Sorry I don't have the references you urge to have - but I maybe don't need them, because we're not saying things that are at opposite sided. Moreover, I note that you tend to ask for references without giving ones, which does not seem fair this second time.

I've tried to be clear that the regulation should encourage higher life standards, and not only lower costs for corporations.

those factories often have higher standards than the alternative work places overseas

Often means not always, which is a pity. Regulation should strive to impose that products that are produced overseas with something resembling the standards one has at home, otherwise we're closing our eyes. Moreover, they can be higher than the other native work places (which is something that I would like to see evidence of), but my point was subtly different. What I want to say is that going overseas is a way to avoid to adhere to the standards one is imposed to follow at home, and this goes at the expense of workers overseas.

the consensus among economists seems to be that this is part of the only ladder to prosperity that has worked, historically. We in the West climbed something similar in the 19th century.

This is probably what you're looking for contradiction pointers from me. But the fact is that I don't want to contradict this. This might be what worked for the west in the 19th century, but I would also remember you that workers had to fight hard to reach what they have today (and that they are sadly losing). I also think that today the conditions are quite different with respect the 19th century, and I'm quite skeptical about the same path being followed in the third and fourth world. There is a precise interest in keeping them as they are.

As I said, all this is not intended to be an arid complaining. I agree that there are win-win opportunities overseas for companies. What I don't agree is that there is not balance, and the weaker side gains something resembling a Pirro victory. Given the fact that our governments are so keen to spread freedom all over the world, I was wondering if it could be done in manners that were not only intended to give benefits to the army industry and the oil market.

---

---

• Are you posting in the right place? Check out Where do I post X? to know for sure.
• Posts may use any of the Perl Monks Approved HTML tags. Currently these include the following:

  <code> <a> <b> <big> <blockquote> <br /> <dd> <dl> <dt> <em> <font> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <hr /> <i> <li> <nbsp> <ol> <p> <small> <strike> <strong> <sub> <sup> <table> <td> <th> <tr> <tt> <u> <ul>

• Snippets of code should be wrapped in <code> tags not <pre> tags. In fact, <pre> tags should generally be avoided. If they must be used, extreme care should be taken to ensure that their contents do not have long lines (<70 chars), in order to prevent horizontal scrolling (and possible janitor intervention).
• Want more info? How to link or How to display code and escape characters are good places to start.