Monday, November 26, 2007

On Profit

Does our society profit at the expense of others or do we have a system of relatively fair trade? Is there moderation of extortionism? Have we deviated from original intents?
While it seems perfectly legitimate that one should have the potential of profit from one's labors, it is only right that input should have a great equivalence to output. However, the prospect of trade is no longer as simplistic as it once was. Items and produce are rarely exchanged first or second hand. Through a vast network, America receives cheap plastic trinket from China, motor vehicles from Japan, coffee from South America and sugar from Mauritius.
Mauritius: an island predominated by sugar cane plantations, yet they are unable to process their own produce. Mauritian sugar packets I observed were stamped with "Processed in Orlando, Florida, USA." as is dictated by international debt policies. Did not the 13 Colonies become an independent nation, The United States of America, for no less? While there is some profit to be made selling the raw goods, the finished product holds higher monetary value. What gives international powers the right to limit the original producer to the export of raw materials? In this manner one observes the control exerted so that one entity profits more than the others. Because of these behaviors the globe has been divided into first, second and third worlds based on so-called "economic progress."

1 comment:

John Stonebreaker said...

These nations do not have a chance to create a finished good because the American companies go to these third world nations and basically take them over for their profit. Then, they extract all they can from the resources, land, labor, and capital, and ship it to America where they can put "made in America" on it to make people feel better. So, it is not the fault of the world being labeled by these ideas, it is the fault of the US and its industry overstepping its bounds and exercising with little to no moral foundation.