Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Foxery
It's a label based on the country's military and economic power on a large scale. Faults with citizens as individuals being fat or stupid has nothing to do with it. There are still enough smart and successful folks keeping things moving forward.
We might be an empire in decline, (it is a surprisingly good analogy,) but we're still an empire.
Actually we are not and have never been an empire. maybe when we start demanding tribute from occupied areas, but until then.
Philippines?
What does charrison think it is when we get resources cheaply from nations coercively, when other nations' people labor for our benefit cheaply because of pressure we can exert?
I think that trade benefits all countries that are involved. You may see their low wages as slave labor, but more often than not it is great improvement to what these people were previously doing.
In other words, an introduction is in order.
charrison, meet the concept of exploitave trade, where one nation uses its ability to coerce - usually military power driving political power - to extort goods and services more cheaply than they otherwise would be available. This is a *very* polite way of saying the same basic thing as the mob showing up to your business, and offering you 'protection' for a fee so reasonable, you can't afford not to buy it, or when the well-armed robber offers you your health for the low price of your wallet.
Concept of exploitive trade, where one nation uses its ability to coerce - usually military power driving political power - meet charrison.
Now, charrison, note that Exploitative Trade isn't the same as Trade, which is what you address. There's a whole debate along the lines you mention available on that topic.
No, what we're talking about here might be when the term 'gunboat diplomacy' was coined, when the US sent Apmiral Perry into Tokyo Harbor to tell them they'd be ending their centuries-old preference to cut off the outside world, or they'd be adding a lot of lead to their diet; it might be when a big foreign corporation pays off the 'leadership' of a nation to make deals with it - selling public assets under market value, for example - that are not 'fair' to someone, especially if a military threat has helped pave the way for the coercion.
We're not talking here about just saying 'hey, China has a lot of poor people, and we can have mutually beneficial trade, even if we might be harming our own industries'.
You two kids have a lot to talk about so I'll let you get to it.