carepov

Yes, certainly in the short term but it may be counter-productive in the long term.

The game would be better if the NHL would take effective steps to eliminate fighting.

No problem. I am convinced that legislation would not work. Your proposal is far too expensive. Look at how blood diamonds were "controlled" through the Kimberley Process. I believe that the program was voluntary and had some success. These are diamonds though - not t-shirts...

Yes, hundreds of millions of lives did improve, but why? There are surely many reasons. Yes, I agree. This is one reason that I strongly support Human Rights. And yet you suggest that we buy from Bangladesh, China, etc…

You may have misunderstood me. I support putting pressure on corporations to source ethically. If I knew the facts above with reasonable certainty I would pay $80. In the real world we do not know and it is not nearly as clear-cut as above. It looks like we mostly agree. You may laugh at Wal-Mart’s statements but they are at least responding to the demands by consumers. Try to find “social and environmental responsibility” of other retailers. I also agree that Wal-Mart should continue to improve.

No this did not occur to me. You did such a good job the first time that I asked it that I decided to ask it again, only this time limiting it to developing countries only. Would you be so kind as to humour me and answer my nonsensical question? I will gladly try to answer any of your clearly stated questions. When and where, and by what objective measure, did it ever suck any less than it sucks now – in a developing country/region?

Yes, I am cynical about people, I really can't see how one can be otherwise after reading so many posts on MLW - and other discussion boards are worse! The people "focused on their own lives" and don't hold onto stupid economic ideas, or ridiculous political beleifs, or self centered-sometimes racist ideas based on their limitted knowledge are fine in my book. Its those people with strong opinions based on ignorance that make me cynical and I see the mojority of Canadians this way. How can one not be cynical: -Look at the posts on MLW - and other discussion boards are worse (stupid economic ideas, ridiculous political beleifs, or self centered even racist ideas) -A large percentage of Canadians support capital punishment and a "tough on crime" agenda -Backwards policies and attitudes towards mental health -GMOs and Nuclear Energy is "too risky" -GST/HST referendum in BC -In Manitoba, let's build a hydro line that is 50% longer to "save the environment" -so many other backwards ideas and policies supported by large groups of people...

Counter-Huh? Yes, maybe partially true for Bangladesh and China, but what can you or want to buy from Haiti, Bolivia, Somalia, Niger, Angola, Laos, Whateverstan, etc...? Are we signalling "good efforts" by importing oil from Saudi Arabia? Maybe I don't even like shopping...

You are wrong. Canada’s Top 10 Import Sources Import Sources % United States 49.52 China 10.8 Mexico 5.51 Japan 2.93 Germany 2.87 United Kingdom 2.32 Korea, South 1.48 France 1.24 Algeria 1.23 Italy 1.14 http://international...lang=eng&view=d For the US: http://www.census.go...les/12s1301.pdf Sometimes true and sometimes not. Again you are wrong. Try tracking the price of goods over time in real dollars (adjusted for inflation). I disagree, there has always been low-grade merchandise available. There have been huge improvements in quality, think of: cars, razors, tools, paints and chemicals, camping and sporting equipment, home building materials, appliances, cameras computers and electronics. No one forces anyone to buy anything. What things are you talking about?

Thank you WIP for the excellent response, I appreciate that you addressed my question directly. Your links do make good arguments that support the theory that happiness is declining in some developed countries. This may or may not be true, despite dating from 2007, some good links on the issue seem to suggest happiness is increasing in most developed countries: http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/wvs/articles/folder_published/article_base_122/files/RisingHappinessPPS.pdf http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/wvs/articles/folder_published/article_base_106/files/trends.doc What all studies agree on is that, in developing countries, average income plays a huge role in happiness; your links are specific to developed countries. “What the happiness research suggests is that once average incomes reach about £10,000 a year, extra money does not make a country any happier.” http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/happiness_formula/4771908.stm We could discuss possible reasons for the slow increases or decreases of happiness in developed countries but I would prefer to stay with Bangladesh and other developing countries. If you don’t mind I will restate my question: When and where, and by what objective measure, did it ever suck any less than it sucks now – in a developing country/region?

I would spend my days trolling on MLW... Seriously, life would be great, filled with sports, games, fun, learning and volunteering. However money is part of life. I do admire and envy those people who love their work - but they are rare. I feel lucky to "not mind" going to work and working to live instead of living to work. A full time job is only 2000 hours/year.

OK, I understand better what you are saying and now agree with you.

Yes are certainly some AIVs, however that are many LIVs here too. Who do you mean by "us"? If you mean the MLW community then I disagree, our group is about as likely to make the governement worse as it is better.

Ok – I get it already: It is 2013 and life on planet Earth sucks. It sucks big-time and it sucks everywhere. When and where, and by what objective measure, did it ever suck any less than it sucks now?

There are lots that I and others can do. We should start with the no-brainers: -Stop war and violence (or at least reduce it’s impact by banning landmines, cluster bombs, controlling arms trade, enforce international law…) -Promote democratic institutions -Protect Human Rights -Help supply basic care to people -Educate children, especially girls -more… As individuals we can support NGOs that do these things and pressure governments to take these actions. In Haiti only one or maybe none of these missions were accomplished – in South Korea, it took time, but all were accomplished. Other actions will help too but require careful study because, even with the best intentions, actions may actually worsen the problem (poverty and human suffering). For example: - It was right to control DDT but not an outright ban senselessly cost the lives of many, this is similar for many chemicals (I cannot believe that Greenpeace was/is calling for a ban on Chlorine!!). - Reducing carbon emissions is very tricky, however most energy savings actions are no-brainers. - Trade embargos and boycotts can often backfire. Trade deals are usually good but it is far from a no-brainer, IMO calling for action that completely block trade deals are counter-productive. - Banning/hindering GMOs or nuclear energy are other counter-productive actions along with turning food into fuel and excessive promotion of organic foods. - The drug trade is a tricky issue but we can say that the current US war on drugs is a failure. - Taxation levels are another tricky issue Nothing bothers me more than people taking actions to solve a problem that are worsening the exact problem they are trying to solve!

https://uwaterloo.ca/news/news/new-evidence-reveals-canadian-wellbeing-decline-0 “…improvements in Canadian wellbeing over the same 17-year period [1994-2012] saw only a small 5.7% increase” UK wellbeing still 13% below pre-crisis levels This reports deals exclusively with the same economic indicators that you seem to shun so much in previous posts. Yes the Great Recession has taken a toll on the UK. Why America Is in Decline This article is informative, but I don’t see anything here that supports your thesis (not that I know exactly what your thesis is) Stressful Events Show Trend in Declining Wellbeing - Report(Australia) Please tell me that you are joking. http://www.unnayan.org/reports/Poverty_and_Inequality_in_Bangladesh.pdf. Your source is very informative. The key line for me is: “Bangladesh has witnessed a modest progress in reducing poverty since the early 1990s. However, there is no room for complacency.” (page 9) Also a good source but the data and conclusions support my claim that poverty is diminishing in Bangladesh and living standards are improving: “Incidence of poverty (as per upper poverty line) has declined from 56.6 percent in 1991-92 to 40.0 percent in 2005. On the other hand poverty incidence (using lower poverty line) has reduced from 41.0 percent in 1991-92 to 25.1 percent in 2005.” (page 45) Yes, regional inequality is an issue, however: “Human Poverty in all the districts was reduced between 1995 and 2000.” (page 50) Again, these are two good sources that help us understand the current situation and trends in living standard of Bangladesh. What is notably missing from these reports is anything supporting your thesis that globalization/trade liberalization is worsening life for Bangladeshis. First of all you have not posted any data to support your above opinions. Second, you are claiming that subsistence farmers of Bangladesh have lost “the opportunity to grow their own food, and have control over their daily lives”. What do you imagine farming in Bangladesh to be like? Do you think that the 204/1,000 children that died before the age of five, and their parents in 1980 had “control over their daily lives”? (2009 = 52) Do you think that an average child born in 1980 that can expect 4.4 years of schooling would have “more control” over their life than on born today expecting 8.1 years of schooling? Do you think that women from Bangladeshi farms had “more control over their daily lives” than Bangladeshi women of today? Have you every visited a rural area of any developing nation?

Just to be clear, LIVs include most people that don’t vote and those people that vote based on some senseless criteria – these people may be engaged but they are just stupid. I agree that one can be empathetic but civically disengaged but my guess is that there are relatively very few people like this. I agree that a lack of trust in politicians and government is an issue but I again blame voter stupidity for this. We voters keep letting politicians get away with lies and we are positively re-enforcing their deceptiveness through our votes. I could also spin the trust issue in another direction, many Canadian voters put too much trust in politicians, i.e. they are gullible – this would help explain why political TV advertizing is so effective.

Oh please AW, please tell me what I am thinking.

This is no longer true: http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/recession-unemployment-drive-americans-north-1.875578

I agree that LIVs are a problem. I would guess that somewhere between 50-80 % of the Canadian adult population should be considered LIV, what do you think? A different electoral system may get a few more people interested but IMO, the impact would be small and it would be far too difficult (almost impossible) to implement a change to the electoral system (think Meech Lake, Charlottetown Accord, or BC referendum). IMO, we have so many LIVs because so many people: Have chosen to stop learning about the world around them (lack curiosity and the desire to know the truth) Care only about themselves (lack empathy) You cannot make anyone love to learn or force someone to be empathetic – but you can sure discourage it and allow a child’s love to learn to fizzle away into ignorance. It looks to me like our school system and many parents are mainly responsible. Ignorance and selfishness is also amplified and reflected back though our media.

The pyjamas were a gift from my wife... Shouldn't I feel a little guilty about them if they were made by one of the factory workers that died in the fire? Ideally, I would have gotten them from a store that sources from ethical suppliers, no? I am certainly not suggesting a boycott of Bangladesh but I am not satisfied with the status quo either. I also cannot help feeling guilty (perhaps guilty is not the best world) for being born into such a fortunate environment when billions are suffering around the world...

Well, not the 112 dead in the fire and their loved ones, eh?

I have shown that living standards have gone up in countries like Bangladesh and I can easily show you the same for other countries where multinationals invest and source from. You have given me nothing but propaganda - no data. I maintain that in the long term good and successful corporations will best serve the interests of their shareholders by also serving the public interest. There are and always have been "evil" corporations Standard Oil, Arms manufacturers and tobacco come to mind. And I'm sure that some business leaders are psychopaths but some are genuinely philanthropic as well, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and ironically Rockefeller come to mind. There are grains of truth in the story you tell - but overall your story is just that - fiction. Big business always focussed on profits. What monopolies are you talking about? Do you consider 14% market share a monopoly? Health, safety and environmental laws have never been stricter and more enforced than they are today. Consumer prices, as a percentage of disposable income have never been lower for basic foodstuffs and goods. Yes income inequality has risen and this does displease me especially when the wealthy pay a lower tax rate than others - but living standards for lower income earners have risen and poverty has been reduced. The retail worker and consumer can still choose to deal with the 86%, meaning over 11 million retail jobs. It does look like Wal-Mart, Sears and The Gap messed up here and should accept some responsibility. I guess I should feel a little guilty sitting here in my pyjamas made in Bangladesh. My questions would be: why were there no effective fire and safety laws in the first place? and what wouldn't the factory owners make the investments in fire safety in order to meet local laws in the same way that business takes places almost everywhere lese in the world. The buyers have some influence but do not have primary control or responsibility of the their supplier.

Relax, I’m sure that 2020 was a typo, should be 2010. You are putting up a straw-man – I have never brought up capitalist economic theory, nor have I raised any dollar figures at any time in this discussion. Again, why don’t you name a single country where “health, longevity and other measures of wellbeing have taken a nosedive”? OK, why don’t you try to support this theory with some actual data? How about showing how real wages have declined in other countries that have been dealing with “continual pressure from Wal-Mart, Disney, Gap and other U.S. corporations” such as: China, Vietnam…? I agree – but I think that this day is way out. (>20 years) Is it possible that you have an idealistic view of life in the "good ole days?" No one knows what the future will bring so perhaps you are right... but the no-brainer is that life in Bangladesh 2011 is way better than 1971. Again: Life expectancy was 55 years in 1980 and now is 69 years. Expected years of schooling was 4.4 years in 1980 and now is 8.1 years. I could go on - infant/maternal mortality, access to sanitation, hunger... A subsistence-farming-lifestyle may appeal to you but I doubt any of us would enjoy it for very long.

Good question - but let's say you released him on the condition that he does not drive. What guarantee do you have that he will not drive anyways? What if he was driving without a licence when he killed the children? How would the mothers of the 6 dead children feel if this person was allowed to go free?