit margins. Some would say that, sometimes, they are stacked in favour of the already rich.

Which brings us back full circle: you indicated that it was somehow crass of me to question the right of the pharmaceutical industry to be paid in full for the fruits of their labor (which I didn't actually, but there you go). How ironic given that this entire discussion started because an NYT columnist believes that $2 a day is a 'dream' wage for millions of people.

15 Jan 2004 | JF said...

And that, in a nutshell, is what this is all about: profit margins.

At its core, isn't that what business is about? Why are we so ashamed of that?

15 Jan 2004 | One of several Steves said...

A recent UN report says you are wrong:

I didn't go read the full report, but based on the excerpt you have there, that's certainly not the impression I come away with. In fact, the first sentence says that it's all been a "mixed blessing."

Which it is. Huge portions of the Chinese population are substantially better off than what they used to be, due to global trade. And human rights have improved there, although there's a long way to go. (Economic freedoms are comporable to western standards; the main areas of problem are in political dissent, etc.) The same can be said of India, plus that's a legitimate democracy. I don't think either country would have advanced nearly as they have without globalisation.

Latin America as a whole is also substantially better off than it was 25 years ago. Despite all of Argentina's recent problems, they're still way ahead of 25 years ago. Chile is a completely different country. Ditto Brazil. And Mexico. Yes, they still have some big disparities in wealth, but so does the US. So does most of Europe. In fact, outside of perhaps Luxembourg, everyone does.

I'll go back to my original point: this whole issue is far too complex for the simple platitudes offered by the bulk of most supporters of globalization and most opponents.

Aren't China, the US, EU and Japan the perfect examples of protective markets? Compared to for example Russia, Argentina.

No, they're not. Setting aside agricultural policy for a moment, the US and EU are very open, and the most open markets in the world. Protectionism, state support of industry, etc. is far, far more common in the developing world. And it hurts them more often than not.

Now, on agricultural policy, it's a different story, and it's shameful the way the US and especially the EU continue to be very protectionist in this area. Many countries, particularly in Africa, would benefit hugely from a liberalization of agricultural trade rules. But it's not happening anytime soon. That's what blew up the Cancun meeting of the WTO last year.

Of course, I suspect that if ag rules were loosened so that developing nations would have freer access to markets and therefore reap economic gain, many of the anti-globalization people would then start going on about the plight of the American farmer...

15 Jan 2004 | Darrel said...

At its core, isn't that what business is about? Why are we so ashamed of that?

I don't think anyone is ashamed of profit margins. It's outright greed that is typically the problem.

How big of a profit margin does a company really need?

Now, on agricultural policy, it's a different story, and it's shameful the way the US and especially the EU continue to be very protectionist in this area.

Global agriculture is every bit of an environmental issue is it is economic. It's a bit more complex than selling Levi's.

That said, we need to fix our ag system here. Part of that, though, will require that American's start paying a bit more for their food.

And perhaps that is the issue. As much as we bitch about jobs moving overseas, it's our own fault. We're the ones that insist on shopping at WalMart and buying as much as we can for as cheap as we can. Putting price above all else hides all of the other issues involved.

15 Jan 2004 | JF said...

I don't think anyone is ashamed of profit margins. It's outright greed that is typically the problem. How big of a profit margin does a company really need?

Greed? When does profit margin become greed? When do you say? When the government says so? Do we want the government deciding how much a business can make? I don't.

Business is about profit. Feel free to have your own definition, but it's not the real definition.

15 Jan 2004 | p8 said...

Darrel:""The minimum wage == cost of living." Since when? I was under the impression that there was really no correlation between the two.

That's what they are supposed to be in civilized countries. Minimum wages usually aren't much higher than costs of living. And in a civilized country people who have full-time jobs should be able to pay for their costs of living. What else would be the point of having a minimum wage?
Maybe living wage is a better word.
I 'll bet the cambodian minimum wage isn't higher than costs of living (definitly not 4 times).

steve: "the US and EU are very open, and the most open markets in the world. Protectionism, state support of industry, etc. is far, far more common in the developing world

Yeah, right. Look at the Carlyle Group, Halliburton, Bechtel. Or all the companies that invested in the Gore and Bush campaigns.
The amount of state support in the US is huge compared to the developing world.

15 Jan 2004 | Darrel said...

Greed? When does profit margin become greed?

I don't know.

Do we want the government deciding how much a business can make? I don't.

I don't think so. It'd be nice if we (whether that means the government or not, is another issue) had a bit more regulatory power over corporations so that they're making a profit to benefit all employees. Concepts like pay scales where the ceo's pay is on scale with the janitor's are things that I think warrant some closer analysis.

I, personally, am not against profits. It's how those profits were obtained and what they do with the profits (in terms of their own workers and the communities they are in) that is what people should be looking at. Unfortunately, we're very much removed from the actual source of most of our consumables these days so most people can't even begin to make decisions on what they buy/use with a full set of data/background.

Business is about profit.

Who said it isn't?

15 Jan 2004 | JF said...

Business is about profit. Who said it isn't?

Indirectly a lot of people. Profit is profit. A little or a lot doesn't matter. When you complain about being companies being greedy, you are stating that you have a problem with profit.

16 Jan 2004 | Jonny Roader said...

"Greed? When does profit margin become greed? When do you say? When the government says so? Do we want the government deciding how much a business can make? I don't."

Even you must admit that the thirst for profit should not go untamed, surely? You'd have to border on the insane edge of free-market economics to believe, for example, that the energy industries should go unregulated and be allowed to plunder and pollute to their heart's content. Or, indeed, that pharmaceutical companies in the world's richest economies should squeeze the poor and sick until the pips squeak.

There are plenty of examples necessary regulation: the interests of society as a whole and the interests of business do not always coincide!

So how about you answer Darrel's question: how much profit does a company need? Is the 'no limit' approach one we should unquestioningly encourage? I'd say that's a very dangerous idea indeed, and so would you if you were on the receiving end - or anywhere near it.

16 Jan 2004 | p8 said...

But the amount of profit and exploitation are not correlated.

A company can have small profits, exploit it's workers and pollute the environment.
Another company can be very succesful, have huge profits and have small effects on the environment and not exploit it's workers.

For example if Basecamp becomes very succesful. ;)
37signals can make all the profit they want in my opinion.

16 Jan 2004 | Jonny Roader said...

"But the amount of profit and exploitation are not correlated."

Of course they're not always related (I never said they were!) but in the cases I've mentioned (energy companies, AIDS drug manufacturers) they are.

16 Jan 2004 | Darrel said...

Indirectly a lot of people. Profit is profit. A little or a lot doesn't matter. When you complain about being companies being greedy, you are stating that you have a problem with profit.

You're oversimplifying the issue, JF. Greed is not the same as profit. You can be greedy and not even make a profit, or you can make gigantic profits and give it all away. (which I now read other's have pointed out as well.)

It's what you do with profits that define your company as being a good or bad (or somewhere in between) citizen in the global economy.

16 Jan 2004 | JF said...

It's what you do with profits that define your company as being a good or bad (or somewhere in between) citizen in the global economy.

It is? So if you make a lot of money, and it keep it all for yourself (after paying your expenses, your labor, your tax, and do everything else "right") then you are a bad global citizen simply because you made a lot of money?

16 Jan 2004 | JF said...

So how about you answer Darrel's question: how much profit does a company need? Is the 'no limit' approach one we should unquestioningly encourage?

How about you answer your own question? When does too much become too much? I don't think there should be a limit. That's my answer. What is yours?

I think it's an impossible question to answer which is why I don't think it's realistic to say there should be a "limit."

16 Jan 2004 | JF said...

Just to clarify my position, I don't see the correlation between profit and being a bad global citizen. Profit does not lead to bad. Companies can be bad global citizens and be losing money. Companies can ravish the environment and be broke. Frankly, this concept that the more profitable you are the worse you are disgusts me.

16 Jan 2004 | Bill Brown said...

Even you must admit that the thirst for profit should not go untamed, surely? You'd have to border on the insane edge of free-market economics to believe, for example, that the energy industries should go unregulated and be allowed to plunder and pollute to their heart's content. Or, indeed, that pharmaceutical companies in the world's richest economies should squeeze the poor and sick until the pips squeak.

Nice argument from intimidation. The unquenchable thirst for profit is what has gotten our economy where it is today. And the amount of fraud and unsafe practices is fairly negligble, despite some recent prominent cases to the contrary.

Even without the enormous regulatory apparatus we've got today, which you seemingly regard as the only thing keeping us oppression by our capitalist overlords, there would still be protection of the law through torts and criminal remedies. Plunder and pollution both have negative repercussions on society and both would be illegal in an "insane" free market.

I also don't get the acrimony directed towards pharmaceutical companies. Someone earlier said that these evil businesses were charging "$1.50 a day for the anti-retroviral drugs" that saved poor people's lives. And I've heard a lot of squawking about how seniors might pay $700/month for drugs that keep them alive. I can't say that I feel a whole lot of sympathy for the complaints (though I do for the people needing the drugs) because prior to the drug companies' creation of these drugs the best the poor could expect was death and the elderly could look forward to pain and gradual death. $700/month (or $1.50/day) seems like a cheap way to cheat death. Sure, the money is a lot but they obviously find the alternative less compelling.

The drug companies are saving lives. Are they charging too much? It's easy for you, me, and the politicians to level such charges but we don't know their economic situations. They've got a limited amount of time to profit from a drug before it becomes available generically. They've spent billions trying to get the drug through the FDA (and that's only one market's regulatory hurdle—they have to repeat the process in dozens more if they're selling worldwide). They've got significant R&D expenditures to account for in the development of the drug in the first place and also for future drugs. Plus there's manufacturing costs—much of which, if I understand correctly—takes place in the expensive environment of the United States. Finally, there's probably a lot more variability that I, being an outsider, am not familiar with that further drives up costs like liability insurance and such.

Any effort to set price controls on such an enterprise can only have a stultifying effect and lead to ruin. It's a highly creative effort that doesn't lend itself well to outside edict.

16 Jan 2004 | Jonny Roader said...

"How about you answer your own question? When does too much become too much? I don't think there should be a limit. That's my answer. What is yours?"

Well I'd say that it's too much when it's at the expense of wider global society, for example when kids die because their parents can't afford artificially high drug prices because they're paid artificially low wages in order to preserve the wallets of the already rich Western consumer.

I have no quarrel with companies making shed loads of money if they're doing it in a way that isn't blatantly harming others. I presume you'd agree, so I'm confused at your stance: do you really believe that a corporation's right to make money is of more importance than human rights? That as far as you're concerned you don't think companies should act morally if that puts a brake on profit?

16 Jan 2004 | Jonny Roader said...

"Just to clarify my position, I don't see the correlation between profit and being a bad global citizen. Profit does not lead to bad. Companies can be bad global citizens and be losing money. Companies can ravish the environment and be broke. Frankly, this concept that the more profitable you are the worse you are disgusts me."

Not for the first time in this thread you seem to be tilting at windmills, JF.

I certainly have not implied that 'the more profitable you are the worse you are'. I don't think, for example, that Bill Gates is an immoral man or that Microsoft is a particularly immoral company. Ruthless and not altogether honest certainly, but the last time I checked Bill Gates wasn't inflating the prices of much-needed drugs, or spewing out pollution that most scientists now believe will have very serious implications for humanity as a whole.

As others have tried to point out, it's not profit per se that's bad. It's how some companies reach that profit, or seek to protect it, or use it once they've got it, that's bad. Surely that's a concept you can find something to agree with? If not, speaking frankly I find your views disgusting too.

16 Jan 2004 | Jonny Roader said...

Bill Brown:

I understand where you're coming from, but you couldn't be more wrong if you think that I must be some kind of anti-capitalist firebrand. Along with millions of others I just think that certain big businesses cannot be trusted to do the right thing by the world at large. You imply that 'protection of the law' is a good enough check-and-balance and that even in an 'insane' market situation such things as pollution would not get out of hand: why is it, then, that pollution is so bad even in our relatively 'sane' market society?

And while I do see the argument that the pharmaceutical industry relies on high-cost innovation, but it doesn't follow from that that the only possible way to defeat disease or develop treatments is through drug companies. If the political will was there then AIDS drugs could be manufactured and dispensed by the combined efforts of, say, the US and EU alone - two 'states' that have done immense damage to places like Cambodia and Africa over the years, let's not forget.

16 Jan 2004 | Darrel said...

It is? So if you make a lot of money, and it keep it all for yourself (after paying your expenses, your labor, your tax, and do everything else "right") then you are a bad global citizen simply because you made a lot of money?

Just throwing out the oversimplified distilliation of an opposing viewpoint does not make for good debate, JF.

This isn't AM talk radio. ;o)

Again, you are just talking about profit. Profit, itself, is inert. It's not necessarily evil or good by default.

Just to clarify my position, I don't see the correlation between profit and being a bad global citizen.

Again, profit, by itself, is just profit. There is no correlation with the companies' ethical, moral, and (often) legal stature and profit.

It's what a company does with the profit and how it goes about achieving said profit. And it's not a simply black/white or good/evil analysis.

16 Jan 2004 | Bill Brown said...

why is it, then, that pollution is so bad even in our relatively 'sane' market society?

Pollution is so bad? Must suck where you live! I live in Phoenix, which is the sixth largest city (or was it fifth? I can never remember.) in America, and pollution isn't bad at all. Sure, it can get a little smoggy but we're very friendly to industry and hesitant to limit growth 'round here. By your reasoning, we should be a cesspool. We definitely have our rundown areas, but those weren't caused by pollution or industry—more like "broken windows".

The difference between American pollution, Third World pollution, and former-Communist-nation pollution is dramatic. I tend to think of pollution in America as about the baseline for an industrialized, modern country. It could be less, but the costs would be prohibitive. We're maybe the acceptable level of pollution. Other industrialized nations have less pollution, but spend a lot more to effect it. The Third World is a pitiful cesspool of pollution, filth, and pestilence. The former Communist nations show the effects of not protecting private property and a government that views its citizens as means to ends.

it doesn't follow from that that the only possible way to defeat disease or develop treatments is through drug companies.

I'm afraid I don't follow. It sounds like you're advocating nationalizing the production of AIDS drugs to supply Africa and Cambodia. Uhh, that's a new one to me. First, why is it our responsibility to solve the African AIDS problem when they demonstrably brought it on themselves? Second, the government, if we were to do something towards that end, should be respecting the property rights of the drug companies instead of expropriating them. Assuming that the government could do a better, cheaper job of producing drugs—ahem, a premise I'm not conceding by a long shot—the government should license the patents. The only way, though, that the drugs could be made cheaper is if someone stole the drugs so that the R&D and associated costs never entered into the production accounting. And that is a very reprehensible thought to me. Finally, I disagree with the idea as a taxpayer. It's bad enough that we give such massive amounts of foreign aid, do we have to keep finding new problems to fund? It's like a blank check written on me and my fellow taxpayers' earnings—another idea I find repellant.

16 Jan 2004 | Bill Brown said...

Darrel: I appreciate your understanding that profit is strictly an economic term without normative connotations. That's great. But it's not what you generally hear. I think JF might have been expressing a frustration he has with people generally disparaging profit as inherently corrupting and projecting it on to this discussion.

A quick Google search on "drug company profit" supports the ubiquity of such an attitude.

16 Jan 2004 | Jonny Roader said...

"I tend to think of pollution in America as about the baseline for an industrialized, modern country."

"First, why is it our responsibility to solve the African AIDS problem when they demonstrably brought it on themselves?"

I can see we will never agree, so let's just leave it at that.

16 Jan 2004 | Bill Brown said...

Jonny: Fine by me.

16 Jan 2004 | Darrel said...

Sure, it can get a little smoggy but we're very friendly to industry and hesitant to limit growth 'round here. By your reasoning, we should be a cesspool.

You limit growth in Phoenix? A gigantic city located in the middle of the desert with more over-watered golf courses than anywhere I've seen?

What do you think powers all of your Air Conditioning? Where do you think all of the golf-course run-off goes to? Is that type of pollution worth it to live in the middle of the desert? I don't know. Maybe it is. Maybe it isn't. It probably depends on who you ask.

It could be less, but the costs would be prohibitive. We're maybe the acceptable level of pollution.

Acceptable level? Are you kidding?

Anyways...your prohibitive costs comment is the crux of the issue.

Let's say a company can make a 25% profit margin with the energy produced today by a coal burning plant. If it switched to a cleaner energy source, it could only make 15% profit.

To me, the extra 10% isn't the most altruistic profit. That's just me, of course, but that's the type of debate/analysis one needs to engage in to determine if a company is being greedy, or just looking for a profit to stay in business while giving both it's employees and the community it is in the best it can.

First, why is it our responsibility to solve the African AIDS problem when they demonstrably brought it on themselves?

Wow, Bill. You don't think we as humans should be looking out for each other on this tiny planet of ours?

16 Jan 2004 | Bill Brown said...

Darrel: I said "but we're very friendly to industry and hesitant to limit growth 'round here" [emphasis mine] I meant that we don't do much and should, according to Jonny and others, be a cesspool.

Yes, there are definitely acceptable levels of pollution. Every person, animal, and plant emits carbon dioxide as part of their respiratory functions. If carbon dioxide causes global warming (and it undoubtedly contributes to the greenhouse effect), then all those emissions could be considered bad except that it also makes the planet hospitable. As another example (less lame), the internal combustion engine belches out a lot of carbon monoxide and other pollutants yet we as a planet still drive and have ever since the engine was developed. Obviously, we're basically okay with some level of pollution because we find the alternative (horses, walking) unpalatable.

Where the term "acceptable" comes into play is in evaluating the tradeoff between pollution and the costs associated with no pollution. To completely eliminate any pollution from an internal combustion engine is definitely possible. But doing so would jack up the cost of the engine to unacceptable levels. So we accept that there will be some pollution attendant with the engine. If we didn't accept it, then we wouldn't buy them and we would instead buy electric vehicles (not as pollution free as they seem, they're differently polluting because batteries are very toxic and the production of the cars releases plenty of pollution). That's the notion of voting with your dollars. It's self-evident that people find some level of pollution acceptable because of their actions—words to the contrary.

Wow, Bill. You don't think we as humans should be looking out for each other on this tiny planet of ours?

Nope, except insofar as one feels a sense of voluntary benevolence. If you asked if I would be willing to donate some money to help combat AIDS for children in Africa, I would consider it seriously because a) children are innocent victims of the disease having either been contaminated by tainted blood transfusions or passed the disease by their mothers in utero, b) they aren't able to make enough money to afford their own treatments, and c) you're asking me rather than forcing me to contribute. For those who may think that there are only innocent victims of AIDS, you are wrong. Much of the AIDS problem in Africa has come from sexually promiscuous men and women.

The difference between voluntary charity and government compulsion is significant, both morally and practically. What we have now (and what Jonny Roader suggests) is the government stealing money from me that I have earned legitimately and giving it indiscriminately to African countries and charities to combat the AIDS problem. This is problematic because a) I never consented to such a transfer of wealth, b) I don't think that the allocations are the best way to attack the situation, and c) the money thus sent often ends up in the coffers of corrupt officials, despotic warlords, and ineffectual charities. If I choose where to send my money, I can investigate and feel comfortable that my money is being well spent.

Finally, and this is bordering on off topic, I don't believe that I am responsible for anyone other than myself and my family. That's the "nope" part of my earlier answer. I believe in individual responsibility and that extends even to the impoverished. As far as the Third World goes, it's unfortunate that they live in a system where individual rights aren't protected, believe in a religion that encourages unsupportable family sizes, lack the entrepreneurial spirit to seize opportunities where they lay, and join in the chorus of the have-nots begging for the haves to take care of them because they can't (or won't) take care of themselves.

Is this callous? I don't think so. I think that such preaching of self-responsibility is the best thing that could happen to the Third World. I think that the victimization ideology does nothing to actually help them out of their situations and only serves to placate some deep-seated guilt felt by many in the First World. Their world would be a better place if it were freer and more capitalistic.

16 Jan 2004 | p8 said...

Bill Brown: "It's bad enough that we give such massive amounts of foreign aid, do we have to keep finding new problems to fund? It's like a blank check written on me and my fellow taxpayers' earningsanother idea I find repellant."

The problem with foreign debts is that a country can't go broke and start with a clean slate. If banks give loans to corrupt regimes they do so at their own risk (just like giving a loan to a company). If these regimes get overthrown the new government should not be obliged to pay the debts.

But that's not how it works and now a lot of third world countries have run into a debt trap. They can't afford to pay the interest.
So now for every one dollar given in aid to the developing world, three dollars are demanded in interest.
Must suck to fund bankers through your tax-dollars!

You live in a democracy right? Well, than you can do something about this.

The Zaireans don't live in a democracy. During the 1980s, US$8.5 billion was secretly lent to the ex-President Mobutu of Zaire by Western institutions who knew that those loans were being corruptly diverted.

If Mobutu lacked the authority to raise money on behalf of Zaireans, under what duty are the people obliged to pay for the debts?

What about South Africa? The country is labouring under a US$70 billion debt. Interest payments alone are the second highest expenditure after education. To what extent are black South Africans obliged to repay the loans of an oppressive regime they could not elect?

So basically the South Africans partly funded the same banks that partly fund the pharmaceutical companies. Surely the South Africans could produce their own cheap Aids drugs based on the western drug (whose R&D they indirectly funded)?
Think of all the taxes you would't have to pay if these people could buy cheaper drugs!

16 Jan 2004 | Bill Brown said...

p8: It's actually much worse than you suggest because one of the big foreign aid programs we (and other countries and intergovernmental organizations) do is guarantee foreign loans. If the new regime defaults on a loan, it's the American taxpayers that have to pay for it, not some banks (generally).

To take your example to its ludicrous end (and relate it back to a previous discussion here), I pay a lot of interest on my various debts to banks and financial institutions. Banks lend to the music labels so that they can buy music and distribute it. So I might as well cut out the middleman and just download the music for free. Except that property rights don't work like that. And they're the same for countries as they are for individuals. In other words, the South African government has no ownership interest in the drug companies because it paid interest to banks (and not necessarily even the same banks) that lent money or invested in drug companies.

I'm starting to think that Thomas Sowell was right.

16 Jan 2004 | Bill Brown said...

And regarding the fact that these countries have racked up debt: the Union assumed the debts of the Confederacy after the Civil War, the federal government assumed the debts of the Confederation after the Constitution was ratified, and Bush assumed the debts incurred by Clinton (as he did with Bush who did so with Reagan), Weimar Germany paid reparations made possible by the Kaiser's Germany, and the Axis governments assumed the debts of their illegitimate predecessors.

Honorable governments own up to the obligations of the past. Just as honorable individuals do (I accumulated a lot of debt in my youth that I regret today).

16 Jan 2004 | p8 said...

Bill Brown: "To take your example to its ludicrous end (and relate it back to a previous discussion here), I pay a lot of interest on my various debts to banks and financial institutions. Banks lend to the music labels so that they can buy music and distribute it"

To take my example to its ludicrous would you feel guilty downloading if:
- a dictator would take over the US and increase the deficit by such a huge amount that all you're taxes would go to paying the interest;
- the interest is payed to the same banks that lend money to the music labels;

Bill Brown: "Honorable governments own up to the obligations of the past. Just as honorable individuals do (I accumulated a lot of debt in my youth that I regret today)."
But what if obligations were made by non-democratic previous governments?
Do you think Baker should not help iraq with its debt (which he helped create btw)?
Do you think your children should inherit your debts?

16 Jan 2004 | Darrel said...

Finally, and this is bordering on off topic, I don't believe that I am responsible for anyone other than myself and my family.

Oh...well, we clearly disagree on that point so I won't belabor the issue.

16 Jan 2004 | Jonny Roader said...

"Honorable governments own up to the obligations of the past."

I'd be interested to know your views on reparation for slavery in that case. I won't ask for your views on the related matter of obligations to the American Indian peoples, having just read your essay on the matter. ("For us to deprecate and denounce our heritage is a grave injusticeworse possibly than the original injustice to which this was a reaction." Flabbergasting, truly.)

16 Jan 2004 | Bill Brown said...

p8: Where to begin?! Your question about downloading is completely irrelevant and it makes zero sense.

But what if obligations were made by non-democratic previous governments?

I'm pretty sure I covered that with my Weimar Germany and post-WWII Axis powers examples. Neither of these two cases were preceded by democratic powers, if you aren't familiar with the history.

Do you think Baker should not help iraq with its debt (which he helped create btw)?

Hmm, I thought Saddam Hussein created the debt. Or did Baker make Saddam Hussein attack Iran, invade Kuwait, and lead an opulent lifestyle in an impoverished nation? With all of the oil money flowing through Iraq, there isn't any reason why Iraq should have the amount of debt that it has except for Saddam Hussein. I can't believe I'm even responding to this.

Do you think your children should inherit your debts?

Uhh, why would you possibly think that I believe this? My debts are individual (well, my wife's on them) and they expire with me. I guess, in a sense, my children will inherit my debt since my estate will be responsible for settling my debts, which will reduce the amount available to bequeath to them. But that doesn't impose any obligations on them (and it might not even be correct since IANAL).

There is only one sense in which we can pass our debts on to our children and that's government bonds. The interest and principal on government bonds is paid out of taxes and future taxes will come out of our children's income. That's hardly in my control, though.

Jonny Roader: You definitely captured the essence of my essay with that quote. I thought you were referring to my essay on the Indian problem, which deals more with what you're referring to. I think the federal government's handling of Indians in the nineteenth century was very unfortunate and we've been making it up to them ever since.

As far as slavery reparations go, I don't think the government owes descendants of slaves a dime. If the government was trafficking in slaves, then a case might be made. I think the reparations made to Jews by postwar Germany were appropriate for that reason. Same with our postwar reparations to Japanese-Americans wrongfully detained. The slave trade was utterly deplorable, but it was privately wrought. The Africans sold their people as slaves and the slave owners were willing buyers. I didn't purchase slaves, you didn't, and most likely our ancestors didn't. It was government sanctioned but not government sponsored.

If the descendants were being intellectually honest, they would go after the African tribes that sold their ancestors into slavery. Or they might be glad that, however evil the institution, they ended up living in America during the twentieth century instead of Africa (especially given the massive genocide in Rwanda, the Sudan, and elsewhere). I would never say that they should feel grateful that past masters bought their relatives because I can't emphasize enough how despicable the institution was. They should feel grateful to live in America, in the same way that we all as descendents of immigrants should.

Okay, well, that was somewhat on topic, but I'm sure that we're drifting seriously off course.

16 Jan 2004 | JF said...

As others have tried to point out, it's not profit per se that's bad. It's how some companies reach that profit, or seek to protect it, or use it once they've got it, that's bad.

Then explain why you think there should be a limit on the amount of profit a company can make? Isn't the problem the leadership at the company rather than "the profit?" If people are doing something criminal then let's stop that, but making a legal profit is not criminal -- no matter how massive. Sometimes immoral? Maybe, but you know what happens when we try to legislate morality.

16 Jan 2004 | JF said...

I think JF might have been expressing a frustration he has with people generally disparaging profit as inherently corrupting and projecting it on to this discussion.

Yeah, that was my point. I suck at making it sometimes.

16 Jan 2004 | One of several Steves said...

Darrell: That said, we need to fix our ag system here. Part of that, though, will require that American's start paying a bit more for their food.

In many cases, we'll be paying *less* for our food (orange juice and sugar are two that come immediately to mind). The purpose of ag subsidies is not to provide a cheaper food supply. It's to provide agribusiness with income. And don't fall for the canard about supporting the family farm. The bulk of subsidies go to large-scale and corporate farms.

p8: Yeah, right. Look at the Carlyle Group, Halliburton, Bechtel. Or all the companies that invested in the Gore and Bush campaigns.
The amount of state support in the US is huge compared to the developing world.

The US provides zero in direct subsidies to any of those companies, which is the definition of state-supported industry. Are the Bush people giving them contracts? Sure. So did the Clinton administration. That's their business. And while there is no question in my mind that they are getting preferential treatment, that has nothing to do with the openness of the market, which is what we're discussing. Not political favors.

16 Jan 2004 | p8 said...

Your question about downloading is completely irrelevant and it makes zero sense.

Black South Africans copying Aids drugs from pharmaceutical companies,
Pharmaceutical companies funded by banks,
Banks funded by interest paid for by Black South Africans
Interest from loans created by a regime Black South Africans didn't elect.

==

You copying music from Music labels,
Music labels funded by banks,
Banks funded by interest paid by you,
Interest from loans created by a dictator you didn't elect.

Yeah, I know, there is not a pure one on one relation between the banks who funded the South African regime and the banks who funded the pharmaceutical companies. But there is also not a one on on relation between Black South Africans and South Africas debt.
I'm either for debt relieve or turning a blind eye to South Africa copying Aids durgs.

iraq's foreign debt baker's own involvment

not only did his "Baker Plan" utterly fail to reduce the Third World debt when he was Treasury Secretary, but when he was Secretary of State, he actually encouraged the US Department of Agriculture and leading US and foreign banks to lend billions of dollars to Iraq (p8: to buy weapons) -- despite its credit unworthiness.

Do you think your children should inherit your debts? Uhh, why would you possibly think that I believe this? My debts are individual (well, my wife's on them) and they expire with me.

If a bank lends someone money and that person dies, no one has to inherit that persons debts. Because no one but that person is responsible for the debts.
If a bank lends a non-democratic regime money and that regime is overthrown no one but the people responsible should inherit that regime's debts.
Why you think Weimar Germany, Zaire and South Africa should pay their inherited debts and Iraq and your children should not is beyond me.

Your Weimar Germany example is an example where unpayable debts let to hyper-inflation, massive unemployment and ensuing drops in tax revenue. These were a major factor in causing political and social tensions and contributed to Hitler's election.

Are you in favor of creating breeding grounds for more Hitlers (think Osama)?

16 Jan 2004 | p8 said...

steve: "And while there is no question in my mind that they are getting preferential treatment, that has nothing to do with the openness of the market,"

How can a foreign company fairly compete with a company that gets preferential treatment?

16 Jan 2004 | Darrel said...

Then explain why you think there should be a limit on the amount of profit a company can make?

Umm...I don't think that. Where did you come up with that assumption?

Isn't the problem the leadership at the company rather than "the profit?"

Of course.

If people are doing something criminal then let's stop that, but making a legal profit is not criminal -- no matter how massive.

Again, JF, no one (in here, at least) is knocking profit.

Maybe, but you know what happens when we try to legislate morality.

All laws are legislated morality, aren't they?

16 Jan 2004 | Darrel said...

In many cases, we'll be paying *less* for our food (orange juice and sugar are two that come immediately to mind).

Perhaps, though we'd be paying more for many other types of food.

The purpose of ag subsidies is not to provide a cheaper food supply. It's to provide agribusiness with income.

Well, at one time, we kept food priced low through keeping so many farms in production.

And don't fall for the canard about supporting the family farm. The bulk of subsidies go to large-scale and corporate farms.

Oh...absolutely. A big problem with ag in this country is the massive breaks we give to corporate farming.

that has nothing to do with the openness of the market, which is what we're discussing. Not political favors.

Don't confuse 'theory' with the 'real world'. ;o)

Political Favors are government subsidies. Just with a different name.

16 Jan 2004 | Bill Brown said...

Weimar Germany's hyperinflation and massive unemployment were more a factor of the worldwide depression than war reparations. If anything, the reparations were an easy scapegoat for Germany's woes that Hitler and his party could use.

I'm out of this discussion. Things are getting seriously tangential (and I bet I should probably be working).

16 Jan 2004 | p8 said...

Weimar Germany's hyperinflation and massive unemployment were more a factor of the worldwide depression than war reparations.

Wikipedia:

...the exact size of the reparations to be paid by Germany. In 1921, this number was officially put at $33,000,000,000, a sum that many economists deemed to be excessive. The economic problems that the payments brought are cited as one of the causes of the end of the Weimar Republic and the dictatorship of Adolf Hitler...

16 Jan 2004 | One of several Steves said...

Darrell:

All laws are legislated morality, aren't they?

No, no, no, no, no, no!

As you can tell, this is one commonly held fallacy that drive me nuts.

Laws exist to provide an orderly society. There are many things that are immoral that are not legislated against, because they have nothing to do with preserving orderly society, and in some cases might be counterproductive to society (just think of the greed v. profit disucssion going on elsewhere in the thread).

Standards for what defines an orderly society differ by culture, but that's what laws are. They frequently do parallel moral standards. But outright moral legislation neve succeeds at the orderly society bit. Like Prohibition in the States.

p8: How can a foreign company fairly compete with a company that gets preferential treatment?

Not very well. But that's not a matter of governmental policy, but administrative action. That president goes away, the preferential treatment likely goes away.

I'm not making the point very clearly. As a matter of policy, overall the United States and EU have the most open trade policies (excepting ag, as mentioned before). The policy is not always implemented consistently or in the spirit of the policy. This is definitely the case here.

Bill Brown: Weimar Germany's hyperinflation and massive unemployment were more a factor of the worldwide depression than war reparations.

Nope. Significant economic problems in Weimar Germany occurred long before the depression spread worldwide in 1930 and 1931. Most of the problems were in the 20s. In fact, the Nazis took over in 32 or 33, and the depression lasted for years after.

The vast majority of historians chalk up reparations as one of the significant causes of the war, as well as the Weimar Republic's problems.

17 Jan 2004 | Eric said...

Apparently Jonny R isn't making anyone any profit today with all of those posts of his.

17 Jan 2004 | Bill Brown said...

Being a historian (though admittedly not of the twentieth century), I can't let this part of the discussion pass.

p8: Your quote about Weimar Germany did not contradict my statement at all. It said that reparations were one of the causes of Hitler's rise to power. It didn't say a thing about hyperinflation.

Steve:

Nope. Significant economic problems in Weimar Germany occurred long before the depression spread worldwide in 1930 and 1931. Most of the problems were in the 20s. In fact, the Nazis took over in 32 or 33, and the depression lasted for years after.

Weimar Germany had problems from its inception. Four years of a military-dominated (and devastated) economy followed by the release of millions of German soldiers back into the economy led to massive unemployment and dislocation.

Hyperinflation was caused by Weimar's running of the presses, trying to print their way to recovery. Sure, some of the currency was used to make reparations payments but that was fairly minimal and the printing rate would suggest that they could have paid off the reparations with the diluted currency in just a couple of months. That they didn't suggests that the Allies wanted the payments made in specie or hard currency.

The vast majority of historians chalk up reparations as one of the significant causes of the war, as well as the Weimar Republic's problems.

"Vast majority of historians"? I'd like to see your historiographic support for this. It seems like an imprecise, fuzzy formulation. Maybe you meant, "The couple of historians I've read on the subject chalk up …"

18 Jan 2004 | One of several Steves said...

"Vast majority of historians"? I'd like to see your historiographic support for this. It seems like an imprecise, fuzzy formulation. Maybe you meant, "The couple of historians I've read on the subject chalk up "

One, I've read more than a couple.

Two, yes, it's a bit of a broad statement, and not one I have time to go and verify by comparing dozens of texts. But saying that reparations played a role in the chaos of 1920s Germany and the rise of Naziism is hardly a novel concept.

As you pointed out, there were numerous other factors that led to the chaos and collapse of Weimar. And there's no question that reparations was one of the many things the Nazis used to great effect to win a sizable amount (although never majority) political support. Yes, they used it as part of the larger "stab in the back" line of thinking, which was a very commonly accepted view in Germany after the war and was exploited very largely by Luddendorf. Germany never thought they lost the war, and resented being treated like they were, and huge reparations are ceratinly part of being treated like they lost the war.

25 Jan 2004 | Jason said...

close

28 Jan 2005 | super bowl said...

4734 super bowl
super bowl 2005
super bowl ticket
super bowl history
super bowl sunday
super bowl xxxix
super bowl date
super bowl sunday 2005
super bowl 2005 date
super bowl 39
nfl super bowl
super bowl champion
jacksonville super bowl
super bowl party
super bowl package
super bowl ads
super bowl odds
2005 super bowl ticket
nfl super bowl ticket
super bowl ring
nfl super bowl 2005
when is the super bowl
super bowl schedule
cheap super bowl ticket
las vegas super bowl party
super bowl hotel
super bowl prediction
super bowl game
super bowl weekend
win super bowl ticket
2005 super bowl odds
maxim super bowl party
super bowl ticket package
super bowl party idea
when is super bowl 2005
super bowl football
playboy super bowl party
super bowl logo
super bowl record
past super bowl
super bowl halftime show
super bowl xxxix ticket
leigh steinberg super bowl party
super bowl 05
lee steinberg super bowl party
super bowl mvp
super bowl team
super bowl travel package
super bowl win
super bowl pick
super bowl location
super bowl stats
buy super bowl ticket

02 Feb 2005 | online pharmacy said...

I really appreciate blogs like this one becuase it is insightful and helps me communicate with others.
thanks.also, that guy billyz, I really need to talk to you about that cure you mentioned.