You seem to be under the impression (without explanation) that a free market is what causes exploitation of labor and that Japan and Europe are only wealthy because they use the third world.
It's not "The cause" but it highly encourages it. Instead of paying more for a product that was made humanely, companies are encouraged to pay the lowest wages possible to maximize the profit margin (This is also because people are too stupid and careless to feel bad for people overseas. I mean people don't have to buy these products, but they still do).
I don't think that is the only reason they are wealthy, but it definitely is a part of it. Japan is even part of the IMF. Granted not to the extreme the U.S. is, but they just loaned the IMF 100 billion.
Japan and Europe are wealthy because they are the most advanced in science. Japan makes products IN JAPAN made by high paid JAPANESE workers and sells them all over the world. That is why they have wealth. They are not building hybrid cars and cell phones in Micronesia. When a company exploits people there is no reason the savings have to be passed on to the consumer. Things are not cheap in the west, they actually cost more here than anywhere in the world. Things are cheaper int he third world. What is different is the money supply. Even if food from the store for a family of 4 is less than a dollar it doesn't matter when you have no money at all. People in the third world are living inside mut huts without electricity. They live under dictatorships or puppet governments to the imperialist US. That's not the market's fault it's the fault of US foreign policy.
Well every country even the U.S. has high paid AMERICAN workers that sell products all over the world. But you make it sound like Japan is a huge exporter of amazingly complex products, when in fact they don't export much more than they import according to http://www.stat.go.jp/english/19.htm
The U.S. foreign policy is like this BECAUSE of the system we currently have. Companies are rewarded the more they outsource jobs. They are rewarded for paying workers the lowest amount possible. I think we're just arguing symantics here, because to me it's the system that causes the corruption (Or at least encourages it), to you it's just the government, no matter what system we have in place.
You have to ask your self first for the third world to be used as cheap labor WHY is the labor cheap and WHY can't they build their own products?
It is NOT because of free markets. It's the opposite. Need I explain again because I already did it once and you just ignored it. The Third world is in the conditions that it is in not because of Nike and Cocacola but because of international banks, the CIA, and their own governments. Their currencies are debased intentionally by their own governments for the sake of personal wealth. Socialism in a Democracy doesn't work, ask Iceland about it. You can't just have the government pay for everything by redistributing wealth from the middle class to the poor. Or even from rich to poor.
THE IDEA of some benevolent fair government that will fairly redistribute wealth for the sake of the people and not itself, is as stupid as saying why don't we just have a really good King who care about the people and won't be corrupt?
I did not mean to ignore anything you said. I know why the third world is what it is. It's through predatory lending through the IMF. I'm sure you already know the dirty details of everything, but in the book "Confessions of an economic hitman" by John Perkins he describes how the loans would be used to benefit American COMPANIES. It's very profitable to build useless infrastructure that only the rich can use. Or sometimes we get them to sell us oil on the cheap. It only benefits the government indirectly (That is to say that the government benefits on the tax profits from the eventual sale of gasoline, and our continued dominance in the world, but otherwise, I fail to see why the government would really give 2 shits about building infrastructure abroad, and getting cheap oil.)
I realise that it's a pipe dream and socialism will never work, and the reason is because people are too greedy. It's not a flaw in the system, it's a flaw in people. I am definitely for an in between. Basically taking power away from corporations. I'm not saying let's go to Bill Gates house and take him for everything he's got, I'm saying put the people in control of our businesses, our banks, our retail outlets, our oil companies. If we weren't so focused on profits, we could focus on our environmental impact, and our human rights abuses instead of the almighty dollar.
China is Communist republic and it is democratic too dumb ass, go look it up they vote for their leaders too same as the US, the difference is in the US their is a mixed system of socialism and capitalism and in China is straight up communist.
You can call it whatever you want "Dumb-ass" but they aren't a democracy. They're a democracy like we're peacekeepers in Iraq and Afghanistan. Just because you say it, doesn't make it true. In the U.S. it's a pathetic excuse for socialism. It's bizarro world socialism if you will. Socialism isn't about taking money from the people and giving it to corporations, that's socialism for the rich. If a company makes a profit, they keep it, but if they make a loss, I have to help pay? Not the idea of socialism AT ALL. China on the other hand is probably just as capitalist as we are (Maybe not just as much, but pretty close.). If they were straight up communist they wouldn't have upper and lower classes (I despise communism because it focuses too much power in too few hands byt the way). Wealth is not distributed evenly at ALL in China.
The oil companies you hate are not working in the free market either. They are tied to government. They get no bid contracts for their work and exuberant prices, NOT form the market and not open to competition but from the government. It's corporate welfare. That is what most socialism REALLY is, corporate welfare. And they don't pass that wealth on to western consumers. They hord it, these people are billionaires. All we get is rising gas prices. And in more socialist Europe and Jpaan the prices are even higher, because fewer of their companies are getting the government contracts.
Corporate welfare is corporate welfare, NOT socialism. We can argue symantics all day, but I think we have to agree to disagree on this one. This is corporations taking control of our government. Say for example, Dick Cheney being vice president of our country and also a rather large share holder and ex-ceo of halliburton, when he makes a decision that benefits the oil industry, I consider that to be the evils of business and corporations, and I believe you would call this governments bad. I highly disagree.
A problem with capitalism is when the Government assist certain companies to make monopolies like they did early on with rail road and now with oil and weapons. That's not free market, that's mercantilism.
Go look this word up Mercantilism. That is what you really hate. You want government involved but just as a nanny state and not as corporate welfare. The best way to fight rising cost of living and prices is with a free market. You can't even begin socialism until your population already has some wealth to tax, which it will not have without free markets.
Yes mercantilism is definitely bad. It's a very selfish method of government.
The free market has only led us to lower prices in unethical ways. That is to say, that the free market has led to the rampant importation of goods from China, so now with all these cheap goods, just to compete in the market you have to start getting goods from China too to sell. Nobody wants to pay 50$ for a shirt made in proper working conditions when you can get the same for 15$ made by someone getting paid 15 cents an hour. That is all the free market leads to. Unethical business practices. Does it drive prices down? Sure, but at what cost?
I don't think you understand the ideal definition of socialism. It's constantly thrown around towards obama, who is the farthest thing from one. Try reading something like this http://www.sp-usa.org/
Just the front paragraph, and you'll see what it's really about. The only reason I'm not a member is because they're pro-choice.