tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32078264.post-48176498406382872262008-03-21T12:06:00.000-05:002008-03-21T12:06:00.000-05:002008-03-21T12:06:00.000-05:00As always Billy you conflate economic prosperity with happiness as though more money necessarily makes people happier. I can always agree with you in a limited way - yes, grinding poverty blows. I don't think many people would disagree. Yeah, sweatshops do, to a certain extent, alleviate grinding poverty. But so do agricultural sales cooperatives, fair trade certification, organic certification, and a number of other methods. The others, granted, might not have quite the reach but it's not all about the numbers. <BR/><BR/>What is lost in a sweatshop for instance? The problem with economic thinking is that it's all about money and numbers. Anything that can't be quantified is not valuable. Enabling people to have a good life is sort of what we all want. But raw dollars don't equal happiness. People build up a tolerance. It's like any sort of gratification, you know the law of diminishing returns and all that. At a certain point, or even from the beginning intangibles that can't be quantified really matter. Our lives are impoverished by the loss of the intangibles - dignity, company, friendship, community, family. I'm starting to sound a little like Tom. <BR/><BR/>Also ignored in the sweatshop and development lexicon is collateral damage which I guess the loss of the intangibles is one. We're also talking environmental costs, health costs, etc. The African AIDS epidemic, to take just one example wouldn't have happened to the extent it has without international trade expanded by trucking. I'm not saying the benefits probably don't outweigh the costs, but merely that we don't even think about these things when assessing the benefits.<BR/><BR/>Pragmatism is fine, but pull your head out of your ass and realize that pragmatism only works if we're talking about the same goals.Hannohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13243676562527233230noreply@blogger.com