| |
In lugnet.general, Jon Furman writes:
> I wouldn’t say that you are being Jingoistic per se, but I do think that
> your view is a little uninformed.
And that's why I asked for the opinion and thoughts of others. Thanks for
responding.
> I normally steer clear of political discussions here on Lugnet, but this one
> does seem to be a real discussion and not an argument.
I also do not tend to get involved in political discussions because I am
very much aware of my lack of knowledge on such subjects as well as being
infected with the typical American apathy towards anything that doesn't
affect me personally.
> What is the purpose of boycotting Chinese goods? I presume it would be to
> force the Chinese Government to treat it’s citizens better.
If you re-read my original post and some of my subsequent babblings, I think
you'll see that my "boycott" position is based more on a "Buy American"
attitude and the impression (a wrong one as I've been told) that items made
in China are usually of inferior quality. The part about trying to send a
message to the Chinese government is tertiary at best (though it is the main
reason for my wife's position on this subject).
I am in no way naive enough to think that a "boycott" would force the
Chinese government to treat its people better. Perhaps this is another
fallacy on my part but I was under the impression that the Chinese
government has been mistreating (by Western standards) its people for much
longer than they've been producing clock radios and beer cozies. I would
imagine that deprived of the income that comes from selling products to
Americans that the Chinese government would still come up with some means of
mistreating its citizens.
> 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.
Actually, I think the point of such a boycott would be first to hurt the
U.S. and European based companies who are taking advantage of cheap Chinese
labor. Once these companies have no market for their products it would seem
like the logical progression would be to stop production. I know its
simplistic but wouldn't a complete lack of DEMAND convince them that there
was no need to produce SUPPLY?
If corporations stop manufacturing in China then I would think that this
would obviously hurt the wallets of the Chinese government.
But you're right - as long as "we" keeping asking for it, "they" are going
to keep providing it.
> 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'm going to assume that there should be a "not" in between the "would" and
the "be" in the preceding sentence. Otherwise I'm totally confused by what
you're saying.
> 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.
As was pointed out by another poster - there's no better example of rampant
consumerism without restraint than this very community of people. We're
just spending our money on something worthwhile, right?
> 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.
At this point I'm going to have to more actively disagree with you Jon. I
don't think that there's any way that we can "insist" that the Bush
administration do anything in relation to China. I agree with you that our
government should make a stand but simply requesting or even demanding that
it do so will not make it happen - because as you correctly pointed out the
bottom line is the almighty dollar. I don't think that "we the people" can
tell the government "crack down on the Chinese and make them treat their
people right and we'll be willing to pay higher prices on products because
that will be a better living for people there." No, I think the only
message that the government, i.e. Big Business would understand is the lack
of money flow. So this brings us back around to the boycott question. Why
should the government listen to "us"? It's only when these companies are
suddenly cut off from the money tree that "they" would be willing to listen.
Of course, none of this is going to happen because as you corrrectly pointed
out it would mean too much of an inconvenience to the average American.
I appreciate the feedback and thoughts.
> Jon Furman (Who is White, Suburban, and Hates Corporate Coffee)
> Lugnet #1123
Just remember - it's okay to be White as long as you feel bad about it (same
goes for being an American). At least you didn't say you drive a SUV.
Greg
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
