Two great reads, one about Google and the other about the financial world

[Saul]

I don't know anything about the mining industry, but it's certainly true that kids are very badly exploited in the cocoa production industry in West Africa. I wrote about it before:
http://experienced-people.net/forums...in-West-Africa

It's not all BS. Nor is it BS that people (including children) around the world are exploited because of others' greed and desire for power. It's not an emotional or political statement to say so. It's a fact.

I wrote out what they make those kids do and then had to delete it because it made me feel sick.

Pffft? I'm stunned. You don't know what you don't know.

My point was not to say it was not happening. A lot of terrible stuff is happening around the world. But to say we're responsible for this because we need a new TV? That's typical BS guilt mongering or whatever you want to call it. As if it wasn't for these poor kids we would not be able to mine the resources. This is all purely emotional and not rational arguments.

I was trying to get you to step back and see things without your preconceptions. If the alien trick doesn't work, try something else that does. Imagine you go to an alien planet and see them killing each other over little purple stones, and then imagine one of them trying to explain that although they can't eat them or use them in anyway, they all want them, as many as they can get for social prestige.

Or something.

It's not about purple stones (or money), it's about resources needed to survive and they are scarce...

I'm sorry to have to use this word because it has unfortunate connotations but this is just ignorance of reality Saul.

http://www.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrine Do some reading up on 'Disaster Capitalism'. Money really does make the world go round.

Right, another conspiracy theory. If it wasn't for the social engineering we wouldn't need cars, computers, phones, the Internet, we'd be happy to live in our little shacks and live off of land. Pretty much like many African tribes already do and I'm sure most of them are happy.

I'm interested to see how you think this distribution of abundant wealth and resources that we have would take place to fix the world?

[Kay]

My point was not to say it was not happening. A lot of terrible stuff is happening around the world. But to say we're responsible for this because we need a new TV? That's typical BS guilt mongering or whatever you want to call it. As if it wasn't for these poor kids we would not be able to mine the resources. This is all purely emotional and not rational arguments.

If people in the West did not demand chocolate, there would be no industry to produce and supply it. No point, if there's no demand for it. There would be no need to abduct children, including from neighbouring countries, to provide the labour for the cocoa plantations. Chocolate is not a necessity of life. Indeed many of the child slaves involved in cocoa production have never even tasted the end-product of their labour, ie chocolate.

How can you say it's an emotional response or BS mongering to say that if we did not demand chocolate, then the slave labour on the plantations wouldn't be happening? It's simple economics - if we didn't demand the raw materials to produce chocolate, then there would be no point in enslaving children to produce the cocoa beans. So the rich countries who demand chocolate for their Easter eggs, etc (I believe it'll be Easter soon?) are responsible for the continuance of the trade. Stop buying chocolate that's been produced by slaves and then you won't be responsible.

Next time you buy chocolate, think about how it was produced. If you continue to eat chocolate which is sourced from West Africa then, yes, you are responsible to some degree for the continuance of this vile trade. Not all chocolate production falls into this category, but a lot does, and do you know or care when you eat the stuff?

It's not irrational or emotional at all to say that if people in the West didn't demand the raw materials then the trade would at least slow if not stop. It's more a case of burying your head in the sand if you don't want to face the facts and accept reality.

[Saul]

And if these were resources used for necessities, would child slavery be OK? My point is that child slavery will take place anyway, if not in cocoa fields then somewhere else. Our consumption is not the cause of it. Child enslavers are. Then maybe we should address the real problem instead of trying to make ourselves better by not eating chocolate?

[Dave McM]

Our consumption is not the cause of it. Child enslavers are. Then maybe we should address the real problem

How? Through idiot government?

Your argument sounds very much like the one that governments around the world use to justify arms exports: "the client governments will buy arms anyway, so they might as well be ours as the other buggers'". In other words, an excuse to turn a blind eye and hold out the hand for the money.

And it's specious to say that our consumption isn't the cause of it - as long as people with money are prepared to pay for goods or services without concern as to how they're produced, it'll make economic sense to kidnap children and enslave them. No one's suggesting that we shouldn't buy chocolate, 100" TVs or whatever - just that we should buy them from companies who have at least a rudimentary commitment to human decency.

P.S. The cocoa for chocolate I eat comes from Germany, if that makes you feel better.

Wow. I never realised that you could grow cocoa on a commercial basis in the temperate zones. How much are you paying?
Edit: Hmm. I see a ninja edit has happened while I was writing.

2nd edit: It's just occurred to me that although you've several times referred to "the real problem" and how that's what we should be addressing, you've never once defined it. Could you please do so? Trying to have a proper debate with such vague terms of reference is like trying to nail blancmange to a wall.

[Saul]

How? Through idiot government?

No way, that goes against everything I've posted so far. I don't claim to know a solution to this problem. But doing whatever, blaming whatever is hardly a solution either. We have to learn to cast the emotions aside no matter how terrible child slavery is and how angry it makes us, we can only figure something out by rational thinking.

Your argument sounds very much like the one that governments around the world use to justify arms exports: "the client governments will buy arms anyway, so they might as well be ours as the other buggers'". In other words, an excuse to turn a blind eye and hold out the hand for the money.

And it's specious to say that our consumption isn't the cause of it - as long as people with money are prepared to pay for goods or services without concern as to how they're produced, it'll make economic sense to kidnap children and enslave them. No one's suggesting that we shouldn't buy chocolate, 100" TVs or whatever - just that we should buy them from companies who have at least a rudimentary commitment to human decency.

Eh, no. The original point was against the argument that the western world is only wealthy because of child slave labor. Which is clearly not the case.

If I knew for a fact that my favorite chocolate maker buys cocoa from child enslavers I wouldn't buy it either.

But again, there's as much fault in consumption in general as in people being born - if we weren't born we wouldn't need these resources either and perhaps the African children would be safe. Does that mean we should stop making babies?

Edit: Hmm. I see a ninja edit has happened while I was writing.

Yes, I'm allowed to do some ninja edits. Often I only realize I've posted something stupid right after I click the post button.

2nd edit: It's just occurred to me that although you've several times referred to "the real problem" and how that's what we should be addressing, you've never once defined it. Could you please do so? Trying to have a proper debate with such vague terms of reference is like trying to nail blancmange to a wall.

I think I have already defined it. It's the government with their socialist "we know better" policies not allowing the free market forces to work. It's the "foreign aid" that ends up funding these slavery operations when it's supposedly given to help develop the 3rd world countries.

And also, I believe people would be a lot more aware of what they are buying and from whom if it wasn't for the government regulations that supposedly make all products safe to buy without any consumer due diligence, but all they do instead is bully the producers, run up their costs and force them to cut corners and buy cheaper resources from slave labor. After all, the consumer won't care as long as there's a sticker of government approval.

[Dave McM]

No way, that goes against everything I've posted so far. I don't claim to know a solution to this problem. But doing whatever, blaming whatever is hardly a solution either. We have to learn to cast the emotions aside no matter how terrible child slavery is and how angry it makes us, we can only figure something out by rational thinking.

I'm all in favour of rational thinking. Looking at it rationally:
- consumer demand exists
- suppliers want to keep costs down
- slave traders offer suppliers a chance to keep costs down
- consumers have the choice to buy from a range of suppliers
- all other things being equal, the rational choice is to buy from the cheapest supplier

The corollary is that companies have a built-in incentive to turn a blind eye to slave labour because they can keep their retail costs lower and still maintain healthy profit margins.

Eh, no. The original point was against the argument that the western world is only wealthy because of child slave labor. Which is clearly not the case.

True, but nobody was making that argument. Child slave labour is only one element in a complex global economy. You're creating a straw man.

If I knew for a fact that my favorite chocolate maker buys cocoa from child enslavers I wouldn't buy it either.

Would you bother to find out? The presumption of innocence is a wonderful thing and yes, I know it's very hard to prove a negative. But there's no shortage of evidence available. And it's not that hard for a company to make a public policy statement on the Web that their supply sources are guaranteed child slave labour free or, even better, "fair trade".

But again, there's as much fault in consumption in general as in people being born - if we weren't born we wouldn't need these resources either and perhaps the African children would be safe. Does that mean we should stop making babies?

It would be a good idea to make fewer, certainly. Stopping altogether would be as unsustainable as producing too many, as the ageing populations in the developed world attest. Personally, I think that the denial of contraception and birth control education to developing countries is wicked - it's adding to their problems, just for the sake of gratifying some extremist religious types in the developed world.

Yes, I'm allowed to do some ninja edits. Often I only realize I've posted something stupid right after I click the post button.

You're entitled to have second thoughts. But if you've edited, it's a courtesy to other members to say so.

I think I have already defined it. It's the government with their socialist "we know better" policies not allowing the free market forces to work. It's the "foreign aid" that ends up funding these slavery operations when it's supposedly given to help develop the 3rd world countries.

You seem to be equating government with socialism. I can remember several instances of the Bush Jr administration's interference in several matters, both US domestic and foreign, but I would never call him a socialist. And socialist governments are few and far between these days.

In any case, you didn't actually define "the real problem", though you may have implied it. And you certainly haven't explained how foreign aid ends up funding slavery operations, or how government regulation of the free market drives companies into buying from suppliers using slave labour. As explained above, they'd do it anyway, all other things being equal.

And also, I believe people would be a lot more aware of what they are buying and from whom if it wasn't for the government regulations that supposedly make all products safe to buy without any consumer due diligence, but all they do instead is bully the producers, run up their costs and force them to cut corners and buy cheaper resources from slave labor. After all, the consumer won't care as long as there's a sticker of government approval.

This is just muddied thinking. Government regulations force producers to be open about what they're producing. How is the consumer supposed to do due diligence on everything they buy if the companies are under no obligation to provide information about what they're selling?

And what exactly "forces" producers to buy cheaper resources from slave labour? To look at it from the other side, shouldn't the government make it illegal to do just that, since the Universal Declaration on Human Rights certainly doesn't seem to be stopping them?

[Saul]

- all other things being equal, the rational choice is to buy from the cheapest supplier

That's your assumption/belief. I believe all other things being equal a company would not buy slave labor even if it's cheaper.

The corollary is that companies have a built-in incentive to turn a blind eye to slave labour because they can keep their retail costs lower and still maintain healthy profit margins.

Built-in? Who has built it in there?

True, but nobody was making that argument. Child slave labour is only one element in a complex global economy. You're creating a straw man.

Someone was and now this discussion has gone on a tangent.

Would you bother to find out?

Why not?

You're entitled to have second thoughts. But if you've edited, it's a courtesy to other members to say so.

I'm sorry. The shame's on me in any case.

And socialist governments are few and far between these days.

I'm using the term loosely but governments control money supply directly as well as where it goes directly and indirectly. Socialism may not be the most accurate term, maybe fascism is better, but major intervention is key and there's not a single government in the world that doesn't.

In any case, you didn't actually define "the real problem", though you may have implied it.

No free market. Slavery is very inefficient (much less that of children) and would not make sense in the free market.

There's something fishy about all this child slavery thing. I mean, children aren't the best workers by far, let alone starving children. They have to feed them, provide them with clothes, a place to live, etc., otherwise they will barely get any cocoa at all. Wouldn't it be cheaper to pay wages? I don't know. The thing about slavery is that it's inefficient, it costs more to ensure the slaves can work than to pay wages and let them do it themselves. So it's either much worse than anyone can imagine or it's not such a big problem, but something is amiss.

And you certainly haven't explained how foreign aid ends up funding slavery operations, or how government regulation of the free market drives companies into buying from suppliers using slave labour. As explained above, they'd do it anyway, all other things being equal.

Foreign aid goes from government to government. There's no way child slave labor is going on in those countries without local governments knowing anything about it. It's a speculation but I do think that aid money funds them if not directly then indirectly.

This is just muddied thinking. Government regulations force producers to be open about what they're producing. How is the consumer supposed to do due diligence on everything they buy if the companies are under no obligation to provide information about what they're selling?

You do not stay in business by tricking your customers and selling crap. Not all products are forced to disclose what they consist of, yet people don't seem to have problem buying, say, an iPad. If it wasn't good they wouldn't buy it, simple as that. There's no reason why that would not work with all products.

And what exactly "forces" producers to buy cheaper resources from slave labour? To look at it from the other side, shouldn't the government make it illegal to do just that, since the Universal Declaration on Human Rights certainly doesn't seem to be stopping them?

By driving up the costs having to comply with regulations, pay the lawyers, etc. When it's a matter of survival blind eyes will be turned. It's not illegal probably because it's a matter of local governments that are corrupt and don't care or even are involved. You'd probably have to wage a war to do something about it.

Bottom line, it's a combination of several things, but it's not as easy as putting all blame on the consumers, worse yet it distracts the attention away from discussion because hey, we already know the culprit - it's us!

[JJMcClure]

Our consumption is not the cause of it. Child enslavers are

If you can't see the logical flaw in this statement, or maybe a better way to put it would be to say that if you can't extend that statement to it's logical conclusion, you'll never get what I'm saying.

Right, another conspiracy theory.

There's no conspiracy theory Saul, if you ever really want to know the truth of what's going on, ask yourself who's making the $$ profit from it. Figure that out, and you'll start to see where I'm coming from about our species and the way we behave.

It's not irrational or emotional at all to say that if people in the West didn't demand the raw materials then the trade would at least slow if not stop. It's more a case of burying your head in the sand if you don't want to face the facts and accept reality.

Most people live in unthinking ignorance Kay and that's how they like it and it's how the people who really hold the power like it. Uh oh, I sound like a conspiracy nut again...

Myself, I know I'm a sheep and I mostly just go along with it all anyway, that's probably even worse. Do you know the story of Easter Island? What we're currently doing is just a global version of that.

[Saul]

If you can't see the logical flaw in this statement, or maybe a better way to put it would be to say that if you can't extend that statement to it's logical conclusion, you'll never get what I'm saying.

I can see the logical flaw in that statement, it was not a good way to put it. But what I mean is consumption is as much at fault as we being born. Slavery is not a necessary condition for consumption. We can have consumption and no slavery at the same time, so maybe the consumption is not the root cause.

There's no conspiracy theory Saul, if you ever really want to know the truth of what's going on, ask yourself who's making the $$ profit from it. Figure that out, and you'll start to see where I'm coming from about our species and the way we behave.

Actually, I don't think it's about $$ at all. It's about power and control. It always was.

[Dave McM]

all other things being equal, the rational choice is to buy from the cheapest supplier

That's your assumption/belief.

No, it's not an assumption. If all other things are equal - quality and consistency of supply, consumer indifference, legality of source - the rational choice must be to buy from the cheapest supplier. It would be irrational to pay more than necessary for identical products.

I believe all other things being equal a company would not buy slave labor even if it's cheaper.

But do you believe that a manufacturing company (consumer) would not buy raw materials from a supplier that uses slave labour, even if they were the cheapest? If all other things are equal, then I don't see any rational basis to behave in that way.

The thing about slavery is that it's inefficient, it costs more to ensure the slaves can work than to pay wages and let them do it themselves.

On the macro scale, perhaps, but macro inefficiencies aren't really the concern of individual businesses. For the individual employer primarily requiring unskilled labour it may well make more economic sense to employ a couple of overseers and have the bulk of the work done by enslaved children. It costs a few pence a day to feed a child and keep it in clothing to a minimum standard.

Foreign aid goes from government to government. There's no way child slave labor is going on in those countries without local governments knowing anything about it. It's a speculation but I do think that aid money funds them if not directly then indirectly.

Some foreign aid does go from government to government. But many Western governments these days prefer donating direct to NGOs in-country.

I'm sure that local governments do know whether child slave labour is being used in their country. But it seems far more likely to me that if they're being bribed not to put a stop to it, that the money bribing them is coming from the people who stand to gain from their inaction, rather than being diverted in some mysterious way from official aid.

You do not stay in business by tricking your customers and selling crap. Not all products are forced to disclose what they consist of, yet people don't seem to have problem buying, say, an iPad. If it wasn't good they wouldn't buy it, simple as that. There's no reason why that would not work with all products.

There are many food products it wouldn't work with, for instance the ones containing nuts. It seems a bit drastic to force consumers to play Russian roulette with bakery or confectionery goods.

what I mean is consumption is as much at fault as we being born. Slavery is not a necessary condition for consumption. We can have consumption and no slavery at the same time, so maybe the consumption is not the root cause.

I agree with everything you say here up to the second clause of your final sentence. The point is that it's not whether we consume, so much as what choices we make as consumers. So it's the quality of consumption rather than the quantity - although the quantity does tend to blind many consumers to provenance and other inconvenient questions like that. Talking about consumption as if it's a homogeneous concept is an oversimplification.

Most people live in unthinking ignorance Kay and that's how they like it and it's how the people who really hold the power like it.

Laziness, to put it another way. It's so much less effort to be governed than it is to participate in government.

Saul was talking earlier about greed being the main driver of progress. I'd argue that laziness has been a pretty powerful motivator. It's so much easier to club a prey animal over the head than it is to strangle it - and it's easier still to shoot something with a bow and arrow than it is to have to chase after it. Most of the innovations we prize so highly are ways of achieving tasks with less effort, not ways of producing more stuff we don't need.