Globalization

[flamingchina]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Well yeah that sounds nice, but I can't imagine it really works that way. Is some guy in Indonesia making 10 cents an hour punching lace-holes in a pair of sneakers going to start his own line of shoes if the company moves the factory to Vietnam?

I think saying they gain working experience is a bit useless.
Really what they gain is money. money they send home, money they use to put there kids in school with. Basically forgoing consumption now for future use (is this case, by their children)
It's not a single generation thing they're looking at, it's multigenerational. We experienced it ourselves, with the whole, giving my kids things I didn't have and such. (my grandmother dropping out of school at 14 to work for an example)

[Tron_fdc]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Uhhhh maybe. But in all likelihood not. Let's be realistic here.

He is being realistic, actually. This is the model China has been working off for decades.

North American company "x" sets up shop in China, exports all their technology for the benefit of cheap labour, and 5 years later the Chinese government takes over said shop, keeps all the expertise that has been taught to them, enters the marketplace, starts making the same kind of money "x" was, and raises wages. That's a pretty simple analysis, but you get the gist.

I've been watching this happen in the steel industry for the last 10 years. The only way around it is when (not if) you lose your shop is to move it further inland where the labour is cheaper. Right now I can hire someone in Mongolia for 1/10 the cost of someone on the East coast. Not that the population on the east coast care much, their shops are so heavily advanced (in comparison to Mongolia) that they are so busy selling worldwide they could care less if I order from them or not.

China is developing faster than any other country in the world, so they must be doing something right.

[Savvy27]

A government stepping in and putting "experienced" people to work is different than the suggestion that those who work in a shoe factory will somehow be able to start their own factory. Personally I can't imagine that happening, unless developing nations have generations of poverty to endure still and one day in the distant future a family puts together enough pennies from their day jobs to have the capital to start their own factory. Government intervention (like in the China example) seems more likely.

I don't think that globalisation is inevitable in the sense that we will be left with a completely free market global economy. If that were to happen then nations would end up producing a smaller number of commodities that they have expertise/resources to make lots of money. The problem in this vision of the future is that it would result in entire nations being significantly more vulnerable to market fluctuations.

Imagine if Canada (we would likely be better off than most in that scenario I think) were to, over time, produce a smaller number of commodities because we were at an advantage in selling them compared to other nations that had their own products. Say that beef is one of our best selling exports, which is great up until it is proven that there is a strong correlation between red meat and cancer (hypothetically). Now our entire economy suffers a big hit and we have millions of people working in an industry that will never again bring in the kind of money that we need it to. Diversification is an option but it is one that would now be much more difficult because the majority of goods are already being produced in other countries at their advantage.

Globalisation isn't necessarily evil (although it works more to the advantage of developed nations than to underdeveloped ones) but I think its unlikely that it is inevitable or, were it to occur, infinite because it is no more perfect a system than protectionism. As nations lose control over their economies they will start to move away from completely open markets and when that goes too far and economies suffer they will move back.

In case there is a flaming on its way I would like to add that I do not think there is a "corporati-spiracy" or whatever that book was about. Although I do think the article was crap. There are arguments in favour of globalisation that do not require readers to believe that social progress is driven purely by economics... especially when the author lists in the next paragraph quantitative evidence that apparently does not apply to Indonesia.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Tron_fdc

He is being realistic, actually. This is the model China has been working off for decades.

North American company "x" sets up shop in China, exports all their technology for the benefit of cheap labour, and 5 years later the Chinese government takes over said shop, keeps all the expertise that has been taught to them, enters the marketplace, starts making the same kind of money "x" was, and raises wages. That's a pretty simple analysis, but you get the gist.

I've been watching this happen in the steel industry for the last 10 years. The only way around it is when (not if) you lose your shop is to move it further inland where the labour is cheaper. Right now I can hire someone in Mongolia for 1/10 the cost of someone on the East coast. Not that the population on the east coast care much, their shops are so heavily advanced (in comparison to Mongolia) that they are so busy selling worldwide they could care less if I order from them or not.

China is developing faster than any other country in the world, so they must be doing something right.

Actually, I don't think that is entirely true.

They set up a lot of "Joint-Venture" companies, where a foriegn business sends over a couple people, helps train the chinese to do the job and the way they do business - in turn, the foriegn investors make profits as they are the disturbutors for the merchandise internationally and can find markets for it.

Both parties prosper, because the government makes money as well.

As well, the people do infact learn skills, because they are involved in heavy industry - not exactly common place in most developing nations.

[Tron_fdc]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

Actually, I don't think that is entirely true.

They set up a lot of "Joint-Venture" companies, where a foriegn business sends over a couple people, helps train the chinese to do the job and the way they do business - in turn, the foriegn investors make profits as they are the disturbutors for the merchandise internationally and can find markets for it.

Both parties prosper, because the government makes money as well.

As well, the people do infact learn skills, because they are involved in heavy industry - not exactly common place in most developing nations.

You're kind of reiterating what I said...maybe I didn't word it right. Yes, joint ventures are common (we're looking at one right now) and I was told through the consulate that you can own a business in China, but only for 5 years. Then the government steps in and takes over whatever your investment was. Not a big deal, because we would make back our original investment in 1 year, and the rest is pretty much profit. At the end of the term, we would either move into another venture somewhere else (in our case probably lower Mongolia) or continue to purchase from the company we used to partially own. We would have no ownership rights, but if you built your bridges properly you would enjoy a very profitable relationship.

I am assuming this business model is common for all types of industry in China, as every time I go over there I see factories set up producing everything from furniture to clothing and textiles....not just heavy industry.

Again, I'm only speaking from experience and what I see when I'm there. China is such complex country that what you hear in one town or city will be completely different in the next, and what people are taught in North America (especially tax or finance laws) seem to be open to interpretation as well as negotiation. Every time I think I have it somewhat figured out, in steps joe public official from Xinwiang province with an entirely different take on the situation.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Tron_fdc

He is being realistic, actually. This is the model China has been working off for decades.

North American company "x" sets up shop in China, exports all their technology for the benefit of cheap labour, and 5 years later the Chinese government takes over said shop, keeps all the expertise that has been taught to them, enters the marketplace, starts making the same kind of money "x" was, and raises wages. That's a pretty simple analysis, but you get the gist.

I've been watching this happen in the steel industry for the last 10 years. The only way around it is when (not if) you lose your shop is to move it further inland where the labour is cheaper. Right now I can hire someone in Mongolia for 1/10 the cost of someone on the East coast. Not that the population on the east coast care much, their shops are so heavily advanced (in comparison to Mongolia) that they are so busy selling worldwide they could care less if I order from them or not.

China is developing faster than any other country in the world, so they must be doing something right.

I don't think China is a good example. Malaysia, Indonesia, Central America, SE Asia are good examples. China has had control over its marketplace to a much larger extent than many other countries (probably due to its extremely effective communist past/present). It has been able to have a greater say in dictating terms like where in China a company sets up shop, and how much these workers are to be paid.

For sure, Chinese labour remains fairly cheap. But this is, I think, because its the way China wants it for now. They're #1 goal is economic expansion at all costs, including the welfare of their citizens. But China also gets trade offs, payoffs from companies who set up shop, say over what is produced and how, say over who gets which jobs, etc.

Belize just doesn't have the same economic clout that China has/had and is not able to dictate nearly as many aspects of the TNC relationship, nor is it necessarily possible for Belize to 'learn from China'; they're just not in the same weight division (few are w/ China).

China is not a good example of 'the developing world'. Its too big and has too much say over what happens inside it.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Tron_fdc

You're kind of reiterating what I said...maybe I didn't word it right. Yes, joint ventures are common (we're looking at one right now) and I was told through the consulate that you can own a business in China, but only for 5 years. Then the government steps in and takes over whatever your investment was. Not a big deal, because we would make back our original investment in 1 year, and the rest is pretty much profit. At the end of the term, we would either move into another venture somewhere else (in our case probably lower Mongolia) or continue to purchase from the company we used to partially own. We would have no ownership rights, but if you built your bridges properly you would enjoy a very profitable relationship.

I am assuming this business model is common for all types of industry in China, as every time I go over there I see factories set up producing everything from furniture to clothing and textiles....not just heavy industry.

Again, I'm only speaking from experience and what I see when I'm there. China is such complex country that what you hear in one town or city will be completely different in the next, and what people are taught in North America (especially tax or finance laws) seem to be open to interpretation as well as negotiation. Every time I think I have it somewhat figured out, in steps joe public official from Xinwiang province with an entirely different take on the situation.

See I understand what you are saying, but China has so power by controlling access to their markets that companies can/will make concessions to go there.

A country in SE Asia can't do that, they don't have the power to dictate their own terms of business. They can't deny access to a massive 1 billion people market.

If Indonesia says you have to abandon your business after 5 years, those businesses just will go knocking on Malaysia or Thailand's door instead.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Savvy27

I don't think that globalisation is inevitable in the sense that we will be left with a completely free market global economy. If that were to happen then nations would end up producing a smaller number of commodities that they have expertise/resources to make lots of money. The problem in this vision of the future is that it would result in entire nations being significantly more vulnerable to market fluctuations.

I don't think Globalization necessarily implies a totally open free market economy. I think it implies a fully integrated market economy, with collective restraints and guidelines that most, if not all players abide by (like the WTO). Nations who's primary export are commodity in nature (like Canada) will definitely be prone to market fluctuations. If Oil drops to $10 a barrel, we'd be over a barrel here. Likewise with many metals, timber, etc.

Imagine if Canada (we would likely be better off than most in that scenario I think) were to, over time, produce a smaller number of commodities because we were at an advantage in selling them compared to other nations that had their own products. Say that beef is one of our best selling exports, which is great up until it is proven that there is a strong correlation between red meat and cancer (hypothetically). Now our entire economy suffers a big hit and we have millions of people working in an industry that will never again bring in the kind of money that we need it to. Diversification is an option but it is one that would now be much more difficult because the majority of goods are already being produced in other countries at their advantage.

Yeah... the global marketplace can be a harsh place to be... but not really that different that things already are today. BSE knocked Alberta's beef industry to hell. When oil dropped in the 90's and 80's, Alberta was buffeted. I'm sure the softwood dispute has put hundreds, if not thousands out of jobs (though, this is due to US tariffs, but the point about commodity inconsistency is there).

I guess my point here is, nations already do 'what they're best at' to a large extent. At the same time, diversification _is_ happening everywhere as well... I don't think we'll see the day when Canada has 2 exports, Beef and Oil, and that 80% of the population is employed in those 2 industries. Likewise with most other states.

Globalisation isn't necessarily evil (although it works more to the advantage of developed nations than to underdeveloped ones) but I think its unlikely that it is inevitable or, were it to occur, infinite because it is no more perfect a system than protectionism. As nations lose control over their economies they will start to move away from completely open markets and when that goes too far and economies suffer they will move back.

"Were it to occur"... I think its already 'occurred'. Globalization isn't a theory, its a reality. While I'm not sure what an 'infinite' system would look like, there are definite trends toward free markets, away from 'protectionism', and I don't think the two are 'the same degree of perfect'. Free markets do not distribute wealth evenly; thats not their job. What they do is generate more wealth to be distributed. Protectionism could be better at distribution, but not as good at generation, and in the modern world generation has been emphasized over distribution. Also, once a country has 'moved toward free markets', it really can't dislike what it sees, and retreat backward without severely debilitating its economy. Nations have 2 choices, integrate with the world's free market economy and make the most wealth possible, or don't integrate and make wealth more slowly. Good or Bad, it seems to be the way its shaking down.

In case there is a flaming on its way I would like to add that I do not think there is a "corporati-spiracy" or whatever that book was about. Although I do think the article was crap. There are arguments in favour of globalisation that do not require readers to believe that social progress is driven purely by economics... especially when the author lists in the next paragraph quantitative evidence that apparently does not apply to Indonesia.

I'm certainly not trying to flame you, I'm probably far to the Left of you. I hate the WTO, and think that the side-effects of Globalization are unjust and crippling to large swaths of people. But I _do_ believe that its inevitable, and that it would be beneficial for all of us to recognize this, and then do the best we can to cope. Technology and Capitlalism have lives of their own right now, and with the lifestyles they provide the top 20-30% of the world, they'll continue to drive society (imo).

[Tron_fdc]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

I don't think China is a good example. Malaysia, Indonesia, Central America, SE Asia are good examples. China has had control over its marketplace to a much larger extent than many other countries (probably due to its extremely effective communist past/present). It has been able to have a greater say in dictating terms like where in China a company sets up shop, and how much these workers are to be paid.

Not really. I can set up shop wherever I want, but yes the government can make conditions "favourable" in certain areas. The same can said for a lot of the countries you mentioned as well.

For sure, Chinese labour remains fairly cheap. But this is, I think, because its the way China wants it for now. They're #1 goal is economic expansion at all costs, including the welfare of their citizens. But China also gets trade offs, payoffs from companies who set up shop, say over what is produced and how, say over who gets which jobs, etc.

I agree with that. The main reason we are there is the cheap labour/resources. It's a trade off...they get our expertise, we get short term access to cheap products.

Belize just doesn't have the same economic clout that China has/had and is not able to dictate nearly as many aspects of the TNC relationship, nor is it necessarily possible for Belize to 'learn from China'; they're just not in the same weight division (few are w/ China).

China is not a good example of 'the developing world'. Its too big and has too much say over what happens inside it.

I certainly understand what you're saying, but I'm providing a case study that you can't necessarily "throw out" because the country is too big or the government is too powerful. There are literally countries within the country, much like the countries within Indonesia. If I don't like the way business is done within Guandong province, there are several other districts waiting in line much like Caramon's Indo/Malaysia/Thailand comparison. Granted, the money stays in the country but it is being utilized in another region much like how currency would be used in another country. If I set up shop in Belize, teach them all about metal casting, then decide to go to Sri Lanka, is the company I set up/trained in Belize going to sit there waiting for me to come back? Of course not. The same would go for textiles....just because Nike left doesn't mean the company they set up all of a sudden forgot how to make shoes.

To me China should be considered as a good example of the developing world. There is just as much (if not more) poverty within the country in comparison to a lot of supposed 3rd world countries (look inland, not on the coastal cities), and the way in which they are going about developing the lower class citizens is really quite interesting. From what I hear India is going to take the same sort of approach, and it is a country with a population much like China, has poverty issues but a workforce willing to work towards changing that, much like the population of China.

With 2 countries making up almost 3 billion people, how can you label one or the other as a poor example of a developing nation? Because they're communist? Too powerful a workforce? Too much military? It's such a diverse place, with such a huge population, that it really isn't much of a surprise that when people think the government rules with an iron fist and runs 24hr wiretaps on its citizens, it really doesn't. Tax evasion is common, bribery is common, crime is not AS common but is there, much the same as India and much like Malaysia or Central America, both of which you're qualifying as good examples of developing nations.

[Agamemnon]

Well... not being an expert on China or international trade, I can't really comment further. Though, it is still my opinion that China has a _lot_ more control over where foreign entities set up businesses, and how they conduct their business, than Malaysia, Thailand, Belize, etc.

China had advantages they don't have that cannot be overlooked. Chinese controls over the market may be eroding, but they're still stronger their than in nearly every other country in the world due to its (formerly/currently) institutionally centralized nature.

I think with China's unique past (20th century), population, size, resources, culture, etc, that it can not be considered a 'good example' of how all 'poor' nations can develop. Individual factors made China the powerhouse it is today (or will be), and one of the main factors is its ability to control its markets and have more say in what it will produce than most other 'poor' countries.

Just because the people in China were/are 'poor' doesn't mean there are automatic equivalencies with other nations developmental paths that also have 'poor' people.

I'm not saying China is in a sphere of its own... but I also don't think you can point at China and say 'see' to all the other developing nations.

[Cowperson]

Socially, China may well explode if the inequities in the economy continue to expand. There have been riots and other social unrest already. Hundreds of millions are not participating or are being displaced or severely disadvantaged by this.

I'd also say the Chinese government may not be as firmly in control of its expanding economy as one might assume . . . . its like a freight train speeding along and hoping there's a bridge over the next canyon.

Watch the social aspect of China though . . . . the country might fracture under its weight.

Cowperson

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

Socially, China may well explode if the inequities in the economy continue to expand. There have been riots and other social unrest already. Hundreds of millions are not participating or are being displaced or severely disadvantaged by this.

I'd also say the Chinese government may not be as firmly in control of its expanding economy as one might assume . . . . its like a freight train speeding along and hoping there's a bridge over the next canyon.

Watch the social aspect of China though . . . . the country might fracture under its weight.

Cowperson

You've mentioned a very real problem, how these countries will adapt to change and industrialization.

Will they go the way of Britian where the government enacts economic reforms as well as political ones to combat the ideas of Liberalism in effect pacifying the people? Or will they collaspe under their own weight and go a much more terrible route like that of France circa Napolean.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

You've mentioned a very real problem, how these countries will adapt to change and industrialization.

Will they go the way of Britian where the government enacts economic reforms as well as political ones to combat the ideas of Liberalism in effect pacifying the people? Or will they collaspe under their own weight and go a much more terrible route like that of France circa Napolean.

With democractic processes, where voices can be heard and power transferred - steam being blown off and masses placated - India is in a better position than a dictatorship like China to adjust to the inevitable social inequities.

India is slower but as noted in the article in the other thread I started, a vast middle class is emerging in that country . . . . . a strength. You wonder if that will be the same in China.

Again, you just wonder how "in control" the dictatorship really is . . . . . at least in the long run, when hundreds of millions will be earning a dollar a day while others live in mansions.

Cowperson

[Savvy27]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

I don't think Globalization necessarily implies a totally open free market economy. I think it implies a fully integrated market economy, with collective restraints and guidelines that most, if not all players abide by (like the WTO). Nations who's primary export are commodity in nature (like Canada) will definitely be prone to market fluctuations. If Oil drops to $10 a barrel, we'd be over a barrel here. Likewise with many metals, timber, etc.


Yeah... the global marketplace can be a harsh place to be... but not really that different that things already are today. BSE knocked Alberta's beef industry to hell. When oil dropped in the 90's and 80's, Alberta was buffeted. I'm sure the softwood dispute has put hundreds, if not thousands out of jobs (though, this is due to US tariffs, but the point about commodity inconsistency is there).

I'm not disagreeing with you that the market is already capable of causing disruptions. My point is that as other nations develop and produce at a similar rate as the currently developed nations there will be fewer commodities to sell to these nations. So the number of commodities produced in every nation will decline and the nations will therefore be more susceptible to disruptions from the market. If beef was one of our largest industries and there were fewer profitable industries in the country then wouldn't a situation like BSE be much more devastating?

I guess my point here is, nations already do 'what they're best at' to a large extent. At the same time, diversification _is_ happening everywhere as well... I don't think we'll see the day when Canada has 2 exports, Beef and Oil, and that 80% of the population is employed in those 2 industries. Likewise with most other states.

You are taking my example to such an extreme that it becomes implausible. I never said anywhere that we would be left with 2 industries. Only that there will be fewer industries and more people employed in each. Where is the evidence that diversification is happening everywhere? And even if it were, which I am skeptical of, the same diversification would be happening in other nations and there would be competition until a few nations could excel beyond all the others. So those new industries would not result in prosperity for all nations.

I suppose this is the 'harsh' scenario that you seem to believe we are fated to cope with. But when nations suffer because the market has turned on them and they are in the midst of a financial crisis I sincerely doubt that they are going to adhere to the rules of globalization because everyone keeps telling them that it is inevitable.

"Were it to occur"... I think its already 'occurred'. Globalization isn't a theory, its a reality. While I'm not sure what an 'infinite' system would look like, there are definite trends toward free markets, away from 'protectionism', and I don't think the two are 'the same degree of perfect'. Free markets do not distribute wealth evenly; thats not their job. What they do is generate more wealth to be distributed. Protectionism could be better at distribution, but not as good at generation, and in the modern world generation has been emphasized over distribution. Also, once a country has 'moved toward free markets', it really can't dislike what it sees, and retreat backward without severely debilitating its economy. Nations have 2 choices, integrate with the world's free market economy and make the most wealth possible, or don't integrate and make wealth more slowly. Good or Bad, it seems to be the way its shaking down.

This is where we fundamentally disagree. You say that free markets generate greater wealth but do not distribute that wealth evenly and that protectionist policies are the inverse of that; so then why wouldn't a mix of the two systems be superior?

Malaysia liberalized their economy in the 90s to be hit by a financial crisis which they responded to by removing their currency from international markets and raising tariffs. This allowed their country to recuperate and their economy recovered even though they were being criticized from all sides for refusing to accept the same economic determinism that you are talking about.

There was a topic recently about a south american nation (Columbia?) nationalizing their cocoa industry... another case of a country moving away from open markets.

I'm certainly not trying to flame you, I'm probably far to the Left of you. I hate the WTO, and think that the side-effects of Globalization are unjust and crippling to large swaths of people. But I _do_ believe that its inevitable, and that it would be beneficial for all of us to recognize this, and then do the best we can to cope. Technology and Capitlalism have lives of their own right now, and with the lifestyles they provide the top 20-30% of the world, they'll continue to drive society (imo).

I understand technology is making a global economy easier to achieve, but nations will not accept their roles as "have-nots" simply because in the global economy it is the way things panned out for them. There are too many other factors outside of economics for a population to accept their lot in life if it is not benefitting them.

[mbrown]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

I don't think China is a good example. Malaysia, Indonesia, Central America, SE Asia are good examples. China has had control over its marketplace to a much larger extent than many other countries (probably due to its extremely effective communist past/present). It has been able to have a greater say in dictating terms like where in China a company sets up shop, and how much these workers are to be paid.

For sure, Chinese labour remains fairly cheap. But this is, I think, because its the way China wants it for now. They're #1 goal is economic expansion at all costs, including the welfare of their citizens. But China also gets trade offs, payoffs from companies who set up shop, say over what is produced and how, say over who gets which jobs, etc.

Belize just doesn't have the same economic clout that China has/had and is not able to dictate nearly as many aspects of the TNC relationship, nor is it necessarily possible for Belize to 'learn from China'; they're just not in the same weight division (few are w/ China).

China is not a good example of 'the developing world'. Its too big and has too much say over what happens inside it.

Efficient communism eh? HAHA

Ok, how abotu India? They are growing just as fast and are just as big and are a democracy.

Globalisation is going to have it's growiong pains, but it is inevitable good as it creates middles classes in the countries that it is in. A strong middle class is a great thing.

[mbrown]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Well... not being an expert on China or international trade, I can't really comment further. Though, it is still my opinion that China has a _lot_ more control over where foreign entities set up businesses, and how they conduct their business, than Malaysia, Thailand, Belize, etc.

China had advantages they don't have that cannot be overlooked. Chinese controls over the market may be eroding, but they're still stronger their than in nearly every other country in the world due to its (formerly/currently) institutionally centralized nature.

I think with China's unique past (20th century), population, size, resources, culture, etc, that it can not be considered a 'good example' of how all 'poor' nations can develop. Individual factors made China the powerhouse it is today (or will be), and one of the main factors is its ability to control its markets and have more say in what it will produce than most other 'poor' countries.

Just because the people in China were/are 'poor' doesn't mean there are automatic equivalencies with other nations developmental paths that also have 'poor' people.

I'm not saying China is in a sphere of its own... but I also don't think you can point at China and say 'see' to all the other developing nations.

China has crap for natural resources. It is as good an example as any other. Corruption is pretty much the only thing that will ward off MNC's from entering a new market.

[mbrown]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

Socially, China may well explode if the inequities in the economy continue to expand. There have been riots and other social unrest already. Hundreds of millions are not participating or are being displaced or severely disadvantaged by this.

I'd also say the Chinese government may not be as firmly in control of its expanding economy as one might assume . . . . its like a freight train speeding along and hoping there's a bridge over the next canyon.

Watch the social aspect of China though . . . . the country might fracture under its weight.

Cowperson

Well here's hoping!

[flamingchina]

In regards to China's control over the economy compared with other developing countries, the totals are staggering really.
China's government directly accounts for 38% of GDP, compared to india's 7%
Article about China's control over the economy can be found in this months Foreign Policy magazine.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/c...d=3373&print=1

[FlamesAddiction]

Does China have unicorns to?

Sure they are fasting developing country in the world, but they also have one of the worst human rights records. Coincidence?

[Tron_fdc]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Does China have unicorns to?

Sure they are fasting developing country in the world, but they also have one of the worst human rights records. Coincidence?

Not sure what you're getting at here. Are you tying human rights to productivity? You'll have to paint me the portrait, because I can't see it.

Did I see a bunch of naked workers getting their backs whipped while I was there? No. I saw a lot of people making meagre but sustainable earnings, and working no harder than you or I would here (sometimes even less). "Big Brother" wasn't exactly throwing people in jail because they wouldn't work Saturdays, if that's what you're getting at.