Brainwashing?

A British judge ruled today that - surprise! - Al Gore's film about climate change is political and alarmist. His review and comments were the result of someone challenging the government who, unbelievably, insist that the film be shown to every child in every secondary school in the country. Yet, despite the fact that the movie is political and designed to garner support for one political group over another, it seems the government will go ahead with its progam anyway.

So are we now into brainwahing our children - forcing them to watch political nonsense even though a judge rules that it contains a bunch of lies designed to scare people? Aren't children supposed to be taught all sides of an argument so they can come to their own conclusions? Aren't they allowed to disagree with political statements imposed on them and still get an 'A'?
 
For the record, here are the errors picked up by an impartial judge. Heaven only knows how many biased points of conjecture were not included in his assessment.

1) ERROR: Gore asserts that the sea level will rise by 20 feet in the near future. Even if his scenario plays out, which is questionable, it would take many thousands of years.

2) ERROR: Gore states that low-lying atolls have been evacuated. This is a complete fabrication.

3) ERROR: Gore claims that global warming is shutting down the Ocean Conveyor (which controls the Gulf Stream). According to research, this is very unlikely to happen if ever.

4) ERROR: Gore pointed to an "exact fit" between two graphs to make a point. The judge ruled this was a deliberate attempt to mislead.

5) ERROR: Gore pointed to global warming as the cause of snow disappearing recently on Mount Kilimanjaro. The judge stated that there's no such proven link and that the phenomenon may have nothing to do with man's activities.

6) ERROR: Gore pointed to the drying up of Lake Chad as a "catastrophic effect of global warming". The evidence says otherwise, namely that it's probably due to population increase and over-grazing.

7) ERROR: Gore points to Hurricane Katrina and the devastation of New Orleans as a result of global warming. This is a complete fabrication without a shred of evidence to support it.

8) ERROR: Gore claimed that polar bears are now drowning because it takes them too long to find ice. The only evidence the judge could find was four polar bears who drowned in a storm.

9) ERROR: Gore claimed that coral reefs are bleaching due to global warming. Again, the evidence points to other factors.

Al Gore has done what this professional politician has done all his life: Bend the facts and make up others to further his political ambitions.

So the British government demands that all children be shown this catalog of lies and distortions. Then, children will probably be given a quiz or an exam and be marked wrong if they don't agree with Gore's opinion. This is absurd!

Some would say, including those who dish out film awards, that Al Gore's film is powerful. That doesn't make it truthful! And it doesn't mean every child should be forced to watch it. That's a very slippery slope.
 
Upvote 0

Subbynet

Free Member
Aug 1, 2005
6,000
1,101
45
Luton
Steve - sometimes I wonder if you read the UK press just to throw snipes.

I don't know the source of your information, but the judge actually said the movie could be shown - but controversial parts must be explained and opened for debate.

Its far from brainwashing.
 
Upvote 0

Subbynet

Free Member
Aug 1, 2005
6,000
1,101
45
Luton
Hell... Don't trust the government - we sure wanted that early election... This bunch can peel an orange in their pocket without anyone noticing, thats how sneaky they are.

But I do have some faith the judiciary system still... at least where it doesn't concern actually "locking people up" ;)
 
Upvote 0

coultog

Free Member
Aug 5, 2006
279
7
Leeds, UK
Nine points Steve - in comparison to how many good points?

The worth of the programme is significant over and above nine points where there isn't any absolute scientific evidence.

Science argues one thing, then changes its mind a moment later. Not all scientists agree on all things.
 
Upvote 0
It was a fairly entertaining documentary that though.

I think we 'brainwash' our kids with many distorted versions of things - but so does every other country too.

I'd be more interested in hearing how they are intending to deal with the next generation who will have grown up spending all their free time playing 'shoot-em-ups' on their console when they should have been out climbing trees and socialising face-to-face.
 
Upvote 0
Nine points Steve - in comparison to how many good points?

The worth of the programme is significant over and above nine points where there isn't any absolute scientific evidence.
We're not talking about the lack of absolute evidence. We're talking about complete and transparent lies designed to bolster this egomaniac's political ambitions. Al Gore has a long track record of doing this. For example, he once claimed to be the inventor of the Internet. He also claimed that he and his wife were the inspiration for the movie 'Love Story'. This career politician (the son of another career politician) says and publishes whatever suits his selfish purpose.

And the current British government is stupid enough to force every student in the country to watch this party political broadcast as if it's science - and it's not. It's not even accurate or truthful. I can see no reason for doing this except that it buys them more votes in the future. It does nothing but undermine the integrity of the education system. What's next? Forcing every child to watch Michael Moore's inventions for history class?

It was a fairly entertaining documentary that though.
You're probably right, but documentaries are supposed to be based on truth, not lies. Plus, we shouldn't choose the education curriculum based on its entertainment value (although it would be a novel idea :)).
 
Upvote 0

directmarketingadvice

Free Member
Aug 2, 2005
10,887
3,530
So are we now into brainwahing our children - forcing them to watch political nonsense even though a judge rules that it contains a bunch of lies designed to scare people? Aren't children supposed to be taught all sides of an argument so they can come to their own conclusions?

"Now"?

While at school, I was force-fed protestant christianity for the best part of 11years even though I'm not a christian.

The only respites were:

(1) When I had a Jewish primary school teacher for 2.5 years

and

(2) When they kicked me out of R.E. for expressing agnostic views

(I was kicked out along with one of the 2 catholics in the class. Unfortunately, they ended up letting us back in)

So, presenting beliefs as fact and forcing them down the throats of school children to try to scare them into behaving the way you want them to ... not new!

Steve
 
Upvote 0
Copies are being sent to schools. I'm not sure how that equates to every child being forced to watch the film.

Plus, material has been sent making sure that the law requiring balanced viewpoints (i.e. both sides of the debate) is adhered to.
 
Upvote 0
While at school, I was force-fed protestant christianity for the best part of 11years even though I'm not a christian.
We had communism pushed down our throats at school because the headmaster appeared to support it. Some teachers use such opportunities to promote their own agendas.

You're right, of course. In subjects like this, students should be informed and presented with all view-points. We should be encouraged to think and to challenge, not simply to accept.
 
Upvote 0
M

Mortime Business Software

Social manipulation, engineering, etc., it all amounts to the same thing - brainwashing. These practices are routinely carried out by all western politicians every day. The psychologists' technical term for this is 'conditioning', of which there are many types. The type that Steve is rightly complaining about is directly related to another area in psychology - conformity.

I have to say that the sight of a politician winning the Nobel peace prize (or any kind of prize) makes me feel physically sick in the stomach.

Dave
 
Upvote 0
A British judge ruled today that - surprise! - Al Gore's film about climate change is political and alarmist. His review and comments were the result of someone challenging the government who, unbelievably, insist that the film be shown to every child in every secondary school in the country. Yet, despite the fact that the movie is political and designed to garner support for one political group over another, it seems the government will go ahead with its progam anyway.

So are we now into brainwahing our children - forcing them to watch political nonsense even though a judge rules that it contains a bunch of lies designed to scare people? Aren't children supposed to be taught all sides of an argument so they can come to their own conclusions? Aren't they allowed to disagree with political statements imposed on them and still get an 'A'?

Nope never have been and never will be while they are taught by human beings:)

Earl
 
Upvote 0
I came across the following rather interesting news article today about Al Gore's work of fiction:

"...Would there be any science at all left in Gore's "truth" if the errors and their progeny were excised?"

"Minutes of non-science filler dominate the opening sequence - images of the Gore farm, Earth from space, Gore giving his slideshow and the 2000 election controversy. Gore then links Hurricane Katrina with global warming. But the judge ruled that was erroneous, so the Katrina scenes would wind up on the cutting-room floor."

"Another 12 minutes of filler go by - images of Gore in his limo, more Earth photos, a Mark Twain quote, and Gore memories - until about the 16:30 minute mark, when, according to the judge, Al Gore erroneously links receding glaciers - specifically Mt. Kilimanjaro - with global warming."

"The Mt. Kilimanjaro error commences an almost 10-minute stretch of problematic footage, the bulk of which contains Gore's presentation of the crucial issue in the global warming controversy - whether increasing levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide drive global temperatures higher. As the judge ruled that the Antarctic ice core data presented in the film "do not establish what Mr. Gore asserts," this inconvenient untruth also needs to go."

"After still more filler footage about Winston Churchill, the 2000 election, and rising insurance claims from natural disasters, Gore spends about 35 seconds on how the drying of Lake Chad is due to global warming. The judge ruled that this claim wasn't supported by the scientific evidence."

"More filler leads to a 30-second clip about how global warming is causing polar bears to drown because they have to swim greater distances to find sea ice on which to rest. The judge ruled however, that the polar bears in question had actually drowned because of a particularly violent storm."

"On the heels of that error, Gore launches into a 3-minute "explanation" of how global warming will shut down the Gulf Stream and send Europe into an ice age. The judge ruled that this was an impossibility."

"Two minutes of ominous footage - casting Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush, and Sen. James Inhofe in a creepy light and expressing Gore's frustration with getting his alarmist message out - precede a more-than-9-minute stretch that would need to be cut. In this lengthy footage, Gore again tries to link global warming with discrete events including coral reef bleaching, the melting of Greenland, catastrophic sea level rise, Antarctic melting and more. But like Hurricane Katrina, these events also shouldn't be linked with global warming."

"Based on the judge's ruling, the footage that ought to be excised adds up to about 25 minutes or so out of the 98-minute film. What's left is largely Gore personal drama and cinematic fluff that has nothing to do with the science of climate change."

"It should also be pointed out that Gore makes other notable factual misstatements in the film that don't help his or his film's credibility. He says in the film that polio has been "cured," implying that we can cure "global warming." While a preventative polio vaccine does exist, there is no "cure" for polio. Gore attempts to smear his critics by likening them to the tobacco industry. In spotlighting a magazine advertisement proclaiming that "more doctors smoke Camel than any other brand," he states that the ad was published after the Surgeon General's 1964 report on smoking and lung cancer. But the ad is actually from 1947 - 17 years before the report. Gore also says in the film that 2005 is the hottest year on record. But NASA data actually show that 1934 was the hottest year on record in the U.S. - 2005 is not even in the top 10."

"Perhaps worse than the film's errors is their origin. The BBC reported that Gore knew the film presented incorrect information but took no corrective steps because he didn't want to spotlight any uncertainties in the scientific data that may fuel opponents of global warming alarmism."

"An Inconvenient Truth" grossed about $50 million at the box office and millions more in DVD and book sales. Gore charges as much as $175,000 for an in-person presentation of his slide show that forms the basis for the film."

That, IMHO, is what this is all about: $175,000 per in-person event, a politically motivated peace prize, and Al Gore's desire to rule the world. And the British government helps his cause by sending a copy of his work of fiction to every school in the country, pretending that it's a work of science. What folly! And guess whose money is stolen in taxes to pay for it.
 
Upvote 0
3) ERROR: Gore claims that global warming is shutting down the Ocean Conveyor (which controls the Gulf Stream). According to research, this is very unlikely to happen if ever.

It doesn't just control the Gulf Stream, it actually controls as a part of the whole conveyor engine, the oceans currents and movement and flow of cold and warmer water.

Situated in the Greenland Sea, there used to be until a decade or so ago about a dozen of these known huge thermal water engines, responsible for moving water from far down below to the surface again, like an almighty giant radiator. Now there are only three I think are the official figures, that are still working.

*****

On the subject of brainwashing, it goes on everyday anyway, either through the media, or through the political system and affects every facet of our lives whether we like it or not - it's just the way it is.

I'm sure the kids watching this, many of them will be able to draw their own conclusions, and if the film is really that good, no doubt in lessons afterwards, it'll spark up some debate on the subject as to the pro's and cons of this film, it's director etc.

If it was a sustained 'brainwashing' over many weeks, months and years in it's truest form, I might be more concerned. However, a good conversation at home raising some key points, should reassert the balance of the subject matter in hand, so that they can make up their own minds.
 
Upvote 0

cjd

Business Member
  • Nov 23, 2005
    15,983
    3,426
    www.voipfone.co.uk
    I think it right to be deeply suspicious of Gore but I also think you (and others) may be worrying more about the media (Gore) than the message.

    The US conservative right has been in denial over global warming and they don't like democrats winning the high ground. I hazzard to say that your own objection is politically rather than ethically based

    Bush et al have prevented the world beginning to do something about this by blocking treaties and funding anti-warming propoganda. But they've found themselves on the wrong side of the argument now and are backtracking fast.

    Global warming has the scientific consensus but if you're going to make a mass market film about it that isn't dry as dust you're going to have to make some big, speculative claims. No doubt it could have been done better - I haven't seen it so I can't say, but I'm sure that the objections are mostly political rather than strictly scientific.
     
    Upvote 0
    I hazzard to say that your own objection is politically rather than ethically based
    For sure, I distrust Al Gore - the career politician son of another career politician, whose own state didn't even support him in the famous election he lost. I find it more than a little distasteful that politicians jump on worthy causes to promote their own megalomaniacal ambitions.

    No, my objection is not politically motivated, although I do resent any government that forcibly indoctrinates a nation's children. I do agree that we should be much better stewards of the planet, without having to go to extremes. This requires focus on the world's biggest polluters, India and China among the worst.

    We face an interesting dilemma right now in Georgia. Because of a lack of rain this year, Atlanta is in the grips of a severe drought. We have about 80 days supply of water left in the lake that serves the city. The situation has been allowed to reach dire proportions because of federal laws that require millions of gallons of water be flushed into a local river to protect endangered species of mussel and codfish. Even at this late stage, they are still legally bound to pursue the same practice. To my mind, this is tipping the scales too far to environmental protectionism.

    As in most topics, moderation and sensible actions based on consensus are far better than doctrinaire extremism. As for Al Gore, he's still looking for a way to gain supreme power after losing a US election. Frankly, he needs to accept the fact that he's not God's gift to the world and, in the words of Richard Strauss the composer, "go and plant some cabbages."
     
    Upvote 0

    cjd

    Business Member
  • Nov 23, 2005
    15,983
    3,426
    www.voipfone.co.uk
    Upvote 0
    Steve facts and they been doing it for 40 + years suddenly there the blue eyed eco boys .I don't think so.:|

    Americans consume like no other nation -- using three times the amount of water per capita than the world average and nearly 25 percent of the world's energy, despite having 5 percent of the global population; and producing five times more daily waste than the average in poor countries.

    Earl
     
    Upvote 0
    Americans consume like no other nation -- using three times the amount of water per capita than the world average and nearly 25 percent of the world's energy, despite having 5 percent of the global population; and producing five times more daily waste than the average in poor countries.
    I'm sorry, Earl, but what do you expect the world's biggest economy to do? Consume a small percentage of the world's energy? Of course it consumes energy. All developed economies consume a lot of energy. The issue is whether the country is managing energy wisely and what impact its energy consumption is having on the environment.

    I've travelled to a lot of countries, and I can tell you that some are almost unbearable because of the pollution. Take Bangkok, Thailand, for example. You can't stand outside for more than a few minutes before you start to feel nauseous. The pollution is mind-boggling. Or consider some of the cities in India: New Delhi, Mumbai, Pune, Bangalore, Hyderabad, Chandigarh, Ahmedabad (all places I've been many times) are saturated with vehicles emitting black smoke all day and all night. The worst, though, is China. The traffic in Beijing and Shanghai is awful, and compared to other countries there are hardly any trees to absorb all the carbon dioxide. These and other major cities are horrible places to live.

    The percentage of energy used in developing countries is less than in the US or Western Europe, but the pollution is almost unbearable - and little is done about it. In fact, as oil consumption rises at a rapid pace, the pollution gets even worse. In an encouraging move, the government of China seems to have suddenly realised how bad the situation has become. Compare these situations with the comparatively clean air and efficient use of energy in western nations. I'm sorry, but the focus should not be on the US. Having lived here for several years, I can assure you that standards are strict and becoming stricter.

    The USA with almost twice the CO2 emissions of the next worst candidate is the worlds worst polluter and not only that, has also refused to sign treaties like Kyoto that would help them change.
    The US has many faults, and I disagree with many things its government does, but I agree wholeheartedly with not signing the Kyoto Agreement. It was a political sham, posturing on a grand scale, and it let the biggest culprits (many of the developing nations) get away with murder. If there's anyone to blame, it's our Western governments for not doing more to help these nations manage their resources better.
     
    Upvote 0

    cjd

    Business Member
  • Nov 23, 2005
    15,983
    3,426
    www.voipfone.co.uk
    So everyone else is to blame and the US, as the by far the biggest polluter on the planet, doesn't need to do anything and is in complete denial of the problem. Now I wonder why that is?

    No wonder you're p*ssed with Gore and no wonder it's inconveniant of him to point it out is such a successful way on the world stage.

    [And btw, you're confusing air quality pollution, the visible, choking stuff that you find in developing countries that don't use scrubbers to get lage particular pollutants out of the air they breathe - like London before we went smokeless - with gaseous pollutants like CO2 and methane which appear to be the major componants of global warming].

    Not that any of this matters, the US doesn't like looking like fools - they'll come round eventually, you just need to get rid of that idiot Bush and his fanatical, oil and religion obsessed enterage.
     
    Upvote 0
    GoldCtrSteve wrote:

    " I've travelled to a lot of countries, and I can tell you that some are almost unbearable because of the pollution."

    You ever been to Plymouth in Devon, all the way upcountry, over that huge river they call the Tamar, I hear the pollution is terrible there in the big metropolis?:D
     
    Upvote 0
    So everyone else is to blame and the US, as the by far the biggest polluter on the planet, doesn't need to do anything and is in complete denial of the problem. Now I wonder why that is?
    It's just that I'm not into bandwagons and popular slogans - which the media love to use to whip up a frenzy (and I thought that you too were someone who sees through prevailing opinion when it's obviously misplaced?). Of course, every country should do its part to conserve energy, to better manage its energy and resources, and so on. The largest consumers should indeed be the most diligent.

    However, if you look at the facts and experience the environments first-hand, you soon learn that the major developed countries are doing a lot already while the developing world is characterised by flagrant disregard for the environment - and Kyoto pretty much lets this state of affairs continue. I'm trying to put the focus on nations that are doing nothing versus those that are doing something. For those who scream we should do more (and I have sympathy for them), scream at everyone and worry about trends more than absolute numbers.

    Most major manufacturing countries are successful because of industries that consume a lot of energy. The one thing we shouldn't be doing is imposing restrictions that stifle economic growth. There are plenty of ways to make a difference without some of the draconian measures called for by the fanatics. It calls for sensible policies.
     
    Upvote 0
    You ever been to Plymouth in Devon, all the way upcountry, over that huge river they call the Tamar, I hear the pollution is terrible there in the big metropolis?:D
    I've heard there's a place called Plymouth in the big beyond, but I couldn't see it because of the haze (or was that drizzle?). ;)
     
    Upvote 0

    cjd

    Business Member
  • Nov 23, 2005
    15,983
    3,426
    www.voipfone.co.uk
    However, if you look at the facts and experience the environments, you soon learn that the major developed countries are doing a lot already while developing world is characterised by flagrant disregard - which Kyoto does nothing about.

    I think you need to look at the facts, again.

    For example the fact that there is an global scientific consenus that the earth is warming because of human activity is not something you can deny and thereby claim to be an independent thinker about.

    If the developed world doesn't lead on this, the developing world is never going to and we (and our children) can all go to hell on a cloud of methane.
     
    Upvote 0

    Subbynet

    Free Member
    Aug 1, 2005
    6,000
    1,101
    45
    Luton
    I'm sorry, Earl, but what do you expect the world's biggest economy to do? Consume a small percentage of the world's energy? Of course it consumes energy. All developed economies consume a lot of energy. The issue is whether the country is managing energy wisely and what impact its energy consumption is having on the environment.

    Well - the US as a single country is the biggest, but the EU as a single entity (and we are on this issue) is actually the largest economy on the planet. I think EU vs US is a fairer comparison.

    We also have more people than the USA too...

    We - the EU - are also the largest exporter in the world. Which no doubt means we have the largest infrastructure to create anything to export.

    So on every level we are larger than the US, but also on every level consume less energy.

    That one takes some explaining!
     
    Upvote 0
    My take, as an eco business, is more balanced (these are my personal opinions):
    • Global warming IS happening
    • BUT it would happen without humans - it is cyclical
    • For example, we had an Ice Age only 10,000 years ago, yet it was warm enough for the Romans to have vineyards in the UK 2000 years ago
    • HOWEVER, I do believe our modern ways are "tipping the balance" and exaggerating these natural rythyms.
    • The danger is hitting a tipping point whereby we hit a cycle phase that cannot be reversed
    • MORE of a worry is how we are wasting our natural non-renewable resources such as oil - and also the landfill burden - we cannot continue to bury and burn needless rubbish
    • We MUST recycle more and conserve resources for future generations in view of this.
    • Americans are arrogant, insular and misinformed petrolheads that need to reform fast (no more "my small has only has a V8) :D
    2c
     
    Upvote 0
    Micheal Jordan is paid more by Nike than it pays all its thousands of workers in Indonesia
    I don't understand the problem here. This is capitalism in action.

    Michael Jordan is paid a price he can command to sell shoes. Because of his name recognition, Nike sells a lot of shoes at a high price. Nike, to be competitive, makes those shoes in Indonesia. Those people didn't have jobs before, so they are delighted. As more and more people in the third world get meaningful jobs, a nation is pulled out of poverty. Michael Jordan uses his wealth to support charities at home and overseas.

    Where's the problem? Would you deny Indonesians the chance to work their way out of poverty? Would you insist that Nike pay a Western wage and impose Western business rules on Indonesian culture? Would you prevent Michael Jordan from taking advantage of his celebrity status? Would you rather that goverment bureaucrats steal his wealth and waste it on politically correct schemes?

    Sorry, but I believe in free enterprise, and ironically your example shows just how well it works.
     
    Upvote 0

    Subbynet

    Free Member
    Aug 1, 2005
    6,000
    1,101
    45
    Luton
    Well, I'll have a stab at answering.

    I don't understand the problem here. This is capitalism in action.

    Capitalism and Exploitation go hand in hand.

    Nike, to be competitive, makes those shoes in Indonesia.

    Nike, to offer the best return to shareholders maximises profits by using the cheapest labour.

    Those people didn't have jobs before, so they are delighted.

    75% of people who work for Nike leave within the first year due to verbal and sexual abuse - giving the company a very high employee turnover. This would mean jobs are available.

    See sources like - http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/southeast/02/22/indonesia.slaveshop/

    As more and more people in the third world get meaningful jobs, a nation is pulled out of poverty.

    Nike uses Women and Child labour and pays incredible low wages. This means parents cannot afford to send their kids to schools, but instead make them work. In other words, it keeps them in poverty.

    As of 2006, an estimated 17.8% of the population live below the poverty line, and 49.0% of the population live on less than US$2 per day. * Source Wikipedia

    Would you deny Indonesians the chance to work their way out of poverty?

    No, but lets not kid ourselves. This country is just about feeding itself despite being the 21st richest country in terms of GDP. Sure, some people are obviously wealthy, but its the few, not the many - which is also distorting the figures, as per-capita they stand in 114th place.

    Would you insist that Nike pay a Western wage and impose Western business rules on Indonesian culture?

    Yes, as I pay a western price for my shoes. This high price, on top of exchange rates (If £90-100 here in the UK, that's $200 for Trainers which costs less than $10 to make), meaning wages could be considerable higher without much financial penalty for Nike.

    Sorry, but I believe in free enterprise, and ironically your example shows just how well it works.

    Or does it.
     
    Upvote 0
    My take, as an eco business, is more balanced (these are my personal opinions):
    • Global warming IS happening
    • BUT it would happen without humans - it is cyclical
    • For example, we had an Ice Age only 10,000 years ago, yet it was warm enough for the Romans to have vineyards in the UK 2000 years ago
    • HOWEVER, I do believe our modern ways are "tipping the balance" and exaggerating these natural rythyms.
    • The danger is hitting a tipping point whereby we hit a cycle phase that cannot be reversed
    • MORE of a worry is how we are wasting our natural non-renewable resources such as oil - and also the landfill burden - we cannot continue to bury and burn needless rubbish
    • We MUST recycle more and conserve resources for future generations in view of this.
    • Americans are arrogant, insular and misinformed petrolheads that need to reform fast (no more "my small has only has a V8) :D
    2c

    Spot on. Absolutely spot on. Hits the nail on the head.

    *****


    Good points by Subbynet too - very true.
     
    Upvote 0
    Nike, to offer the best return to shareholders maximises profits by using the cheapest labour.
    Or they go out of business. That's the way it works. As entrepreneurs at these forums, we know how important it is to keep down costs.

    Nike uses Women and Child labour and pays incredible low wages. This means parents cannot afford to send their kids to schools, but instead make them work. In other words, it keeps them in poverty.
    Absolutely not true. I recommend 'The End of Poverty' by Jeffrey Saks. Women in Bangladesh, for example, will willingly walk miles to work and spend 12 hours a day at their job in order to earn $1/day. This is a huge opportunity for them and allows them, for example, to send their children to school. It's really important that we not judge other countries by our standards. The truth is that jobs of this sort are raising them out of poverty for the first time.

    Having been to many of these countries (Bangladesh, India, Nepal, China, Indonesia, Vietnam, Mozambique, Morocco, Uganda, etc.), I can tell you just how important it is for them to receive outsourcing contracts. We see sweatshops in the news, and of course they are wrong, but they are by far the exception. One important rule I use in daily life is to remember that many in India survive on $0.25/day - that's 12p/day. (Incidentally, I never buy treats for myself these days but instead think of ways I can spend that money more usefully.) For them, a wage of $1/day, with some basic benefits and maybe even daily meals, is a fourfold increase in income.

    As of 2006, an estimated 17.8% of the population live below the poverty line, and 49.0% of the population live on less than US$2 per day. * Source Wikipedia
    But you must understand the context (see above). If you get the chance, I'd recommend going to these places. Then you'll begin to understand just how important it is for these people to have meaningful jobs - and how meaningless it is to use figures and benefits expected by workers in the West.

    No, but lets not kid ourselves. This country is just about feeding itself despite being the 21st richest country in terms of GDP. Sure, some people are obviously wealthy, but its the few, not the many - which is also distorting the figures, as per-capita they stand in 114th place.
    I've been there. I've seen the squallor and experienced the slums. I spent time with a family, for example, in which 8 people lived and slept in a single bare room and the community's latrine was a dirty brick wall in public view of all and in which dogs fed on their vomit (indeed, it was humbling to eat a banana and to drink a can of the local cola the family gave me, with the entire family watching me, knowing that this probably cost them a day's wage - yet I was expected to accept their generous gift). Outsourcing is a first step on the ladder and out of such poverty. Foreign aid to government never works, but giving real people real jobs does - over time. Again, I recommend going to somewhere like this and witness the situation first-hand. Trust me: it's a life-changing experience.

    Yes, as I pay a western price for my shoes. This high price, on top of exchange rates (If £90-100 here in the UK, that's $200 for Trainers which costs less than $10 to make), meaning wages could be considerable higher without much financial penalty for Nike.
    It doesn't work like that. If Nike paid workers Western rates, it would destablisize the society (making the rich richer and the poor more destitute). Worse, other companies would go to other countries only too willing to accept a $1/day - and Nike would go out of business and the Indonesians would lose their jobs. Again, please don't judge other countries by our standards.

    As you can tell, I feel quite emotional about this topic. Having seen children running around naked in their own filth, having to keep my car window closed in the sweltering heat because of the stench of a huge slum, I understand very well just how important it is to help them. Some call them lazy, but they'll willingly walk 5+ miles a day for a bucket of water. These are people with pride who won't accept charity. They just want the opportunity to work, and Western companies are offering them that chance increasingly. We must do all we can to encourage this trend because it's changing the world - and we can feel good about it.

    What frustrates me immensely are the arrogant idealogues who proclaim on TV how we must tax the rich and end globalisation and give to the poor. This approach would undo all the progress we've made and lead, once again, to government failure. I'll bet you that very few of these idealogues have ever even visited a third world nation and experienced first-hand what it means to live there.
     
    Upvote 0

    Latest Articles

    Join UK Business Forums for free business advice