Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 20:17:23 +0000
From: Iain McKay <iain.mckay-AT-zetnet.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Nike Is Wrong


hello all

why do we get this shit sent to us?

M.A. Johnson wrote:

 > ~~for educational purposes only~~

as if...

<snip>

The complaints came from the
 > usual left-wing beneficiaries of capitalism: media
 > pundits (e.g. the Village Voice) and statist
 > intellectuals.  Nike's customers didn't protest,
 > nor did any economists.

however, later our wonder defender of "freedom"
has a little rant about "labour" economists --
so to translate his comments he actually means
"nor did any economists whom I agree with"

 > Nike again responded that the order had been cancelled
 > because it contained "inappropriate slang."  Peretti
 > rejoined that the word "sweatshop" was standard English,
 > not slang, and asked the company to reconsider.  He
 > quoted the definition of "sweatshop" from Webster's:
 > "a shop or factory in which workers are employed for
 > long hours at low wages and under unhealthy conditions."
 > He also cited the firm's statement that its iD program
 > demonstrates the "freedom to choose and freedom to
 > express who you are," indicating that he agreed with
 > this sentiment and that the purpose of the "sweatshop"
 > iD was to be "a small token of appreciation for the
 > sweatshop workers poised to help me realize my vision."

I wonder how much the workers in the factories
get with regards the "freedom to express who you
are"? After all, they get to obey orders for ten
hours a day, under the autrocratic rule of bosses.
Did someone talk about freedom? surely not!

<snip>

 > He is not alone. Scratch a specialist in "labor economics,"
 > and you almost invariably uncover a statist who thinks
 > that freedom of contract shouldn't apply to employers
 > and workers whose productivity is less than some arbitrary
 > minimum.

then again, scratch a free marketer and you almost
invariably uncover a statist who thinks that the
freedom of contract should be skewed in favour of
the capitalist and that a workers' "freedom" consists
in selling that freedom to a boss for X hours a
day...

and don;t forget kiddies, if you disagree with a
free marketer you are a "statist" regardless of
the fact and regardless of the history of state
action to create and protect the free market.

<snip>

According to this school, a "sweatshop"
 > is a factory where the owners and their employees have
 > the effrontery to agree to employment terms other than
 > those approved by the "sweatshop's" critics.

and what about the repressive state actions which
hinder the workers' rights and skews the labour
market in favour of the owners? what, no mention
of that little fact? surely not!

 > Peretti is following in a long line of economics virtuosos
 > who think that when an employer and an employee agree to
 > exchange work for wages, the latter is somehow "exploited"
 > by the former. In this analysis, a worker accepting a job
 > with a Nike contractor continues to demonstrate how
 > "exploited" he is by showing up for work every day, and
 > by accepting a paycheck based on mutually-agreed-upon
 > terms.

yes, he should go and starve to death somewhere. I wonder
what our "freedom" loving american would say that his
taxes are fair and he is not exploited by the state because
he continues to demonstrate how "exploited" he is by
waking up every day in america and paying those taxes?

 > In the real world, when two parties exchange property
 > titles, they are demonstrating that they expect to benefit
 > from the exchange.

yes, the workers gets enough to not to starve to death
and the company makes profits by selling what he produces
for more than it pays him in wages.

an exchange between a stronger and weaker party with
automatically benefit the stronger one more. Simple
logic.

<snip>

<snip>

 > In the last few years, the Global Alliance for Workers
 > and Communities (which includes the International Youth
 > Foundation, Nike, Gap, Penn State University, St. John's
 > University, and the ubiquitous World Bank) has conducted
 > several studies of Nike's contract employment practices
 > and conditions at its contractors' facilities in different
 > countries.  The studies have included detailed interviews
 > of several thousand workers and have been published at
 > www.nikebiz.com.

yes, and when the CIA investigates its own activities,
it too finds nothing wrong!

<snip>

 > Even though Jonah Peretti thinks he knows better than
 > the market what Nike's terms of employment should be with
 > its workers, it's unlikely that he would forcibly
 > interfere with their right to work for the company.

"the market" knows things? Surely not, the market is
capable of knowing things like a human being? Yes, of
course, the market is god and mere humans should not
question it

<snip>

 > As for Nike, if it really does believe in freedom, it
 > should stop consorting with the World Bank, that
 > exploiter of Third World countries and Western taxpayers.
 > And one more thing:  Nike should amend its order policy,
 > point (4) above, to include "stupidity."

yes, the market is all knowing, but individuals in the
market sometimes do not reach its levels of "knowing"

 > Jonah Peretti would undoubtedly like to plan Nike's
 > strategy from his lofty perch at MIT. His benighted
 > toil has led to an uptick in the sale of its personalized
 > shoes. But capitalism, not moral fustian, is the road to
 > a better life for Nike's employees.

and if they have to be turned into wage slaves, well,
whats a little loss of freedom when we have the great
god "market"?

ah well, we live and learn...

Iain