Apple slaves REVOLT, destroy factory over $7/month pay

submitted by hfxB0oyA from (youtu.be)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Trajan 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Yeah, you do make a good point. You can't really call this an instance of slavery, except in a metaphorical sense, but my point still stands. You could, however, call forced labor in China slavery, since a lot of people — mostly Uyghurs — are being detained and forced to work for the communist government.

Ta. Yeah, there are definitely instances of forced labour. The work camps in China certainly count. There are also instances in Qatar where migrants are brought in, then have their passports taken away by the employer. I'd be happy to see a complete ban on importing products produced by forced labour and see Western corporations held fully responsible. While it's not them doing this directly, they know this is a risk when they outsource to the developing world. That guy in the video makes a good point - would it really be a significant cost for a corporation to have staff based at these sites to watch for abusive behaviours?

I didn't say they're the same thing, I said they have the same root cause: free market Capitalism. Regardless, most mega-corporations are multi-national monopolies, especially in fields such as technology.

Ah, I took the 'and' in the boolean sense. Sure, there are monopolies, yet most are confined to specific domains. Where companies abuse monopolies or engage in other anti-competitive behaviours they should certainly be taken to task.

The very definition of a monopoly is that it has no competition. You used a lot of words to say nothing at all.

Ironically I probably used too few words, so my apologies for that. It's more complex that what I had said.

  1. A monopoly in this context doesn't require a situation where there is no competition. A company could be deemed to have a monopoly with only a majority of a market. There are different types of monopolies (e.g. statutory monopoly, natural monopoly). How a monopoly is legally defined may vary.

  2. A monopoly isn't inherently bad - it depends on how it is maintained, whether it distorts the market, and if the monopoly is leveraged for anti-competitive ends. A single supermarket in a town may have the monopoly on groceries by doing 80% of the groceries business. Even a small shop in a remote town could have a natural monopoly by virtue of the market being small and difficult to enter. This is both legal and expected. What would we do? Close the one shop in town? No, we'd consider it normal, taking action only if the shop works to suppress new completion. For example, a new shop opens. The original shop then begins selling goods at a loss and offers discounts to people who stay in the one hotel in town - which they also own.

If you look back every twenty years, reviewing monopolies and wealth of corporations, you'll see it's a shifting landscape. Standard Oil was the oil company until it was taken to task for anti-competitive behaviours. Hearst Communications was another company that dominated in its heyday. Nokia? Netscape? IBM? Eastman Kodak? All of these dominated their respective markets yet have subsequently vanished or been superseded. Nokia in the 90s owned the majority of worldwide handset sales (upwards of 50%). Microsoft dominated Internet access via their desktop monopoly, yet completely missed the boat on smart phones. My point here is that the market will in most cases correct itself and that we should be pretty definite on what we're addressing when we choose to intervene.

Good we agree on that. China really is our number one enemy.

Hell yeah! Fair competition should be the goal, and China is both a cheat and a security risk.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

There are also instances in Qatar where migrants are brought in, then have their passports taken away by the employer.

I didn't know about that, that's crazy.

Ah, I took the 'and' in the boolean sense

I was simply using a list of two.

A monopoly in this context doesn't require a situation where there is no competition. A company could be deemed to have a monopoly with only a majority of a market.

Ah, yes. It's not the complete absence of competition, but rather the absence of reasonable competition, at least when competition equates to another business. I tend to equate it to reasonable competition, since there are very few situations in which a large-scale market would have an industry in which only one business operated — that, perhaps, could be called a true monopoly, as opposed to my false definition.

A monopoly isn't inherently bad

But monopolies are naturally bad, because they're inclined to cause harm. Some can resist their own nature, but most of them will submit.

My point here is that the market will in most cases correct itself

Yes, but the goal is to create a market which can do so more effectively. Regulations are simply a means of rewriting the rules of the market, and changing how it behaves — like a program. Once we find a market failure, a bug if you will, we need to rewrite the code.

we should be pretty definite on what we're addressing when we choose to intervene.

Yes, the actual laws should be written in the most precise manner possible. I merely express sentiments and proclaim goals here, and I like to be broad when I do so, because if I wanted to be precise, I'd write an essay.

[–]Trajan 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I didn't know about that, that's crazy.

Yeah, we don't hear much about this. I suppose Twitter is more concerned with 'crunch' for developers and pronouns.

Ah, yes. It's not the complete absence of competition, but rather the absence of reasonable competition, at least when competition equates to another business. I tend to equate it to reasonable competition, since there are very few situations in which a large-scale market would have an industry in which only one business operated — that, perhaps, could be called a true monopoly, as opposed to my false definition.

That makes sense. 'Reasonable competition' is a good way of conceptualising this.

But monopolies are naturally bad, because they're inclined to cause harm. Some can resist their own nature, but most of them will submit.

I'd definitely agree when talking about specific monopolies. There's a lot of complexity in managing monopolies. To begin with, there are natural monopolies, where a monopoly forms through no misconduct. The example of a small town store could be an example of a natural monopoly where the small market, combined with freight costs, makes it barely viable to compete against them. I wouldn't consider this naturally bad any more than I'd consider the need to eat to be bad. It's just the way it works. Certainly it'd be better if competition were viable. There's a risk of a well intentioned yet ruinous approach to such things, trying to solve a problem that can't be solved, and creating a worse outcome than if it had simply been left alone. While competition should always be the goal, it's not always achievable, and more damage will be done by intervening. This neutral view on the morality of monopolies is why regulation tends to focus on how the monopoly is achieved or used.

Yes, but the goal is to create a market which can do so more effectively. Regulations are simply a means of rewriting the rules of the market, and changing how it behaves — like a program. Once we find a market failure, a bug if you will, we need to rewrite the code.

Agreed, that should be the purpose of regulation. The difficulties arise in knowing what it is to be more effective and how to achieve that. Clumsy regulation, with the best of intentions, can be ruinous. Economies are incredibly complex machines that can deliver unpleasant results if interventions are not rare and well considered. Microsoft using its OS monopoly to crush developers of competing application software was a market failure and quite rightly addressed. Criminalising Microsoft simply for having a popular OS would not have been appropriate.

Yes, the actual laws should be written in the most precise manner possible. I merely express sentiments and proclaim goals here, and I like to be broad when I do so, because if I wanted to be precise, I'd write an essay.

That makes sense. By the way, thanks for the chat. This'd be one of the better conversations I've had here.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You're welcome! I'd like to thank you as well, for being more respectful and open to explaining yourself when misunderstood.