Child Labour, Burmese Cyclones, Earthquakes & Trade

[August1991]

Burma says some 78,000 people have died and 56,000 are missing since Cyclone Nargis hit.

Save the Children says 30,000 acutely malnourished children are threatened by death from starvation.

BBC

But how the authorities will deal with rising anger over the many public buildings that collapsed during the disaster, particularly the dozens of schools that fell, crushing thousands of children, is another thing. Rumours have spread fast that officials were bribed to overlook shoddy construction practices.

UK Independent

What killed these children and people is poverty. When hurricans hit Florida, there are few deaths because people have time and the means to evacuate and buildings can withstand the weather. The Burmese are simply too poor. When an earthquake strikes Japan, thousands don't die because the Japanese are rich enough to build well and their buildings can withstand even powerful tremors.

The Chinese and Burmese are poor. They cannot afford to build with expensive materials and designs. When a natural disaster strikes, they suffer.

-----

Many people want to stop or forbid trade with China or other poor countries on the grounds that the Chinese or other regimes allow child labour, slave labour or they don't respect environmental standards. Some people believe that we exploit people in third world countries who earn low wages.

In the rich West, we have many choices and alternatives. For many people in China, there are few choices. For them, they have no choice but to build with flimsy materials. Trade offers them extra choices and will make them and us better off.

Edited May 18, 2008 by August1991

[Oleg Bach]

BBC

UK Independent

What killed these children and people is poverty. When hurricans hit Florida, there are few deaths because people have time and the means to evacuate and buildings can withstand the weather. The Burmese are simply too poor. When an earthquake strikes Japan, thousands don't die because the Japanese are rich enough to build well and their buildings can withstand even powerful tremors.

The Chinese and Burmese are poor. They cannot afford to build with expensive materials and designs. When a natural disaster strikes, they suffer.

-----

Many people want to stop or forbid trade with China or other poor countries on the grounds that the Chinese or other regimes allow child labour, slave labour or they don't respect environmental standards. Some people believe that we exploit people in third world countries who earn low wages.

In the rich West, we have many choices and alternatives. For many people in China, there are few choices. For them, they have no choice but to build with flimsy materials. Trade offers them extra choices and will make them and us better off.

Our exploitation days are numbered. Thrid world nations do the real work (labour) and we click computers and count the beans..eventually the poor will get wise to the fact that the west has become the ultimate parisite. We can attempt to trade with them and send them money and they will send us what? And once they have the money will they buy high quality building material and actuall learn to pour a concrete foundation? I bought a rake the other day - looked real Canadian..there was a four year guarentee attatched..the metal end fell out of the handle instantly...

I searched carefully on the labeling and knew there would be some fine print that said "made in China" - point being..these folks in the east have been building shelter out of sticks for centuries..they can not even make a rake let alone a weather proof house.

[jdobbin]

When an earthquake strikes Japan, thousands don't die because the Japanese are rich enough to build well and their buildings can withstand even powerful tremors.

In 1995, the Kobe Earthquake killed 6,344 people. As far as quakes go, it was not the biggest to have hit Japan but nevertheless, it is listed as the costliest natural disaster in the history of the planet.

The problem for Kobe was that buildings made to withstand frequent typhoons are a recipe for disaster in a major earthquake. The population density and the ground the city is built on also contributed to the large amount of deaths.

Could it happen again in Japan? The sad truth is yes. Even in rich countries, the early warning systems, the response afterwards, the construction material, the transportation system, population density and the geographic location can all lead to a major disaster with thousands of deaths.

Poor countries are not the only ones to suffer death and destruction. Anyone living along the Pacific Ring of Fire can expect a disaster at some point in their history. Anyone living along a coast in storm territory can expect the same.

[Oleg Bach]

In 1995, the Kobe Earthquake killed 6,344 people. As far as quakes go, it was not the biggest to have hit Japan but nevertheless, it is listed as the costliest natural disaster in the history of the planet.

The problem for Kobe was that buildings made to withstand frequent typhoons are a recipe for disaster in a major earthquake. The population density and the ground the city is built on also contributed to the large amount of deaths.

Could it happen again in Japan? The sad truth is yes. Even in rich countries, the early warning systems, the response afterwards, the construction material, the transportation system, population density and the geographic location can all lead to a major disaster with thousands of deaths.

Poor countries are not the only ones to suffer death and destruction. Anyone living along the Pacific Ring of Fire can expect a disaster at some point in their history. Anyone living along a coast in storm territory can expect the same.

Ultimately no building can withstand what the earth is capable of..we are but flys on a cows tail.

[AngusThermopyle]

The Chinese and Burmese are poor. They cannot afford to build with expensive materials and designs. When a natural disaster strikes, they suffer.

The answer to this one is yes and no.

Certainly the Burmese are poor, China much less so. In my line of work I spend a considerable amount of time reviewing blueprints for various buildings. North American standards are very stringent when it comes to the codes we use to erect buildings, further to that inspections by governing bodies are strict and allow no leeway in erection practices. Our methodology encompasses many aspects, from the actual materials and methods used to the safety of the people who are actually doing the work.

Neither China or Burma utilize such methods, methods that have developed slowly over time. Neither of them have a system such as COR in place (although there are rumours that China will adopt the COR system). As such one can expect shoddy construction and workplace injuries and fatalities, I've stated before that life is cheap in many countries and will stand by that comment. COR in and of itself does not address codes or techniques utilized but it does stand as a very important component of the entire process. If COR is actually adopted by the Chinese it is very probable that other factors of the industry will be influenced to a noticeable degree by this policy.

The Chinese in particular have an absolutely abyssmal record when it comes to structures collapsing and workers being injured or killed on the job. This can be more closely associated with the lack of controls on the erection process than with poverty. Corruption amongst officials tasked with over seeing the process contributes far more to the sub standard methods utilized than the wealth of the nation in question.

So, as I said, the answer is one of those yes and no types of thing.

[August1991]

In 1995, the Kobe Earthquake killed 6,344 people. As far as quakes go, it was not the biggest to have hit Japan but nevertheless, it is listed as the costliest natural disaster in the history of the planet.

Perhaps I should have said tens of thousands instead of thousands.

It is estimated that as many as 50,000 died in the Sichuan earthquake (compared to about 6000 in the Kobe earthquake). The two earthquakes are very roughly comparable in strength. Here are the two wikipedia entries:

The Great Hanshin Earthquake, or Kobe earthquake as it is more commonly known overseas, was an earthquake in Japan that occurred on Tuesday January 17, 1995 at 5:46 a.m. JST in the southern part of Hyōgo Prefecture. It measured MJ 7.3 on the revised (7.2 on the old) JMA magnitude scale[1] and MW 6.8 on the Moment magnitude scale by the United States Geological Survey[2]. The trembles lasted for approximately 20 seconds. The focus of the earthquake was located 16 km beneath its epicenter, on the northern end of Awaji Island, 20 km away from the city of Kobe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Hanshin_earthquakeLink

The 2008 Sichuan earthquake (Chinese: 四川大地震; pinyin: Sìchuān dà dìzhèn), at a magnitude 7.9 Mw, occurred at 14:28:01.42 CST (06:28:01.42 UTC) on 12 May 2008 in Sichuan province of China. In China, it was named the Wenchuan earthquake (Chinese: 汶川大地震; pinyin: Wènchuān dà dìzhèn), after the earthquake's epicenter in Wenchuan County in Sichuan province. The epicenter was 80 kilometres (50 mi) west-northwest of Chengdu, the capital of Sichuan, with a depth of 19 kilometres (12 mi).[4]

Link

Note that the epicenter was closer to Kobe than to Chengdu. Here's a

video of the Sichuan earthquake.

----

Of course there was far more material damage in Kobe - Japanese are richer and have more to lose. It is the loss of life that was the point of my OP. More buildings collapsed killing people in China than in Japan, just as many more died in Burma than would die in a similar hurricane in Florida.

To get back to my main point, in many cases, for people in China (and Burma and other poor countries), when we refuse to trade with them, the alternative is death.

The answer to this one is yes and no.

Angus, I'll agree that probability plays a role in determining whether a building collapses or not but the true answer is mainly wealth. Poor countries cannot afford the stringent building norms, standards and materials that we use in Canada, the US, Europe or Japan. They don't even have the resources to verify and ensure that the norms are respected.

The Chinese in particular have an absolutely abyssmal record when it comes to structures collapsing and workers being injured or killed on the job. This can be more closely associated with the lack of controls on the erection process than with poverty. Corruption amongst officials tasked with over seeing the process contributes far more to the sub standard methods utilized than the wealth of the nation in question.

Respect of norms and honesty in government are also a consequence of poverty.

China is richer now than it was in 1976 when hundreds of thousands died in an earthquake.

To turn the idea in my OP around, we should not impose our rich country norms and standards on poor people. If we insisted that the Chinese or Burmese build to our standards, they would have few or no buildings at all.

Edited May 18, 2008 by August1991

[jdobbin]

Perhaps I should have said tens of thousands instead of thousands.

It is estimated that as many as 50,000 died in the Sichuan earthquake (compared to about 6000 in the Kobe earthquake). The two earthquakes are very roughly comparable in strength. Here are the two wikipedia entries:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Hanshin_earthquakeLink

Link

Note that the epicenter was closer to Kobe than to Chengdu. Here's a

video of the Sichuan earthquake.

The time an earthquake hits is important as well. Many Japanese schools collapsed but no children were in them. It was 5:46 am. A few hours later and it is believed that all the people on the highway, all the people at work and all the people in school would have been in far greater peril and deaths could have gone up much, much higher.

Most people died in their beds such a my co-worker in a quiet residential Kobe neighborhood.

Edited May 18, 2008 by jdobbin

[August1991]

The time an earthquake hits is important as well. Many Japanese schools collapsed but no children were in them. It was 5:46 am. A few hours later and it is believed that all the people on the highway, all the people at work and all the people in school would have been in far greater peril and deaths could have gone up much, much higher.

Once again Dobbin, you are quibbling over trees and missing the vaster forest.

Many more people die in natural disasters in poor countries (ie. China) than in rich countries (ie. Japan) because in poor countries, people do not have the means to protect themselves. The alternative is not child labour; it is death.

The solution is not to impose our rich country building standards on poor people in China. This would just mean that they would have no buildings at all. Instead, we should trade with them (if it is in your personal interest).

Burma is a good example of what happens when countries don't trade. The alternative to the so-called "sweatshops" of China and Vietnam is Burma.

[jdobbin]

Once again Dobbin, you are quibbling over trees and missing the vaster forest.

Many more people die in natural disasters in poor countries (ie. China) than in rich countries (ie. Japan) because in poor countries, people do not have the means to protect themselves. The alternative is not child labour; it is death.

The solution is not to impose our rich country building standards on poor people in China. This would just mean that they would have no buildings at all. Instead, we should trade with them (if it is in your personal interest).

Burma is a good example of what happens when countries don't trade. The alternative to the so-called "sweatshops" of China and Vietnam is Burma.

Your premise is based on the amount of deaths. I've simply stated the fact that had the earthquake hit Kobe a few hours later, the death count would have been much, much higher.

Who exactly is imposing building standards on China outside of China? Citation?

The right wing is fairly selective about who it wants to trade with. It is your contention that it should be completely open? I'm sure Iran will be very happy to hear that as it gathers what it needs to build its reactors.

[sharkman]

Man dobbin, can you discuss anything without criticizing the right? You are a political junkie indeed.

[eyeball]

BBC

In the rich West, we have many choices and alternatives. For many people in China, there are few choices. For them, they have no choice but to build with flimsy materials. Trade offers them extra choices and will make them and us better off.

Politicians, civil servants and industrialists in countries like China govern their societies with flimsy ethics and morals. Trade with countries like these may be exposing our politicians, civil servants and industrialists to the same making us and them worse off. I think we have enough indications of shoddy undemocratic leadership here at home to suggest this process has been well under way for sometime now.

The width of the income gap - the rate at which the rich are growing richer in the west is accelerating. Transparency, accountability and information about what our governments are doing is moving farther out of the reach of ordinary people. The gap between civil liberties and the increased power of western states mirrors the growing income gap.

There is a race to the bottom going on and the closer we all get to the finish line the more limited our choices and alternatives in the west will be.

[August1991]

Your premise is based on the amount of deaths. I've simply stated the fact that had the earthquake hit Kobe a few hours later, the death count would have been much, much higher.

Does the time of the earthquake explain why so many more Chinese died?

Current estimates put the death toll in China at around 50,000 or almost 10X more deaths than from the Kobe earthquake. (The Kobe quake, while weaker, was much closer to inhabited regions. The last serious earthquake in China in 1976 resulted in about 250,000 fatalities. China is richer now than in 1976.)

In Burma, the estimated death toll ranges from 70,000 to 300,000. (By comparison, about 1300 died because of Katrina.)

Clearly, protecting against earthquakes is more expensive and difficult than protecting against hurricanes. My main point is that rich countries can protect more lives against natural disasters than poor countries can.

Dobbin, my main point (the vast forest) remains. Natural disasters in poor countries kill more people.

Who exactly is imposing building standards on China outside of China? Citation?

Many people argue that we shoudl not trade with China, Vietnam or other poor countries because these countries don't have the same labour or environmental standards as we do. The implication is that if they adopted such standards, then we could trade.

The right wing is fairly selective about who it wants to trade with. It is your contention that it should be completely open? I'm sure Iran will be very happy to hear that as it gathers what it needs to build its reactors.

I can't speak for others but by and large, I favour free trade as much as possible. Most attempts at trade embargoes and sanctions have not worked. In fact, free and open trade is one of the best methods to civilize countries.

As to your example of selling nuclear reactors to Iran, I am in favour of gun control. Despite how some people read the US Constitution, I don't think every one should have the right to bear a nuclear tactical weapon.

----

To return to my OP, I have to thank Angus for clarifying the point that I wanted to make. We cannot and should not impose our standards on our trade partners. If we impose our rich country standards (whether labour, building or environmental codes) on poor countries, we will just impose poverty on them. Bill Gates may require 15 bathrooms in his house but such a standard should not be imposed on others.

Moreover, these natural disasters in Burma and China point to the real choices people in such countries face. They don't build flimsy houses because the bureaucracy is corrupt. Their buildings fall down because they are poor and they can't afford better. True, China has managed this disaster better because of trade over the past 20 years. Its buildings are stronger and it can afford more and better emergency services.

IOW, if you refuse to buy shoes "Made in Vietnam" because you want to protest against the poor working conditions of Vietnamese workers, the alternative for these Vietnamese workers is what has happened in Burma. Without trade, Vietnam would be another Burma. For Vietnamese workers, the choice is not between a job in a shoe factory and a decent life; the choice is between a job in a shoe factory and a flimsy house by a rice paddy.

When we shop and see a low price, we are inclined to think that we are taking advantage of someone else. Some buyers feel guilty about this and others, seemingly without conscience, view it as a good thing (for themselves). Some shoppers of course are oblivious to these questions. I take an entirely different approach. If you a buy a foreign product, you are making the world a better place. I know this is counterintuitive and contrary to conventional wisdom, but there you have it.

It is difficult to put oneself in another's shoes (sorry) and it is foolish and wrong to apply one's own standards to another person. I have been thinking about these disasters in this context for the past few days. People in Burma and China are like you and I; it's just that they have fewer choices. When we trade with them, their choices become a little larger. They can choose a better, stronger home.

The width of the income gap - the rate at which the rich are growing richer in the west is accelerating. Transparency, accountability and information about what our governments are doing is moving farther out of the reach of ordinary people. The gap between civil liberties and the increased power of western states mirrors the growing income gap.

This is the oldest canard going: "When a society becomes richer, only a few benefit." Experience proves the contrary.

The kind of poverty that existed in Roman times, in Medieval times or even in the 19th century does not exist in rich countries today. It may be true that Bill Gates enjoys a lifestyle far beyond any European monarch of the past and far beyond anyone posting here, but that doesn't mean that we live worse than our ancestors.

In simple terms, when a country opens to trade, there is no long term income gap. The rich don't get richer and the poor poorer. As I say, this claim is an old lie.

There is a race to the bottom going on and the closer we all get to the finish line the more limited our choices and alternatives in the west will be.

The expression "race to the bottom" is usually evidence of zero-sum thinking (although taken literally, a race to the bottom implies the cake is getting smaller - a shrinking-sum game!)

Eyeball, think about this idea for awhile: A "race to the bottom", when applied to a market price, is a good thing for the collective. After all, wouldn't the world be a better place if everything was inexpensive?

Edited May 19, 2008 by August1991

[jdobbin]

Does the time of the earthquake explain why so many more Chinese died?

Given how many schools in China that collapsed with children in them ...yes.

And given the power of the quake which is now believed to be much greater than Kobe's quake (now estimated at 8.0) , it is not surprising the amount of deaths in a high density population.

Current estimates put the death toll in China at around 50,000 or almost 10X more deaths than from the Kobe earthquake. (The Kobe quake, while weaker, was much closer to inhabited regions. The last serious earthquake in China in 1976 resulted in about 250,000 fatalities. China is richer now than in 1976.)

More people were at work or at schools when the Chinese quake hit. Japanese officials have always recognized how many more injuries and deaths would have resulted if the quake hit the Hanshin Expressway during rush hour.

The time an earthquake hits has always been a huge factor. The Northridge quake was at the quietest time for Los Angeles commuter traffic. A few hours later and the death toll could have risen from 100 to a few thousand.

Each time a quake hits a region, new standards of construction are usually adopted to save lives. In Los Angeles, construction standards were adopted after the 1971 quake. Those standards worked for the schools, they didn't for the highways in 1994.

I have no doubt that poverty has a role in how many deaths happen in a disaster. However, if you don't account for many other factors, you are cherry picking data.

Many people argue that we shoudl not trade with China, Vietnam or other poor countries because these countries don't have the same labour or environmental standards as we do. The implication is that if they adopted such standards, then we could trade.

This isn't a citation for building standards.

And what people are calling for stopping trade with China and is there any evidence that the Canadian government has followed through?

I can't speak for others but by and large, I favour free trade as much as possible. Most attempts at trade embargoes and sanctions have not worked. In fact, free and open trade is one of the best methods to civilize countries.

As to your example of selling nuclear reactors to Iran, I am in favour of gun control. Despite how some people read the US Constitution, I don't think every one should have the right to bear a nuclear tactical weapon.

Is that the justification for other trade sanctions against Iran that the right wing makes?

[August1991]

More people were at work or at schools when the Chinese quake hit. Japanese officials have always recognized how many more injuries and deaths would have resulted if the quake hit the Hanshin Expressway during rush hour.

...

I have no doubt that poverty has a role in how many deaths happen in a disaster.

Dobbin, of course the time of the quake matters. Of course, the distance from the epicentre matters. Of course the depth and strength of the seismic shift matters. But that's not the issue here.

Many more people died in the eathquake in China than in the earthquake in Japan. Point made. That's all.

Is that the justification for other trade sanctions against Iran that the right wing makes?

If you call me "right wing", can I call you "extreme left wing"?

[jdobbin]

Dobbin, of course the time of the quake matters. Of course, the distance from the epicentre matters. Of course the depth and strength of the seismic shift matters. But that's not the issue here.

Many more people died in the eathquake in China than in the earthquake in Japan. Point made. That's all.

My issue was that you made out that poverty was one of the single most important areas when it came to disaster deaths. I think most experts would point to a series of factors, poverty being only one.

It was your contention that poverty was a main cause that set up your premise that people who were against trade with China somehow were responsible for the large amount of deaths because they were trying to instill western values on that culture. Since I don't think poverty was the main factor and I don't agree trade was a factor, I disagree with the premise altogether.

If you call me "right wing", can I call you "extreme left wing"?

I have never called you right wing in this thread. I have referred to right wing ideas but have never personally tagged you with that title because you generally have more independent views.

As for your jab that I have extreme left wing views, what specifically in this thread do you find extreme left wing? I simply pointed out that poverty was one of many factors in how many casualties happened in a disaster.

I haven't taken a position on trade other than the right wing has used trade as a weapon to try and punish countries that they feel could be or might be a threat. The left wing has used it as a weapon against regimes brutal to their own people. It has been a pretty ineffective weapon but it is rooted in western values of the boycott.

Boycott, if you recall, started in Ireland and was used as an alternative to violence to ostracize a landlord into fairness on rents. It was so effective that it broke the back of feudalism in Ireland.

Boycotts have been overused to the point that they are rarely effective anymore. It is only effective on people, organizations and countries where being ostracized or isolated is of importance. It is only effective when no one violates the boycott.

I have no problems with boycotts but think they are ineffective when applied to countries.

My personal view is that we trade with countries that we are in peace with. If we have a problem with a brutal regime, we have to recognize that trade or the lack of it is unlikely to change their views.

So, there is my left wing view. We trade with places like China, Burma, Iran and Cuba and encourage good governance practices. If a regime is a security threat or brutal to its people, the west must realize that trade is not going to change things one way or the other. Only the threat of a violent intervention might.

Edited May 19, 2008 by jdobbin

[August1991]

My issue was that you made out that poverty was one of the single most important areas when it came to disaster deaths. I think most experts would point to a series of factors, poverty being only one.

It was your contention that poverty was a main cause that set up your premise that people who were against trade with China somehow were responsible for the large amount of deaths because they were trying to instill western values on that culture. Since I don't think poverty was the main factor and I don't agree trade was factor, I disagree with the premise altogether.

About 1300 died in Hurrican Katrina whereas at least 70,000 died in the hurricane in Burma.

At least 50,000 died in this latest earthquake in China whereas about 6000 died in a similar earthquake in Japan.

Poverty is the single, major factor that explains the different fatality statistics. People died in Burma because their houses were flimsy and collapsed on them. Burma didn't have the means to warn them in advance and they didn't have the means to evacuate the zone. Buildings in China collapsed because inferior building materials and methods were used. The Chinese can't afford better.

[jdobbin]

About 1300 died in Hurrican Katrina whereas at least 70,000 died in the hurricane in Burma.

Warnings helped reduce the amount of death in New Orleans. Burma's closed government didn't bother in that regard. Poverty had less to do with it than a brutal and isolationist regime did in not informing the people.

At least 50,000 died in this latest earthquake in China whereas about 6000 died in a similar earthquake in Japan.

I've already said that the estimate on the quake strength in China has dramatically gone up as of yesterday. The time the quake struck also was a major contributer. How many children died in their collapsed schools versus how many might have died in their homes if it had been early in the morning?

Poverty is the single, major factor that explains the different fatality statistics. People died in Burma because their houses were flimsy and collapsed on them. Burma didn't have the means to warn them in advance and they didn't have the means to evacuate the zone. Buildings in China collapsed because inferior building materials and methods were used. The Chinese can't afford better.

I disagree it was the single most important factor. I agree it was *a* factor.

Edited May 19, 2008 by jdobbin

[eyeball]

The expression "race to the bottom" is usually evidence of zero-sum thinking (although taken literally, a race to the bottom implies the cake is getting smaller - a shrinking-sum game!)

Forget the cake. Its a case of shrinking water-holes and meaner animals.

Eyeball, think about this idea for awhile: A "race to the bottom", when applied to a market price, is a good thing for the collective. After all, wouldn't the world be a better place if everything was inexpensive?

It would be a cornucopian fantasy.

[August1991]

It would be a cornucopian fantasy.

Cornucopian perhaps but it's no fantasy.

How do you think we manage to communicate on the Internet now? Two hundred years ago, people barely understood electricity and now we use it to transmit messages and perform complicated calculations.

I sometimes think that the material wealth possible through the co-operation created by markets is so large that it simply confuses people. It is a new phenomenon in human history - at most several thousand years old.

[jdobbin]

What killed these children and people is poverty.

This argument is holding less and less water.

The evidence now is clearly showing that schools, unlike other buildings immediately around them,. collapsed. It wasn't poverty but corruption and bad timing (as the earthquakes hit during school hours) that killed so many children.

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5i-TY53...EH6m_vXYxeMB2_Q

Police on Thursday kicked foreign journalists out of a city where the collapse of several schools in China's earthquake drew charges of corruption from parents of dead children.

The action, which came one month after the May 12 quake, followed a promise the day before by China that foreign reporters would be allowed unfettered access to report on the disaster aftermath.

The reporters' expulsions appeared to underline government unease over smouldering parent anger following the collapse of schools in the quake, which many parents blame on corruption that led to shoddy construction of buildings.

The regulations and the money were in place to build schools that met safety standards. It was corruption of officials and builders who used substandard materials and pocketed the difference.

[bush_cheney2004]

The regulations and the money were in place to build schools that met safety standards. It was corruption of officials and builders who used substandard materials and pocketed the difference.

Accordingly, and after fair trials of course, there will be many executions!

Edited June 13, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[August1991]

This argument is holding less and less water.

The evidence now is clearly showing that schools, unlike other buildings immediately around them,. collapsed. It wasn't poverty but corruption and bad timing (as the earthquakes hit during school hours) that killed so many children.

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5i-TY53...EH6m_vXYxeMB2_Q

The regulations and the money were in place to build schools that met safety standards. It was corruption of officials and builders who used substandard materials and pocketed the difference.

Dobbin, what do you expect the Chinese regime to say after such a catastrophe? That the deaths were the result of the regime's incompetence?

I'm making a broader point. These people died because China (and Burma) are poor countries. The lack of standards, the lack of respect for standards, the corruption in the policing of standards, the shoddy construction materials used are all in various ways the result of poverty.

Rich people can afford better. Poor people have to make do with less.

I'll make an even more pointed argument: clean government is an affair of rich people. Governments in rich societies tend to be less corrupt (all things considered) than governments in poor societies. IOW, clean government is a luxury good.

Edited June 13, 2008 by August1991

[bush_cheney2004]

...I'll make an even more pointed argument: clean government is an affair of rich people. Governments in rich societies tend to be less corrupt (all things considered) than governments in poor societies. IOW, clean government is a luxury good.

Excellent point, and consistent with other hiearchy of needs models wrt human behavior and decisions.

[jdobbin]

Dobbin, what do you expect the Chinese regime to say after such a catastrophe? That the deaths were the result of the regime's incompetence?

That is what the people are concluding and yesterday on ABC, many said they would travel to Beijing during the Olympics to make that point if the government didn't admit their part in the corruption that saw 6000 schools collapse.

I'm making a broader point. These people died because China (and Burma) are poor countries. The lack of standards, the lack of respect for standards, the corruption in the policing of standards, the shoddy construction materials used are all in various ways the result of poverty.

I'm afraid you are incorrect. There were standards. There was money in place to build to those standards. Poverty was not the main ingredient here. Corruption was. Now, if you want to make a link to corruption and poverty, I might listen to that but then why did other non-government buildings not collapse at the same time?

You would also have to explain to me things like price fixing in a rich province like Quebec. Unless your argument is that Quebec is poor and so is Ultramar.

Rich people can afford better. Poor people have to make do with less.

I generally agree with that statement. However, China was not so poor as to not build proper and safe schools. Other buildings built by the same people stood when 6000 schools collapsed. Why? Because they were rich or was it because it is easier to cheat the government or corrupt government officials to look the other way when you use poor building materials.

I'll make an even more pointed argument: clean government is an affair of rich people. Governments in rich societies tend to be less corrupt (all things considered) than governments in poor societies. IOW, clean government is a luxury good.

Transparency International lists countries according to corruption levels. Poverty is one factor in corruption but are poor countries corrupt or are corrupt countries poor?

Interesting to note that the U.S. the richest country in the world doesn't rank in the top 10.

http://www.transparency.org/policy_researc...ndices/cpi/2007

Edited June 13, 2008 by jdobbin