I disagree to a certain extent, if we view Russia, obviously, I have a couple of years on old jeffers with this comment,anyhow, Russia is not developing technologically, it is if anything loping backwards, yes it has mobile nuclear power stations, but they aren't that advanced tech.Electricity Generation will also lead to more divergence with the advent of electro chemical electricity generation. Nanotech will also breed a wider gap in efficiencies, building geater market growth in the west.
Jeffrey Sachs is a wonderful economist who possesses excellent understanding of the issues affecting people globally. He needs to build and lead a team of experts from across the globe with the likes of Nobel Laureates Yunus and Sen, who have a global vision of welfare, and appropriately advise world leaders on poverty, climate change, globalisation and sustainability. That would be an excellent move unless of course something already exists that is currently being leveraged.
If only the Indian sweatshop worker could get off his/her lazy socialist ass and read a book by Jeffrey Sachs, he/she would how capitalism will create a utopia, as has been prophesied.
It is good to see criticism of Sachs views (as critical scrutiny is the best way to test whether his views are accurate and fair). But if you are going to criticize then do it properly and don't misrepresent him. Strawmans are a lame rhetorical tool that undermine serious discussion and help no one.
The thing is of course that work in sweatshops is preferable to no work at all. It is perfectly arguable that we need more sweatshops in order to create jobs in third world countries. This has been the first stage of industrialization in the developed world, and will be in LDC. It is however no long-term solution, which Sachs is perfectly aware of. As for IMF, Sachs has been a formidable critic of its conduct.
Jeffery gave a similar lecture at Sydney Uni at the launch of our Institute for Sustainable Solutions... amazing speaker. His books are excellent too. There's still hope for our little planet!
The Rothchilds own the world with a few other family dynasties....the control grid is being established by the global elite and population control is going to be established after the beginning of the next world war. We're all a bunch of gerbils running in elitists cages for their pleasure. Better study up on your PNAC, CFR, and documents like Memorandum 200...
I cant be fucked to sit through all of this - is this dick in favour or against globalisation? I think nations are necissary to act as check and balances on a global scale. Globalisation leads inevitably to global tyrrany
thats not true at all. how do you know that global tyranny would happen? why can't checks and balances be implemented peacefully? has the current order of competing nation states produced lasting peace? given our capacity to destroy each other with nukes, will this system benefit us in the long term? think about that.
Every country has to start somewhere and as Chinese citizens get richer they can leave those behind. It's no different from Hong Kong in the 1950s where there were sweatshops. There are no sweatshops in Hong Kong now and is a highly developed economic center.
Which is a farcry from America in which the only thing Americans produce is bad debt.
That is one of problems I have with Jeffrey Sachs, his unapologetic view on the worst of capitalism.
There is no excuse and no necessity for sweatshops, only greed causes them. Why not bypass the entire 14 hour days and minuscule wages with no benefits and do what is right?
The problem with your view is that it'll make people feel content with what they already have. What motivation will these workers have to improve themselves when the situation isn't good?
Right now the infrastructure and the quality of the people in China isn't ready. They have alot to learn when compared to developed states such as Japan.
It takes time, and it'll take not just one generation but at least two. My mother worked at a sweatshop and so did her sisters.
But my mother put herself through school, working long hours and also studying. Her family helped her by working those long hours and letting her study. Eventually she made it, and it made her get a degree in business and she got a job working for an international bank in 1960s Hong Kong.
If life was good already, why strive to better oneself?
That's a horrible, callous view on sweatshops. Your argument is lacking in good economics; the Chinese are just as good labourers as the Japanese. What China lacks is technology, not skilled labour.
Infrastructure is best provided by governments, not private enterprise.
Sweatshops are a necessary evil, but NOT for the reasons you describe.
If you think what China lacks is technology, you are sorely mistaken. Though China is backward in terms of intellectual science, applicable science is quite modern. They have technology implemented for everyday life in which I feel G8 countries are more backward than China.
Sweatshops happen because of the need to create capital. How do you create capital in a world of global competition? You work harder, longer and for less.
Once a country gains capital then they can invest that in everyday lives. The lives of the Chinese people improved, this is indisputable compared to the madness during the cultural revolution. People just want jobs, and they have one even when its a sweatshop. However once they have enough then they can get better jobs. It's really a matter of perspective. Sweatshops are better than warzones, middle class better than sweatshops, upper middle class better than middle class
Because China has technology, sweatshops are becoming less and less. China hasn't always had the technology it has now.
Other than that, your argument is pretty much correct. However, don't confuse technology with skill. In some cases, technology is akin to skill (i.e. medical training), but not all the time.
If you claim Sachs has an unapologetic view of capitalism, then you haven't read his books. Read "Common Wealth" or "The End of Poverty."
Sweatshops are a necessary evil in the transition from sustenance economy to commercial economy. All poor nations can offer is cheap labour, at the beginning. Every developed nation has had some form of sweatshop labour; think of Britain, Canada, or even the United States.
For many poor, it's better to have work than be unemployed.
It's true I haven't read his book. But to claim that its just an unfortunate inevitability that people have to suffer sweatshops before they magically become middle class consumers is ridiculous.
100 years ago when the countries that are now sources of cheap labor were being exploited by colonizers, they were told (by the colonizers and local cronies, of course) that their suffering would result in a better tommorrow. What's changed?
Your and Sach's line of thought allows this injustice.
There's two sides to this. True colonizers benefited and exploited them, however one could also blame the cheap labor for not getting organized themselves. One is willing to give the beating and the other is willing to take the beating.
I agree with you when you say that they need to organize, and they are even as we speak. Although many countries are anti-labor in order to attract foreign investment. And when the labor is so plentiful, why not just fire unruly workers, and if that doesn't work, use some means of repression to discurouage it.
Every now and then a name appearing on TIME Magazine's "World's Most Influential People" list actually turns out being influential and deserving to be so. Jeffrey Sachs sure is one of those names.
sidisinsave, your point is incredibly ignorant of the (scandalously "bad") effects of the advices JSachs gave (recommended) to Argentina's rulers in 80-90's and early 2000. People like you praise his influence in a sort of veneration BUT if you take a look at today's topics in the very Argentina, you couldn't help wondering why once again is Argentina on the verge of a serious crisis similar to 80's. Sachs's recipes weren't that efficient and didn't prove to be the right and sustainable ones.
hi joetke, i'm not accquainted to the developments in argentina. this might not be the right place to do so, but would you be willing to elaborate on the topic?
My Printer can print the above image on candles, flowers, nails,T-shirts and so on as Christmas gift!!!
Douljnlle 3 years ago
I disagree to a certain extent, if we view Russia, obviously, I have a couple of years on old jeffers with this comment,anyhow, Russia is not developing technologically, it is if anything loping backwards, yes it has mobile nuclear power stations, but they aren't that advanced tech.Electricity Generation will also lead to more divergence with the advent of electro chemical electricity generation. Nanotech will also breed a wider gap in efficiencies, building geater market growth in the west.
toastedpiano 3 years ago
Jeffrey socialist sachs! Nonsenses!
edingsteve1 3 years ago
Jeffrey Sachs is a wonderful economist who possesses excellent understanding of the issues affecting people globally. He needs to build and lead a team of experts from across the globe with the likes of Nobel Laureates Yunus and Sen, who have a global vision of welfare, and appropriately advise world leaders on poverty, climate change, globalisation and sustainability. That would be an excellent move unless of course something already exists that is currently being leveraged.
PublicPolicyMan 3 years ago
If only the Indian sweatshop worker could get off his/her lazy socialist ass and read a book by Jeffrey Sachs, he/she would how capitalism will create a utopia, as has been prophesied.
MarxBakuninMe 3 years ago
It is good to see criticism of Sachs views (as critical scrutiny is the best way to test whether his views are accurate and fair). But if you are going to criticize then do it properly and don't misrepresent him. Strawmans are a lame rhetorical tool that undermine serious discussion and help no one.
Guaguanco11 3 years ago
Isn't this guy the scumbag who said that sweatshops were good?
KafkaCrow 3 years ago
"My concern is not that there are too many sweatshops, but that there are too few." - Jeffrey Sachs. Top guy.
MarxBakuninMe 3 years ago
What's your reference for that quote?
tactteam00 3 years ago
" In Principle, a Case For More 'Sweatshops'", The New York Times, 22 June 1997.
It's a quote that could have come from a Stalin era Russian economist; "yeah, I know it sucks but it's good for you".
MarxBakuninMe 3 years ago
yeah, and didnt he fuck everything up at the IMF?
bemaniac2 3 years ago
The thing is of course that work in sweatshops is preferable to no work at all. It is perfectly arguable that we need more sweatshops in order to create jobs in third world countries. This has been the first stage of industrialization in the developed world, and will be in LDC. It is however no long-term solution, which Sachs is perfectly aware of. As for IMF, Sachs has been a formidable critic of its conduct.
waalamera 3 years ago 2
This is one of the few smart comments about globalization on YT.
ltuuY41k 3 years ago
Jeffery gave a similar lecture at Sydney Uni at the launch of our Institute for Sustainable Solutions... amazing speaker. His books are excellent too. There's still hope for our little planet!
MELISSAJULIETBENNETT 3 years ago
The Rothchilds own the world with a few other family dynasties....the control grid is being established by the global elite and population control is going to be established after the beginning of the next world war. We're all a bunch of gerbils running in elitists cages for their pleasure. Better study up on your PNAC, CFR, and documents like Memorandum 200...
janfu79 3 years ago
I cant be fucked to sit through all of this - is this dick in favour or against globalisation? I think nations are necissary to act as check and balances on a global scale. Globalisation leads inevitably to global tyrrany
dibbuck 3 years ago
thats not true at all. how do you know that global tyranny would happen? why can't checks and balances be implemented peacefully? has the current order of competing nation states produced lasting peace? given our capacity to destroy each other with nukes, will this system benefit us in the long term? think about that.
shaldipur 3 years ago
Big props on mentioning Deng Xiao Ping in his start of the opening of China
Mennion3 3 years ago
yeah opening China to sweatshops...
itsacorporatething 3 years ago
Every country has to start somewhere and as Chinese citizens get richer they can leave those behind. It's no different from Hong Kong in the 1950s where there were sweatshops. There are no sweatshops in Hong Kong now and is a highly developed economic center.
Which is a farcry from America in which the only thing Americans produce is bad debt.
Mennion3 3 years ago
That is one of problems I have with Jeffrey Sachs, his unapologetic view on the worst of capitalism.
There is no excuse and no necessity for sweatshops, only greed causes them. Why not bypass the entire 14 hour days and minuscule wages with no benefits and do what is right?
itsacorporatething 3 years ago
The problem with your view is that it'll make people feel content with what they already have. What motivation will these workers have to improve themselves when the situation isn't good?
Right now the infrastructure and the quality of the people in China isn't ready. They have alot to learn when compared to developed states such as Japan.
It takes time, and it'll take not just one generation but at least two. My mother worked at a sweatshop and so did her sisters.
Mennion3 3 years ago
But my mother put herself through school, working long hours and also studying. Her family helped her by working those long hours and letting her study. Eventually she made it, and it made her get a degree in business and she got a job working for an international bank in 1960s Hong Kong.
If life was good already, why strive to better oneself?
Mennion3 3 years ago
That's a horrible, callous view on sweatshops. Your argument is lacking in good economics; the Chinese are just as good labourers as the Japanese. What China lacks is technology, not skilled labour.
Infrastructure is best provided by governments, not private enterprise.
Sweatshops are a necessary evil, but NOT for the reasons you describe.
Slimdawgc 3 years ago
If you think what China lacks is technology, you are sorely mistaken. Though China is backward in terms of intellectual science, applicable science is quite modern. They have technology implemented for everyday life in which I feel G8 countries are more backward than China.
Sweatshops happen because of the need to create capital. How do you create capital in a world of global competition? You work harder, longer and for less.
Mennion3 3 years ago
Once a country gains capital then they can invest that in everyday lives. The lives of the Chinese people improved, this is indisputable compared to the madness during the cultural revolution. People just want jobs, and they have one even when its a sweatshop. However once they have enough then they can get better jobs. It's really a matter of perspective. Sweatshops are better than warzones, middle class better than sweatshops, upper middle class better than middle class
Mennion3 3 years ago
Because China has technology, sweatshops are becoming less and less. China hasn't always had the technology it has now.
Other than that, your argument is pretty much correct. However, don't confuse technology with skill. In some cases, technology is akin to skill (i.e. medical training), but not all the time.
Slimdawgc 3 years ago
If you claim Sachs has an unapologetic view of capitalism, then you haven't read his books. Read "Common Wealth" or "The End of Poverty."
Sweatshops are a necessary evil in the transition from sustenance economy to commercial economy. All poor nations can offer is cheap labour, at the beginning. Every developed nation has had some form of sweatshop labour; think of Britain, Canada, or even the United States.
For many poor, it's better to have work than be unemployed.
Slimdawgc 3 years ago
It's true I haven't read his book. But to claim that its just an unfortunate inevitability that people have to suffer sweatshops before they magically become middle class consumers is ridiculous.
100 years ago when the countries that are now sources of cheap labor were being exploited by colonizers, they were told (by the colonizers and local cronies, of course) that their suffering would result in a better tommorrow. What's changed?
Your and Sach's line of thought allows this injustice.
itsacorporatething 3 years ago
There's two sides to this. True colonizers benefited and exploited them, however one could also blame the cheap labor for not getting organized themselves. One is willing to give the beating and the other is willing to take the beating.
Mennion3 3 years ago
I agree with you when you say that they need to organize, and they are even as we speak. Although many countries are anti-labor in order to attract foreign investment. And when the labor is so plentiful, why not just fire unruly workers, and if that doesn't work, use some means of repression to discurouage it.
itsacorporatething 3 years ago
This man is absolutely brilliant.
speakupforjustice 3 years ago
Every now and then a name appearing on TIME Magazine's "World's Most Influential People" list actually turns out being influential and deserving to be so. Jeffrey Sachs sure is one of those names.
sidisinsane 4 years ago 2
sidisinsave, your point is incredibly ignorant of the (scandalously "bad") effects of the advices JSachs gave (recommended) to Argentina's rulers in 80-90's and early 2000. People like you praise his influence in a sort of veneration BUT if you take a look at today's topics in the very Argentina, you couldn't help wondering why once again is Argentina on the verge of a serious crisis similar to 80's. Sachs's recipes weren't that efficient and didn't prove to be the right and sustainable ones.
joetke 3 years ago
hi joetke, i'm not accquainted to the developments in argentina. this might not be the right place to do so, but would you be willing to elaborate on the topic?
sidisinsane 3 years ago 2