Stossel argues why what we think we know may be wrong

The universe doesn't yield magic solutions simply because we don't like what reality offers. If option C doesn't exist and you've got no viable plan for making it exist, then imaginary option C is just a way of disowning reality so we can still feel good about ourselves.

And how is that achieved?

In order for a nation to produce social systems, it requires enough wealthy citizenry to tax in order to redistribute to the less fortunate. To get wealthy citizenry, they need some form of industrial base who can use a workforce to generate items they can sell.

You cannot do that overnight, it took us centuries to achieve where we are now, so how the hell can you expect a third world nation to develop that overnight? You can't.

Of course there's rank colonialism, but I'd like to think Africa is the poster child for that not working out too well.

Right now, in places like Vietnam, there are slow changes backed by corporatist behaviour - much like how we changed - there is a terrible price involved, but eventually it'll be worth it for the descendants of those having a crap time of it today.

Progress demands a price, it always has. We're damn lucky many paid the price before us so we live in comfort. Best we can do is see about accelerating their progress, by stopping placing barriers to their trade and applying pressure to improve working conditions where reasonable.

Well, it's not that you're ignorant. It's just that everything you know IS wrong.

It doesn't magically yeild solutions. Humans have to work toward that goal.

No, it won't be easy and no it isn't the US responsibility to either take care of their less fortunate, nor take over their country.

But, burying our head in the sand and saying "bad" is better than "worse" is not an option, either.

So, we just ignore the problem?

Hope it works out for them, but there's nothing I can do about it?

It's not a problem so much as it's a fact, as a society moves from agrarian to industrial it doesn't happen like a Jane Austin novel. Take a look at the UK's industrial revolution, child labour was prevalent but came with an education - eventually pressure to change that worked, but only as industry was ready to move on.

Don't support protectionism, support copyright and patent changes allowing third world nations to create generics for use within their borders, condemn more developed nations who raid those nations' natural resources and dump poisons on them.

Be content to pay more for Shiny Things like iPhones, so those who build them can have better working conditions as part of the deal when the Apples tell them to produce things.

I already support those things. Those are part of the solution. Just hanging our head and saying "bad" is better than "worse" while condoning those practices you're against is as bad as saying "fuck the children".

No really, it's not. It's accepting reality.

Say you have a nation of 5 million people, if the traditional family the father is doing the subsistence farming to feed and the mother is looking after the younger children, who does that leave to go out to work in an effort to improve the families lot? And how much do you think it would cost to change that situation for the whole 5 million?

You're applying modern western sentiment to a setting such sentiment cannot currently operate in.

No. If Stossel was really worried about those kids, his article would have said "support copyright and patent changes allowing third world nations to create generics for use within their borders, condemn more developed nations who raid those nations' natural resources and dump poisons on them."

He makes some good points, but his logic on blackmail and organ donations are flawed, IMHO.

Could you imagine a world where people bought and sold body organs on an open market? I'd never let my kids out to play!

Kind of like your industry Mike?

You don't even know what his industry is, but I'll bet the "reasoning" behind this is fascinating.

Actually, I can imagine a world where body parts are bought and sold on the open market. It would work exactly like the market for used car parts works except it would be a lot more complicated to carry out a theft of a body part. The market would probably even push for a better, more consistent supply than what we have now.

No need to imagine it. Just stray off the beaten path in certain developing nations, especially if you're in certain blood groups...

Those are interesting points. Care to elaborate?

You mean that those are interesting talking points that have nothing to do with reality.

Like Barack Obama, Jenee believes we've stolen our wealth and that it must be paid back.

Funny how I quoted Ecky, but you ask me.

However, if you're serious, there are many immediate problems interfering with the stabilization of both government and economy in third world countries - not the least of which is more powerful nations doing just as Ecky pointed out - removing natural resources and destroying arable land.

Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner, been busy. If there is a trade of natural resources for wealth, technology, etc and the third world nation uses those resources to move their society along responsibly, then everyone is better off. If they don't, then it's not the fault or even necessarily the responsibility of the "first" world nation to make sure that the trade goods are used in some sort of socially responsible way, is it? Isn't that just the sort of thinking that's gotten the U.S. in massive amounts of trouble over the years when we've tried to dictate to foreign countries how they should work? (And to bring Star Trek into this, isn't that what the Prime Directive is all about?)

As far as destroying arable land, I totally agree. We, as one of the partners in the trading relationship, should say, "I think you'd be better off if you used sustainable agricultural practices" and sold them some tech / goods to help them move in that direction. Everybody benefits. But if they (the third world country) refuses that assistance, what are we going to do then? Refuse to buy from them? That means we lose cheaper goods - which is bad enough. It also means they and their citizens lose revenue and the opportunity to improve from the unfortunate choices (child labor vs child prostitution as just one example) that are sometimes the only choices available.

A) Many industries are in third world countries because those third world countries don't have the same environmental regulations that we have here. Therefore, it isn't farmers not using sustainable agricultural practices that is the problem, it's industry dumping contaminants into the soil and waterways that are the problem.

B) An established corporation has the means to go in and start up a business and pay people jack shit - that's why Conservatives are all in favor of big business moving to those countries, right? No labor laws to contend with. So, a local guy wants to start a business, but doesn't have enough capital or means to compete with the foriegn company, therefore, can't get his business off the ground - let alone make enough money to begin a serious investment into the local economy.

So, what is a sovereign nation to do? Expensive military adventuring to bring the "enlightenment" of modern wage and labor laws to other sovereign nations? Or maybe take a look at the hostile environment towards business we've fostered on our own soil?

No. Business of first world nations need to be kept out of third world nations and allow them to develop on their own.

And how is asking a business to pay a decent wage and not pollute considered "hostile"?

You want my piecemeal ruling?

"Don't pollute" - OK.

"Don't build in the habitat of the endangered mosquito" -

As for "decent wage," who's opinion wins the day on that one? Most people are gonna try to get as much as they can. Doesn't mean they're entitled to it. And if you invoke "cost of living," you open the door to questioning all of the societal meddling that raises that cost, and that includes wage/labor/health care laws driving up the price of consumer goods and services.

At any rate, driving up the cost of starting and operating a business is hostile, and it's a matter of simple practicality to go looking for locations that are less hostile.

Fair enough. what do you do about the child laborers in the mean time?

Their small hands make for some very tight stitching.

I don't think that's asking too much.

I know you're exaggerating to prove a point, mostly I agree. However, there are times and places and things that do need to be protected - and some need to be balanced.

If you're talking here in the states or any other western country, then yu have a point. But, we're talking about major, billion dollar a year corporations that want to pay out pennies to laborers in third world countries just because they can get away with it.

That's wrong and you well know it.

Who do you think is driving up these costs? Does it benefit "Democrats" or liberals to drive up the cost? No. So, who benefits? Big business - less competition.

One thing my very conservative dad always told me - despite the changes in his attitude now - is always ask "who's telling you 'this' and why"

How did the US deal with it?

By having a Great Depression.

So just who is supposed to go into those underdeveloped nations to trade with them?

I think what I'm getting out of this is:

1. Do not interfere with third world countries.
2. Cause them to have a Great Depression, destroying their economies (so they can end child labor and prostitution).
3. Let them develop.
4. ???
5. No more child labor, child prostitution, starving people, or destruction of the nation's natural resources!

I can't even say "correlation does not equal causation" because child labor and the laws preventing such had nothing to do with the Great Depression - aside from the time frame.

Whoever wants to.