tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5467119.post116273956826081133..comments2023-10-24T10:09:22.146+01:00Comments on The Yorkshire Ranter: Saving the planet in the slowest possible wayAlexhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17153530634675543954noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5467119.post-1162905878451410712006-11-07T14:24:00.000+01:002006-11-07T14:24:00.000+01:00Perhaps it’s me that’s been on the dodgy Wards ale...Perhaps it’s me that’s been on the dodgy Wards ale then?<BR/><BR/>No. Still can’t see where the only quote used as evidence states what the rant claims it states.<BR/><BR/>Lets look at it again:<BR/><BR/>""These are the goods that Europe used to make. We are faced with a country that has an almost absolute advantage in an increasing number of sectors. This a triumph for multinational capital, not for Chinese workers who, as well as suffering from some of the worst labour exploitation on record, are also losing jobs at a phenomenal rate," she said.<BR/><BR/>The real cost of the goods that the Emma Maersk is bringing in should include the environment, the markets destroyed in developing countries and the millions of jobs lost."<BR/><BR/>No. still can’t see where the statement that the goods being brought in should include external costs on not only the environment but also the impact on the markets destroyed – and by definition the fellow workers in those markets - in developing countries, equates to stating (as claimed) that all (and only) Chinese goods should have a prohibitive costs placed on them that goes beyond a tarriff that can then be extrapolated to a veiled attack on wage rates outside China.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps Lucas has said or intimated some such utterance. But not in the quote provided as evidence. Unfortunately no link is provided to the rest of the piece from which the quote is extracted.<BR/><BR/>As it stands the common sense reading of the quote provided, in the context of the general position of those from the political spectrum represented by the likes of Lucus, would read it as a specific example of a general argument that is the exact opposite of the dubious definitions and extrapolations that have been placed on the quote in this particular rant.<BR/><BR/>It seems simple enough to me. “Triumph for multinational capital”…..”worst labour exploitation on record”…..(local) “markets (and jobs) destroyed” (in developing countries).<BR/><BR/>No. Sorry mate. This seems to me to be a gross misrepresentation. An argument constructed that cannot be inferred from the evidence supplied. <BR/><BR/>It’s a sad day to see a situation on this site where the wish for the existence of WMD’s is so strong that the evidence supplied has to be spun to suit what seems to be rigid preconceptions.<BR/><BR/>Setting up straw men/women! You’re better than this.<BR/><BR/>Regards.<BR/><BR/>Eccles.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5467119.post-1162833510514451732006-11-06T18:18:00.000+01:002006-11-06T18:18:00.000+01:00I agree with you- for stupid environmentalism look...I agree with you- for stupid environmentalism look no further than Bunting in today's guardian arguing that we should stop eating so that the environment can sustain itself. Neo puritanism- oh yeah!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5467119.post-1162823264559858922006-11-06T15:27:00.000+01:002006-11-06T15:27:00.000+01:00By eck! That must have been some rough ale you wer...By eck! That must have been some rough ale you were on over the weekend. (Must have been that fake Wards stuff that they are brewing over in Lancashire).<BR/><BR/>How the heck do we get from the quote:<BR/><BR/>“This a triumph for multinational capital, not for Chinese workers who, as well as suffering from some of the worst labour exploitation on record, are also losing jobs at a phenomenal rate," she said.”<BR/><BR/>I’ll just repeat that again “multinational capital…..exploiting Chinese workers who also losing jobs at a phenomenal rate…”<BR/><BR/>To the (your) conclusion that Lucas is saying:<BR/><BR/>“We must slash labour costs to compete with China! Keep slashing! Until we're cheaper than the Chinese!”<BR/><BR/>The least we have come to expect is that the rant is logically coherent rather than ascribing a meaning that cannot possibly be inferred or extrapolated from the quote used in evidence to substantiate the conclusion.<BR/><BR/>The line of reasoning, which seems to build a solid conclusion with no supporting evidence other than one based on the notion best exemplified by some chap called Blair, at the New Labour (sic) conference in 2004, and articulated as “I only know what I believe”, seems somewhat familiar. <BR/><BR/>I can’t quite put me finger on it?<BR/><BR/>Hang on, it’s coming back to me now….<BR/><BR/>That’s it!<BR/><BR/>I’m reminded of the approach reminiscent of a certain dodgy dossier….Niger….WMD…45 minutes….etc. etc.<BR/><BR/>Still, what can you expect from the plastic Yorkshiremen from West Yorkshire. I bet you even support that shower from Leeds.<BR/><BR/>Your fan base expects better than this.<BR/><BR/>Regards.<BR/><BR/>Eccles - Sheffield.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com