Re: [free-software-melb] Incentives for corporations to protect consumer freedom
Dennis K wrote:
It's not so much that its a different country, but that its a new economy which hasn't gotten to the "fat, lazy" stage yet. I'm sure, given time, any company will become lazy and undynamic.
I think, Dennis, that you're misreading the facts. The Chinese economic system is a blisteringly violent mechanism with little to no interest in worker rights and little in the way of concern for their safety. Community safety is also a low priority. A relative who lives in Hong Kong tells me all about the crappy engineering that gets passed as 'fit' over there. Additionally there was an engineering inspector on the ABC just last week saying that during his time over there he was appalled by the shoddy work and dangerous consequences. It's easy to make a radical change or 'fix' a problem in these circumstances. It's possible to be impressed until you consider the cost. These are the greater causes of the differences, rather than some idealised notion of being "lean" or "without fat" or "new". Regards, Patrick
On 06/08/2012 11:35 PM, Patrick Elliott-Brennan wrote:
Dennis K wrote:
It's not so much that its a different country, but that its a new economy which hasn't gotten to the "fat, lazy" stage yet. I'm sure, given time, any company will become lazy and undynamic.
I think, Dennis, that you're misreading the facts. The Chinese economic system is a blisteringly violent mechanism with little to no interest in worker rights and little in the way of concern for their safety. Community safety is also a low priority.
A relative who lives in Hong Kong tells me all about the crappy engineering that gets passed as 'fit' over there. Additionally there was an engineering inspector on the ABC just last week saying that during his time over there he was appalled by the shoddy work and dangerous consequences.
It's easy to make a radical change or 'fix' a problem in these circumstances. It's possible to be impressed until you consider the cost. These are the greater causes of the differences, rather than some idealised notion of being "lean" or "without fat" or "new".
Regards, Patrick _______________________________________________ Free-software-melb mailing list Free-software-melb@lists.softwarefreedom.com.au http://lists.softwarefreedom.com.au/mailman/listinfo/free-software-melb
I'm in agreement there. The Chinese economy is "Authoritarian Capitalism". You see, the socio-economic system that we operate under, works better when you dispose of ideals like valuing life, democracy, freedom of speech, etc. The fact of that matter is, it is beneficial for the owner of an enterprise, in terms of productivity and profits, to have workers who have the least rights possible, the least quality of life possible without it impacting on their productivity. Don't get me wrong. I'm not envious, and I would oppose in the strictest terms following their "lead", which is what some seem to suggest we should do. But as long as our countries are run for the purposes of meeting the requirements of big business in a global economy, we'll have this situation.
On Sat, Jun 9, 2012 at 3:08 PM, Dennis K <dennisk@netspace.net.au> wrote:
On 06/08/2012 11:35 PM, Patrick Elliott-Brennan wrote:
Dennis K wrote:
It's not so much that its a different country, but that its a new economy which hasn't gotten to the "fat, lazy" stage yet. I'm sure, given time, any company will become lazy and undynamic.
I think, Dennis, that you're misreading the facts. The Chinese economic system is a blisteringly violent mechanism with little to no interest in worker rights and little in the way of concern for their safety. Community safety is also a low priority.
A relative who lives in Hong Kong tells me all about the crappy engineering that gets passed as 'fit' over there. Additionally there was an engineering inspector on the ABC just last week saying that during his time over there he was appalled by the shoddy work and dangerous consequences.
It's easy to make a radical change or 'fix' a problem in these circumstances. It's possible to be impressed until you consider the cost. These are the greater causes of the differences, rather than some idealised notion of being "lean" or "without fat" or "new".
Regards, Patrick ______________________________**_________________ Free-software-melb mailing list Free-software-melb@lists.**softwarefreedom.com.au<Free-software-melb@lists.softwarefreedom.com.au> http://lists.softwarefreedom.**com.au/mailman/listinfo/free-** software-melb<http://lists.softwarefreedom.com.au/mailman/listinfo/free-software-melb>
I'm in agreement there. The Chinese economy is "Authoritarian Capitalism". You see, the socio-economic system that we operate under, works better when you dispose of ideals like valuing life, democracy, freedom of speech, etc.
The fact of that matter is, it is beneficial for the owner of an enterprise, in terms of productivity and profits, to have workers who have the least rights possible, the least quality of life possible without it impacting on their productivity.
Hmmmm... don't go too far in that direction, you can reach a point where the society doesn't have enough purchasing power to buy your products no matter how cheap they are - would sound a lot as the Great Depression.
On 06/09/2012 11:12 PM, Adrian Colomitchi wrote:
On Sat, Jun 9, 2012 at 3:08 PM, Dennis K<dennisk@netspace.net.au> wrote:
On 06/08/2012 11:35 PM, Patrick Elliott-Brennan wrote:
Dennis K wrote:
It's not so much that its a different country, but that its a new economy which hasn't gotten to the "fat, lazy" stage yet. I'm sure, given time, any company will become lazy and undynamic.
I think, Dennis, that you're misreading the facts. The Chinese economic system is a blisteringly violent mechanism with little to no interest in worker rights and little in the way of concern for their safety. Community safety is also a low priority.
A relative who lives in Hong Kong tells me all about the crappy engineering that gets passed as 'fit' over there. Additionally there was an engineering inspector on the ABC just last week saying that during his time over there he was appalled by the shoddy work and dangerous consequences.
It's easy to make a radical change or 'fix' a problem in these circumstances. It's possible to be impressed until you consider the cost. These are the greater causes of the differences, rather than some idealised notion of being "lean" or "without fat" or "new".
Regards, Patrick ______________________________**_________________ Free-software-melb mailing list Free-software-melb@lists.**softwarefreedom.com.au<Free-software-melb@lists.softwarefreedom.com.au> http://lists.softwarefreedom.**com.au/mailman/listinfo/free-** software-melb<http://lists.softwarefreedom.com.au/mailman/listinfo/free-software-melb>
I'm in agreement there. The Chinese economy is "Authoritarian Capitalism". You see, the socio-economic system that we operate under, works better when you dispose of ideals like valuing life, democracy, freedom of speech, etc.
The fact of that matter is, it is beneficial for the owner of an enterprise, in terms of productivity and profits, to have workers who have the least rights possible, the least quality of life possible without it impacting on their productivity.
Hmmmm... don't go too far in that direction, you can reach a point where the society doesn't have enough purchasing power to buy your products no matter how cheap they are - would sound a lot as the Great Depression. _______________________________________________ Free-software-melb mailing list Free-software-melb@lists.softwarefreedom.com.au http://lists.softwarefreedom.com.au/mailman/listinfo/free-software-melb
The Great Depression happened because the declining financial conditions were handled poorly. FDR probably prolonged it with the "New Deal". That and there was no control during the 'boom'. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. We pay economist big, big money to have them produce information for us to tell use that such a thing doesn't apply to economics.
participants (3)
-
Adrian Colomitchi -
Dennis K -
Patrick Elliott-Brennan