Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

The banana you ate today...

What's on your mind?
General interest discussions, not necessarily related to depletion.

The banana you ate today...

Postby frankthetank » Thu 11 Nov 2004, 01:21:41

Could be sterlizing a Central American worker...

http://tierramerica.net/english/2004/11 ... ntos.shtml

We ban it here and then continue to use it somewhere else...how stupid...
User avatar
frankthetank
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6202
Joined: Thu 16 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Southwest WI

Postby savethehumans » Thu 11 Nov 2004, 01:54:07

They probably see it as a great way to reduce population.... :x
User avatar
savethehumans
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1468
Joined: Wed 20 Oct 2004, 03:00:00

Postby smiley » Thu 11 Nov 2004, 04:09:45

[paranoid mode]
How did you know I ate a banana today? [smilie=confused1.gif]
[/paranoid mode]

<closes curtains and sneaks off to hide the remains>
User avatar
smiley
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2274
Joined: Fri 16 Apr 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Europe

Postby Devil » Thu 11 Nov 2004, 09:15:44

Not true. The banana I ate today was grown only 100 km from here!
Devil
User avatar
Devil
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 816
Joined: Tue 06 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Cyprus

Postby Specop_007 » Thu 11 Nov 2004, 09:42:45

Thats a sticky situation in more ways then one. First off, its well known Del Monte isnt the most ethical company in regards to workers rights in Central America. On the flip side though, is it our job to police our countries actions internationally, or is it the foreign governments. Personally, I dont care one little bit, because I dont feel it should be Americas job to police companies operating on an international basis like this. It should be the job of the local government to determine what chemicals are safe and what are not. A example is the drug industry. Drugs used in Mexico or Iran or Japan dont necessarily have to meet the FDA's approval. Why? Not our country. Its when you bring it to America it becomes Americas business.
Same with chemicals. It should be the local governments that say yes or no to what chemicals can be used. I dont hear any other country telling us not to use this or that fertilizer.
User avatar
Specop_007
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5586
Joined: Thu 12 Aug 2004, 03:00:00

Postby Specop_007 » Thu 11 Nov 2004, 09:43:04

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('smiley', '[')paranoid mode]
How did you know I ate a banana today? [smilie=confused1.gif]
[/paranoid mode]

<closes curtains and sneaks off to hide the remains>


:lol: :lol:
Thats funny man!!
User avatar
Specop_007
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5586
Joined: Thu 12 Aug 2004, 03:00:00

Postby Guest » Thu 11 Nov 2004, 12:49:26

I disagree Specop. If American companies can operate in other countries, they are still American companies. The banana companies are operating in other countries in order to import bananas to America. It's not right to benefit at the expense of people of other countries. Other countries often don't have the knowledge or resources to protect themselves legally. Just read about the situation on the oil industry in Nigeria.

If a corporation based in America does something in another country that would be illegal in America, it's morally wrong.
Guest
 

Postby Specop_007 » Thu 11 Nov 2004, 13:53:58

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Anonymous', '
')If a corporation based in America does something in another country that would be illegal in America, it's morally wrong.


And that sums it up. Morally, but legally? I dont agree that an American company operating overseas should still bide by American laws. Should those companies still pay American minimum wages to these countries workers? And thereby threaten to crash the economy? Thats the same thing as using chemicals restricted in the American market but not elsewhere. And whos countries laws shall we use as the basis? If Britian for example has a "better" law should that law supercede our laws, and thereby use that law as the basis for overseas companies?
User avatar
Specop_007
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5586
Joined: Thu 12 Aug 2004, 03:00:00

Postby dhickerson » Thu 11 Nov 2004, 17:17:16

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Specop_007', 'S')hould those companies still pay American minimum wages to these countries workers?

Yes. You're company in primarily located in the U.S? Then it is bound by American law as a minimum standard.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Specop_007', 'A')nd thereby threaten to crash the economy?

Wouldn't this serve to keep American companies here in America? I don't see that as a bad thing.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Specop_007', 'A')nd whos countries laws shall we use as the basis? If Britian for example has a "better" law should that law supercede our laws, and thereby use that law as the basis for overseas companies?

Whoever's laws are most strict should be followed in that case, in my opinion.

In the end I doubt that this entire situation is going to mean a whole heck of a lot in a decade or so.
User avatar
dhickerson
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 26
Joined: Mon 08 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Ohio
Top

Postby trespam » Thu 11 Nov 2004, 17:25:53

Globalization is often described as the race to the bottom. The bottom includes slave labor and environmental spoiling. International trade agreements should ensure that Globalization is more than means to step on the faces of the impoverished as they labor on the bottom of the pyramid.

Globalization is also described as a way to raise all boats. Those who participate on this board, those who believe that global energy supplies will peak, know that all boats will not be raised. The energy tide is going down.

I vote for international trade agreements that ensure at least a minimal level of human dignity and environmental integrity, and augment that with moral actions such as boycotts.
User avatar
trespam
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 995
Joined: Tue 10 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Location: San Diego, CA, USA

Postby Specop_007 » Thu 11 Nov 2004, 19:19:24

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('trespam', 'G')lobalization is often described as the race to the bottom. The bottom includes slave labor and environmental spoiling. International trade agreements should ensure that Globalization is more than means to step on the faces of the impoverished as they labor on the bottom of the pyramid.

Globalization is also described as a way to raise all boats. Those who participate on this board, those who believe that global energy supplies will peak, know that all boats will not be raised. The energy tide is going down.

I vote for international trade agreements that ensure at least a minimal level of human dignity and environmental integrity, and augment that with moral actions such as boycotts.


You keep posting logical stuff like that I might share my jelly beans. :-D

I do agree, there should be international trade agreements which ensure a minimal level of human dignity and concern for the environment. The problem is where do we draw the line?
User avatar
Specop_007
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5586
Joined: Thu 12 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Postby Guest » Fri 12 Nov 2004, 03:56:51

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Specop_007', '
')I do agree, there should be international trade agreements which ensure a minimal level of human dignity and concern for the environment.


Yes, like subsidies and tax breaks for US farmers and manufacturing industries producing stuff for export and killing thousands and destroying economies elsewhere, not to the mention Kyoto on the environmental side or GM crops.
Guest
 
Top

Postby backstop » Fri 12 Nov 2004, 07:45:10

Guest - gently does it - your entirely valid concerns are liable to be obscured by sarcasm, not made more convincing.
backstop
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1463
Joined: Tue 24 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Varies


Return to Open Topic Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron