SLavErY

[reganbrownbridge]

BLOGGG

It seems that cultures go through a cycle with human rights. They start out with nothing, the rich have power, the powerful have rights, and those with rights have freedom. The middle and lower classes don’t really have much going for them in the beginning. But slowly cultures begin to protect their own people. Firstly slavery is abolished, like John Gaves Simcoe accomplished, woman get rights, and people are able to move up in class, if they work hard. And Depending on the form of government, other citizen’s money actually goes toward supporting the lower classes. And everyone is able to be successful, if they work hard. These nations become powerful and wealthy. But someone has to be supporting the wealthy nations, of course, abuse other nations. Nations become wealthy by abusing other nations and peoples. What makes slavery okay because it is not acted out on Canadian or American soil? Instead corporations and nations abuse other nations. Will someone’s wealth ever not come at the cost of another’s loss?

[Mr. Delainey]

Regan:

You're observation that "one person's wealth comes at the expense of another" is well-founded. Capitalism, our economic system, is a system that rewards people that risk their investments/money for the sake of profit. Our economic system is a competitive one, in that, not everyone can be a winner (therefore there must be losers).

Do you think this is something unethical? Or is this situation just a brute fact? Sort of a "survival of the fittest" situation?

Canadian investors--whether they know it or not--allow their money to be placed into the most profitable sectors of the economy. These of course could be oil, gold, and other commodities. These can also be technologies like nuclear power or even nuclear weapons. Investment gives companies the financial wherewithal to start new factories, undertake research and development to make new products and to finance the discovery of new raw resources.

Ultimately, the measure of an investment's success or failure is based upon how much profit it has delivered. We don't take into consideration the real cost of producing something. Real cost takes into account the impact on the environment, local eco-systems, etc. Real cost also takes into account the devestating impact western corporations can have, say, in Morocco where they extract oil...but the oil (and profits) leave the home country and migrate to France, England, Germany, Canada or the United States. Consequently, Moroccans get all the benefits of pollution from extraction of said oil but none of the profits (or very little in the way of paying locals to do some of the work). Labour unions aren't allowed to form. Environmental standards are ignored by governments, e.g. Moroccan government officials receive bribes from oil companies to "look the other way".

You're correct, in that, the elites of one country will be more likely to cooperate with the elites of another country. The elites have a common interest and understand the consequences of sharing or distributing wealth. The elite of Morocco, Colombia, etc. identify more strongly with the elite of the USA or China than they do the poor of their own respective countries.

A messed up situation to be sure. I look at it this way: if I am one of the elite in my country I have a duty to try and improve the situation of my countrymen in some way. That might come in the form of employing my countrymen, allowing them to unionize, not abusing the local environment, or using profits generated in a region to build roads, schools, hospitals, etc. in that self same region. That's just me...