In article <uo9810pv7jbf5bp5f2m8qmkgtaf7ja5id6@4ax.com>,
Julia <jurol@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:

It happens all over the world, within and between developing countries as well as to affluent countries. The only way I can see of controlling it, at least where western countries are involved, is to have stringent laws in receiving countries. In Australia we can only adopt through programs in countries that have long-standing bilateral agreements with our federal government or who have ratified the Hague Convention. All adoptions must be done through our designated state adoption authority, and no private adoptions or facilitators are allowed. While not foolproof, this process has at least put in as many checks and balances as possible and means nobody here is profiteering from intercountry adoption.


I appreciate that, Julia, but unfortunately it solves only half the
problem. It will deal with those in my country or yours that would try
to buy a baby. It's a help, no doubt about it.

But it doesn't do anything about the vile child peddler who's sitting in
Romania, or Cambodia, or Montenegro, or wherever. They're still free to
do what they want to do.

One thing (among many) that I rather admire the Brits for: in the late
1820's, they decided that slavery was wrong. Rather than just talk about
it, they sent the British Navy to police the Middle Passage and the
coast of western Africa. Over about 40 years they managed to stifle the
slave trade. They confiscated ships, imprisoned ship captains, and
returned captured slaves to their lands. It wasn't the whole solution
(needed the Civil War here and the emancipation in Brazil to end slavery
in the Americas), but it was a big help.

And they didn't ask anyone's permission.

My blood boils when I see reports of child peddling, just as it boils
when I read of slavery in the Sudan or Mauritania (yes, it still
exists). And I have no confidence that the saintly U.N. would do a
damned thing about it except pass a strongly worded, toothless
resolution.

So I think we ought to be more like the Brits were back then, and be a
bit, shall we say, more direct about the problem.

We wouldn't solve all the world's problems that way. But I'll betcha
that child peddler in Montenegro would find it expedient to get into
another line of work.




steve

Steve White <steve@spam.me.never> wrote So I think we ought to be more like the Brits were back then, and be a bit, shall we say, more direct about the problem. We wouldn't solve all the world's problems that way. But I'll betcha that child peddler in Montenegro would find it expedient to get into another line of work.

I rather like the idea of the US being the world's police, going forth
and righting wrongs everywhere. I think you could get the American
tax-payer behind that idea; it's easier to decide 'right' and 'wrong'
in a foreign context than at home. It should be based, however, on
really good intelligence, and generally speaking should make the
situation better afterward.

Rupa

In article <e5619372.0401261249.3520d55b@posting.google.com>,
rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote:
Steve White <steve@spam.me.never> wrote So I think we ought to be more like the Brits were back then, and be a bit, shall we say, more direct about the problem. We wouldn't solve all the world's problems that way. But I'll betcha that child peddler in Montenegro would find it expedient to get into another line of work. I rather like the idea of the US being the world's police, going forth and righting wrongs everywhere. I think you could get the American tax-payer behind that idea; it's easier to decide 'right' and 'wrong' in a foreign context than at home. It should be based, however, on really good intelligence, and generally speaking should make the situation better afterward.


We're in violent agreement :-)

I think Americans would get behind the notion of what is right and wrong
in the world, particularly if our leaders could frame the issues
carefully (e.g., common sense, one at a time, and actually fix the
problem).

I rather fear that the French would oppose us, as would the intellectual
left, because they HAVE to: if we're for, they have to be against, and
vice versa. So it'd be the same old screechy debates we're having about
Iraq and the WoT -- same actors, different play.




steve

rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote in message news:<e5619372.0401261249.3520d55b@posting.google.com>... Steve White <steve@spam.me.never> wrote So I think we ought to be more like the Brits were back then, and be a bit, shall we say, more direct about the problem. We wouldn't solve all the world's problems that way. But I'll betcha that child peddler in Montenegro would find it expedient to get into another line of work. I rather like the idea of the US being the world's police, going forth and righting wrongs everywhere. I think you could get the American tax-payer behind that idea; it's easier to decide 'right' and 'wrong' in a foreign context than at home. It should be based, however, on really good intelligence, and generally speaking should make the situation better afterward. Rupa

That's rather like putting the fox in charge of the hen house isn't
it, Rupa?
The West, and particularly the US, is responsible for inciting the
vast majority of child trafficking in the world simply by their eager
willingness to pay large amounts of money for children. New markets
for children are continually being sought when supplies have been
depleted in known areas, in order to meet that demand.

The West generally is responsible for maintaining poverty by
exploiting developing nations by using them as cheap labour to make
our own profit margins soar. See Nike as but one example.

If we were really interested in resolving this shocking exploitation
of
children, the World Bank is going to have to resort to distributing
the world's economy more equitably to eradicte the abject poverty that
enables such exploitation. Until that happens we are just clucking
about it to make ourselves feel better. IMO of course. How else can it
possibly be resolved?

Di
"A Global economy might work if were all prepared to earn 30 cents an
hour." A Sydney journalist.














Until the

patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian) wrote
rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote I rather like the idea of the US being the world's police, going forth and righting wrongs everywhere. I think you could get the American tax-payer behind that idea; it's easier to decide 'right' and 'wrong' in a foreign context than at home. It should be based, however, on really good intelligence, and generally speaking should make the situation better afterward. Rupa That's rather like putting the fox in charge of the hen house isn't it, Rupa?

Not entirely. It's a well-meaning fox. It might harvest an odd hen now
and then, but it won't rush in and slaughter the whole lot. If it is
actually in charge of the hen-house, it is likely to divert adequate
resources to it.
The West, and particularly the US, is responsible for inciting the vast majority of child trafficking in the world simply by their eager willingness to pay large amounts of money for children.

It really isn't "The West" -- it's individual families. The people who
will be shutting down the sale of people are not going to be either
people who want to adopt, nor the pedophiles. It will be some arm of
the government, probably the army.


The West generally is responsible for maintaining poverty by exploiting developing nations by using them as cheap labour to make our own profit margins soar. See Nike as but one example.

It really doesn't work that way. What they do is provide a new market
for labor. It isn't as though the kids who are working in the Nike (or
clothing or whatever) market would be in school otherwise. In many
countries, they would be ragpickers, or domestic servants.

When foreign companies come in, they typically pay wages *higher* than
existing market wages, and provide better working conditions.
(Particularly where they are direct employers, rather than working
through labor contractors.) Usually, these are prized jobs. Workers
are exploited *less* than they would be in any other jobs open to
someone with their qualifications.

The people getting screwed are the people who had equivalent jobs at
much higher wages in the West. You can buy a shirt in a big department
store for, say, $10. The exact same shirt, made in the US, would
probably be triple that price. So the consumers win, the workers lose,
and presumably the workers find jobs at, say software companies.

Then companies start outsourcing their software work to India, and the
cycle starts over.
If we were really interested in resolving this shocking exploitation of children, the World Bank is going to have to resort to distributing the world's economy more equitably to eradicte the abject poverty that enables such exploitation.

How do you do that?

Rupa

>Subject: Re: FOR SALE AGE 3From: rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose)Date: 1/28/2004 3:19 AM Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <e5619372.0401280019.2e0c0530@posting.google.com>patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian) wrote rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote I rather like the idea of the US being the world's police, going forth and righting wrongs everywhere. I think you could get the American tax-payer behind that idea; it's easier to decide 'right' and 'wrong' in a foreign context than at home. It should be based, however, on really good intelligence, and generally speaking should make the situation better afterward. Rupa That's rather like putting the fox in charge of the hen house isn't it, Rupa?Not entirely. It's a well-meaning fox. It might harvest an odd hen nowand then, but it won't rush in and slaughter the whole lot. If it isactually in charge of the hen-house, it is likely to divert adequateresources to it. The West, and particularly the US, is responsible for inciting the vast majority of child trafficking in the world simply by their eager willingness to pay large amounts of money for children.It really isn't "The West" -- it's individual families. The people whowill be shutting down the sale of people are not going to be eitherpeople who want to adopt, nor the pedophiles. It will be some arm ofthe government, probably the army. The West generally is responsible for maintaining poverty by exploiting developing nations by using them as cheap labour to make our own profit margins soar. See Nike as but one example.It really doesn't work that way. What they do is provide a new marketfor labor. It isn't as though the kids who are working in the Nike (orclothing or whatever) market would be in school otherwise. In manycountries, they would be ragpickers, or domestic servants.

Or worse.
When foreign companies come in, they typically pay wages *higher*than existing market wages, and provide better working conditions.(Particularly where they are direct employers, rather than workingthrough labor contractors.) Usually, these are prized jobs. Workersare exploited *less* than they would be in any other jobs open tosomeone with their qualifications.

Oh stop making sense, Rupa.
The people getting screwed are the people who had equivalent jobs atmuch higher wages in the West. You can buy a shirt in a big departmentstore for, say, $10. The exact same shirt, made in the US, wouldprobably be triple that price. So the consumers win, the workers lose,and presumably the workers find jobs at, say software companies.Then companies start outsourcing their software work to India, and thecycle starts over.

If anything, global capitalism is raising the living standards in under
developed countries while simultaneously lowering our own. Those $18/hour
manufacturing jobs with union benefits and pensions are disappearing faster
than you can say "Welcome to Wal-Mart", all at the "expense" of the blue collar
American worker.

I saw a piece on 60 minutes this month on telephone customer service. GE,
Microsoft, and even some state governments are outsourcing these jobs to India
at a substantial savings. It would cost them approx $30,000 annually to locate
these jobs domestically, 1/10th of that to move them to India. $3,000 is still
5x the per capita income in India. It's no small wonder there are 100 college
educated applicants for each job in India.

I wonder what the local (Indian) reaction would be if Di campaigned to close
them down?
If we were really interested in resolving this shocking exploitation of children, the World Bank is going to have to resort to distributing the world's economy more equitably to eradicte the abject poverty that enables such exploitation.How do you do that?

By dropping bags of money into Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Zimbabwe, of
course. After all, why teach them to fish when you can simply give them your
catch?

What Di fails to grasp is that political forces are no match for economic
ones when it comes to the global redistribution of wealth.

Dad

On 28 Jan 2004 00:19:50 -0800, rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose)
wrote:
When foreign companies come in, they typically pay wages *higher* thanexisting market wages, and provide better working conditions.(Particularly where they are direct employers, rather than workingthrough labor contractors.) Usually, these are prized jobs. Workersare exploited *less* than they would be in any other jobs open tosomeone with their qualifications.


What about Bhopal India..

I am sure the workers there got higher wages..

http://www.greenpeace.org.nz/toxics-map/anewsdetail.asp?offset=10&PRID=445
"Bhopal is a shocking example of a corporate crime against the environment and the people of India. Every day that Dow absconds from justice by denying responsibility is another nail in the coffin for the people of Bhopal."

Jackie

>Subject: Re: FOR SALE AGE 3From: Jackie forgetit@me.comDate: 1/28/2004 10:08 AM Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <7vjf101n1ni2tim8p8e4ftf64oidl9nqej@4ax.com>On 28 Jan 2004 00:19:50 -0800, rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose)wrote:When foreign companies come in, they typically pay wages *higher* thanexisting market wages, and provide better working conditions.(Particularly where they are direct employers, rather than workingthrough labor contractors.) Usually, these are prized jobs. Workersare exploited *less* than they would be in any other jobs open tosomeone with their qualifications.What about Bhopal India..

What about Bhopal?
I am sure the workers there got higher wages..

As did the workers at Chernobyl (sp?). Was there a point you were trying to
make?

Dad

Jackie <forgetit@me.com> wrote in message What about Bhopal India.. I am sure the workers there got higher wages.. http://www.greenpeace.org.nz/toxics-map/anewsdetail.asp?offset=10&PRID=445"Bhopal is a shocking example of a corporate crime against the environment and the people of India. Every day that Dow absconds from justice by denying responsibility is another nail in the coffin for the people of Bhopal." Jackie

They probably did. And I agree that Dow was shockingly negligent.
However, it could as easily have happened with an Indian-owned
company. It's not as though Indian-owned chemicals companies have a
spotless safety record.It just happened that methyl iso-cyanate was a
particularly toxic gas.

Rupa

In article <e5619372.0401280019.2e0c0530@posting.google.com>,
rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote:

The people getting screwed are the people who had equivalent jobs at much higher wages in the West. You can buy a shirt in a big department store for, say, $10. The exact same shirt, made in the US, would probably be triple that price. So the consumers win, the workers lose, and presumably the workers find jobs at, say software companies. Then companies start outsourcing their software work to India, and the cycle starts over.


Recent articles suggest that the outsourcing argument is more hot air
than substance:

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?pt=Qk6aK%2FJDXpdaXsv0%2FiOKWW%3D%3D

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50822-2004Jan26.html

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.02/india.html

http://www.danieldrezner.com/archives/cat_outsourcing.html


That should do for a start. In short, WaPo has it right:

"But, as Mr. Greenspan says, new jobs will be created. If a U.S. firm
shifts employment abroad, the savings flow back to the United States in
the form of lower prices for consumers and higher dividends for
shareholders; the consumers and shareholders will direct their new
spending power at things that create employment. Meanwhile, the fall in
prices will allow the Federal Reserve to keep interest rates lower,
boosting the job-creation engine. ... Offshoring, like trade, creates
winners and losers, which is why open trade should be accompanied by
social safety nets. But the winners will outnumber the losers, because
the adjustment creates new efficiencies. Each worker can produce more,
meaning that he or she can be paid more. Do the Democrats really mean
to oppose that?"





steve

In article <e5619372.0401280022.6f5ba821@posting.google.com>,
rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote:

I think the legal system gets in the way in the US. If we could ship all the slave-traders to Guantanamo Bay, we could probably mop it up.


You're the gentle, kind one here: I probably wouldn't be giving slavers
that option.




steve

"Steve White" <steve@spam.me.never> wrote in message
news:steve-75E533.21213128012004@netnews.comcast.net... In article <e5619372.0401280019.2e0c0530@posting.google.com>, rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote: The people getting screwed are the people who had equivalent jobs at much higher wages in the West. You can buy a shirt in a big department store for, say, $10. The exact same shirt, made in the US, would probably be triple that price. So the consumers win, the workers lose, and presumably the workers find jobs at, say software companies. Then companies start outsourcing their software work to India, and the cycle starts over. Recent articles suggest that the outsourcing argument is more hot air than substance: http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?pt=Qk6aK%2FJDXpdaXsv0%2FiOKWW%3D%3D http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50822-2004Jan26.html http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.02/india.html http://www.danieldrezner.com/archives/cat_outsourcing.html That should do for a start. In short, WaPo has it right: "But, as Mr. Greenspan says, new jobs will be created. If a U.S. firm shifts employment abroad, the savings flow back to the United States in the form of lower prices for consumers and higher dividends for shareholders; the consumers and shareholders will direct their new spending power at things that create employment. Meanwhile, the fall in prices will allow the Federal Reserve to keep interest rates lower, boosting the job-creation engine. ... Offshoring, like trade, creates winners and losers, which is why open trade should be accompanied by social safety nets. But the winners will outnumber the losers, because the adjustment creates new efficiencies. Each worker can produce more, meaning that he or she can be paid more. Do the Democrats really mean to oppose that?" steve

Ayn Rand's boytoy speaks.

Marley

On 28 Jan 2004 13:40:38 -0800, rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose)
wrote:
Jackie <forgetit@me.com> wrote in message What about Bhopal India.. I am sure the workers there got higher wages.. http://www.greenpeace.org.nz/toxics-map/anewsdetail.asp?offset=10&PRID=445"Bhopal is a shocking example of a corporate crime against the environment and the people of India. Every day that Dow absconds from justice by denying responsibility is another nail in the coffin for the people of Bhopal." JackieThey probably did. And I agree that Dow was shockingly negligent.However, it could as easily have happened with an Indian-ownedcompany. It's not as though Indian-owned chemicals companies have aspotless safety record.It just happened that methyl iso-cyanate was aparticularly toxic gas.

Dow had the money to clean it up..

Jackie

Jackie <forgetit@me.com> wrote in message news:<e16i1099qu5ila7gr4nae9p7a39faku4c2@4ax.com>... On 28 Jan 2004 13:40:38 -0800, rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote:Jackie <forgetit@me.com> wrote in message What about Bhopal India.. I am sure the workers there got higher wages.. http://www.greenpeace.org.nz/toxics-map/anewsdetail.asp?offset=10&PRID=445 >"Bhopal is a shocking example of a corporate crime against the environment and the people of India. Every day that Dow absconds from justice by denying responsibility is another nail in the coffin for the people of Bhopal." JackieThey probably did. And I agree that Dow was shockingly negligent.However, it could as easily have happened with an Indian-ownedcompany. It's not as though Indian-owned chemicals companies have aspotless safety record.It just happened that methyl iso-cyanate was aparticularly toxic gas. Dow had the money to clean it up.. Jackie

There wasn't a need for a clean-up, except of dead people. Something
like 2000 people died in minutes. What they could do is help the
survivors, including those who were injured but not immediately
killed.

Dow, like mostly any entity, will only do what it is forced to do.

Rupa