Nike is a text-book example of modern free trade markets and advanced capitalism – and not necessarily in a good way. The company has been doing aggressive outsourcing since the 1970’s and it has been directed mainly towards Asian countries. These days Nike has over 900 contract factories which employ over a million workers in about 45 different countries. The numbers illustrate Nike’s wide outsourcing, which is bound to create challenges. Through-out its history, Nike has been accused of inhumane labor conditions in its contract factories (Nike does not own any factories) regarding for example wages, safety and child labor. Even though Nike has committed to corporate sustainability it is battling in the gray area of morality, sustainability,
…show more content…
He would see that it is a classic example of labor and poorer countries being used and taken advantage of. A poor low-wage manufacturing country will most definitely have surplus labor, which means that workers and such countries already have an uneven position in the labor market. The factories are the means of production, which are being owned by companies and therefore the workers have no choice but to accept their policies. For Marx the free-trade deal would most likely seem as another way for the companies to increase the profit by benefiting from the workers: another example of economic growth which does not divide evenly. Vladimir Lenin, who was a strong Marxist, would probably rely on the statements above, but he would also call the TPP deal an economic-imperialistic deal. For Lenin, the TPP would basically be reformed indirect exploitation of the workers. The investing in countries with underdeveloped economies and societies would represent the highest form of capitalism and therefore Lenin would condemn the deal – it would be an example of Lenin’s idea of the practice that divides the world into monopolies led by large global …show more content…
He speaks of the protection of American incomes. In other words, Reich is worried that American jobs will disappear to low-cost countries if the TPP agreement will be reached. This not an issue that is concerning just the United State and it is most certainly not a new issue – the trend for outsourcing into low-cost countries has existed for some 50 years. Nowadays we are dealing with a global economy, where the reality is that “what happens over there, matters over here”. For especially the industrial Western Hemisphere, the first 15 years of the 21st century has meant production and manufacturing outsourcing. The financial and bank crises during the end of the first decade have only intensified this development. While the ever growing and expanding world economy has slowly been getting back on its feet, we have been approaching a new era of redefined free-trade deals. The United States is also having negotiations with the European Union to form a similar free-trade deal, the TTIP (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership Deal). The recovery process of the Western Hemisphere is looking for ways to boost their economies. The defenders of the deal state that it creates jobs (for who, where?) and prosperity (for who, how much?). The question is, will a free-trade deal seal the success of this
He would see that it is a classic example of labor and poorer countries being used and taken advantage of. A poor low-wage manufacturing country will most definitely have surplus labor, which means that workers and such countries already have an uneven position in the labor market. The factories are the means of production, which are being owned by companies and therefore the workers have no choice but to accept their policies. For Marx the free-trade deal would most likely seem as another way for the companies to increase the profit by benefiting from the workers: another example of economic growth which does not divide evenly. Vladimir Lenin, who was a strong Marxist, would probably rely on the statements above, but he would also call the TPP deal an economic-imperialistic deal. For Lenin, the TPP would basically be reformed indirect exploitation of the workers. The investing in countries with underdeveloped economies and societies would represent the highest form of capitalism and therefore Lenin would condemn the deal – it would be an example of Lenin’s idea of the practice that divides the world into monopolies led by large global …show more content…
He speaks of the protection of American incomes. In other words, Reich is worried that American jobs will disappear to low-cost countries if the TPP agreement will be reached. This not an issue that is concerning just the United State and it is most certainly not a new issue – the trend for outsourcing into low-cost countries has existed for some 50 years. Nowadays we are dealing with a global economy, where the reality is that “what happens over there, matters over here”. For especially the industrial Western Hemisphere, the first 15 years of the 21st century has meant production and manufacturing outsourcing. The financial and bank crises during the end of the first decade have only intensified this development. While the ever growing and expanding world economy has slowly been getting back on its feet, we have been approaching a new era of redefined free-trade deals. The United States is also having negotiations with the European Union to form a similar free-trade deal, the TTIP (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership Deal). The recovery process of the Western Hemisphere is looking for ways to boost their economies. The defenders of the deal state that it creates jobs (for who, where?) and prosperity (for who, how much?). The question is, will a free-trade deal seal the success of this