On Mon, 22 Oct 2001, Harmon Seaver wrote:
Of course you're ignoring the fact that sometimes the reason that they are "starving on their own retched little plots of land." is because of NAFTA and huge multinational corporations importing so much US factory farmed corn and other ag products into that country that they can't compete. We've been thru this discussion before.
If this applies throughout the whole economy (i.e. the natives can't compete with any product at all), you'll have a trade deficit and sooner or later the currency rate will go down. That'll end the imports and even out the difference in efficiency. In the absence of a currency area boundary, you'll still have Ricardo and his principle of relative benefit (that the term?). Nobody'll starve because of competition, unless they're just plain lazy and/or unable to adapt. Sweatshop work is a variation of the latter.
All else being equal, there is no logical reason in the world why they should be "starving on their own retched little plots of land." Peasant farmers have been making an adequate living on "their own retched little plots of land." for at least since before any recorded history, and, for that matter, can still do so.
If the previous buyers get their food cheaper somewhere else, what's the problem? That production can survive within the confines of an inefficient economy is no reason to keep running that inefficient economy. Otherwise you'd be transfering income from the buyer to the seller, and inefficiently at that.
Anyone who spends any time at all researching the conditions of peasant farmers in the 3rd world who leave their land and go to work in sweatshops would never come to the conclusion that they chose to do so.
They made a choice over starving to death. Sounds like a choice to me. Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy - mailto:decoy@iki.fi, tel:+358-50-5756111 student/math+cs/helsinki university, http://www.iki.fi/~decoy/front openpgp: 050985C2/025E D175 ABE5 027C 9494 EEB0 E090 8BA9 0509 85C2