| |
"Jon Furman" <Rambocalrissian@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:GJ9BB1.BJE@lugnet.com...
> I wouldn't say that you are being Jingoistic per se, but I do think that
> your view is a little uninformed.
> I normally steer clear of political discussions here on Lugnet, but this one
> does seem to be a real discussion and not an argument.
> What is the purpose of boycotting Chinese goods? I presume it would be to
> force the Chinese Government to treat it's citizens better.
> I agree that China is a veritable sourcebook for illustrating Human Rights
> Abuses, if you don't agree, visit Tibet. Oh wait, you can't get into Tibet,
> point proven. Their stanglehold on local the media is lengendary. I don't
> believe their Government should be supported at all.
> The question you have to ask is,"Who is a boycott going to hurt?". The
> Government of China? No way, China is shipping these goods into our nation,
> at these prices, at OUR NATION'S REQUEST. This is what the political label
> "Most Favored Trade Nation" means. (This title was bestowed upon the PRC by
> the U.S. during the Clinton administration during some of PRC's worst human
> rights violations). The money the government makes on Import /Export Taxes
> alone keeps the "Federal Govt." afloat.
> A boycott of Goods sold in America is only going to hurt the People of China
> who are trying to produce goods (for almost zero pay) for our bloated
> consumer society. If we are trying to force change in the people of China,
> this would be a good way to do it.
> I believe our problem with China lies with it's government. The only way
> to force change at this level is to operate on this international level
> The reason all of our threats and declarations about China's abuses fall on
> deaf ears is because they know that no matter how mad we "pretend" to be,
> the bottom line in the U.S. is still the almighty dollar. Our nation's
> economy now DEPEND'S on China's ability to produce consumable goods for next
> to nothing, so we can continue to spend our money on increasingly vapid ways
> to live in our excesses.
> If we want to affect real change on an international level, we are going to
> have to give up a lot of the luxuries we have, like $5 slippers and $20
> coffee makers. We are going to have to insist that the Bush administration
> remove China's ability to rely on us for it's financial stability. If our
> Government would step up and protect people, we wouldn't have to try to.
> This is an issue that goes beyond The PRC's human rights abuses, and into
> OUR abuse of world economy. We could stand up for the abused people of
> China and Tibet, but the personal cost is too high for the average White,
> Suburban, Driving to Starbucks in their SUV, American.
>
> Jon Furman (Who is White, Suburban, and Hates Corporate Coffee)
> Lugnet #1123
Well said.
Thanks for taking the time to write what I thought, when I felt it more expedient to write 'crap'
Case in point - my brother in law imports items from China.
Some are sold at a mark up of 16x the price he pays.
And the UK customer still thinks they are getting them cheap!
If there are quality problems, it is not the Chinese who are too blame.
It is greedy corporations who drive down the price they are willing to pay - knowing the manufacturers are desparate for
work and cash.
Then drive UP the price the consumer has to pay - knowing we have too much money
regards
lawrence
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
103 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
