Forums > Social Chat > A serius question
Login/Join to ParticipateEnter a "Title" here:
2,905 posts
Location: San Diego California
2,905 posts
Location: San Diego California
Posted:
I am not baiting anyone, I am not trying to start a fight, I saw a documentery on BBC last night about an Afgani man and his family. They were refugies that went to Packistan to take refuge.
He came back to his country to farm his land and make a new life for himself. He came back to his land and found that it had been overgrown, his house destroyed. There was nothing for him, so he and his family moved into Kabul (sp) so that he could look for work. To make a long story short, he couldnt find work and went back to Packistan.
Now my question is, would it be wrong to set up some sort of buisiness to employ the people. Maybe like a construction company to build houses for people?
It would not only give the people a place to live but give them a job, and a purpose. They wouldnt be making minimum wadge like here in the states or whatever construction workers make, but they would be able to buy food for their families, buy clothes and have places to live. Like lowincome/no income housing.
Or would it be wrong to set up a factory say Nike for example (just pullin that out of my arse)? The people would be getting paid and they would be able to buy food and clothing, blankets and other needs.
I guess the question is, would it be wrong to capitalise on their bad econimy?
I am not baiting anyone, I am not trying to start a fight, I saw a documentery on BBC last night about an Afgani man and his family. They were refugies that went to Packistan to take refuge.
He came back to his country to farm his land and make a new life for himself. He came back to his land and found that it had been overgrown, his house destroyed. There was nothing for him, so he and his family moved into Kabul (sp) so that he could look for work. To make a long story short, he couldnt find work and went back to Packistan.
Now my question is, would it be wrong to set up some sort of buisiness to employ the people. Maybe like a construction company to build houses for people?
It would not only give the people a place to live but give them a job, and a purpose. They wouldnt be making minimum wadge like here in the states or whatever construction workers make, but they would be able to buy food for their families, buy clothes and have places to live. Like lowincome/no income housing.
Or would it be wrong to set up a factory say Nike for example (just pullin that out of my arse)? The people would be getting paid and they would be able to buy food and clothing, blankets and other needs.
I guess the question is, would it be wrong to capitalise on their bad econimy?
Some Jarhead last night: "this dumb a$$ thinks hes fireproof"
SILVER Member
100 characters max...
2,996 posts
Location: Sydney, NSW, Australia
100 characters max...
2,996 posts
Location: Sydney, NSW, Australia
Posted:
With anything of this sort there is good and bad, and the overall impact is a fine balance. It can be argued that companies moving in now are purely taking advantage, and with very little scrutiny they can have free rein to do as they wish. Also that increasing the Afghan economy's dependence on overseas interests will undermine it in the future.
It can also be argued that the economy needs a big influx of capital to assist in the re-building of infrastructure, and the support of the people. And that this is a good way of doing it.
So much is dependent on the behaviour of the companies. They may not even wish to invest in what would be seen as an unstable country and therefore a risk.
Don't you love it when there is no easy answer?
With anything of this sort there is good and bad, and the overall impact is a fine balance. It can be argued that companies moving in now are purely taking advantage, and with very little scrutiny they can have free rein to do as they wish. Also that increasing the Afghan economy's dependence on overseas interests will undermine it in the future.
It can also be argued that the economy needs a big influx of capital to assist in the re-building of infrastructure, and the support of the people. And that this is a good way of doing it.
So much is dependent on the behaviour of the companies. They may not even wish to invest in what would be seen as an unstable country and therefore a risk.
Don't you love it when there is no easy answer?
It was a day for screaming at inanimate objects.
What this calls for is a special mix of psychology and extreme violence...
Enter a "Title" here:
2,905 posts
Location: San Diego California
2,905 posts
Location: San Diego California
Posted:
Jerk
Jerk
Some Jarhead last night: "this dumb a$$ thinks hes fireproof"
Enter a "Title" here:
2,905 posts
Location: San Diego California
2,905 posts
Location: San Diego California
Posted:
Actually I think it could be done and be in good form. It would meant that there would need to be honest business persons.
Like, no sweat shops, decent hours, no or little child labor (kids only working like 2 hours a day).
With the propper ethics it could be done and have both gain for the people and the company.
Am I not right in this?
Actually I think it could be done and be in good form. It would meant that there would need to be honest business persons.
Like, no sweat shops, decent hours, no or little child labor (kids only working like 2 hours a day).
With the propper ethics it could be done and have both gain for the people and the company.
Am I not right in this?
Some Jarhead last night: "this dumb a$$ thinks hes fireproof"
Enter a "Title" here:
2,905 posts
Location: San Diego California
2,905 posts
Location: San Diego California
Posted:
bump
bump
Some Jarhead last night: "this dumb a$$ thinks hes fireproof"
© 1998 - 2026 Home of Poi
All prices converted to United States dollars using XE.com