I'm trying to take you seriously. I really am. Just move on to the type of intervention that exists already.

Are we still at treating child exploitation as a good or a service? Will cheese-lawl answer this question with an uncreative insult?

but you claim a description of how it is (including now) is a shift to some unacceptable system and then dont want to address that misunderstanding. Even if I'm wrong and I dont doubt that possibility, you cant just confuse a description of how it is with a society 'I will have you in'

It sounds like the saem old determined attempt to leap to incorrect conclusions that allow you to trivially dismiss. I've had enough of that game - either we attempt to understand each other or we dont bother.

I understand you so far. Nothing you are saying is profound in any way. Let me summarize:

you: "Market forces, blah blah"
everyone else: "We don't want children exploited because it is profitable. We have mechanisms in place today, that while not perfect, greatly reduce the amount of children being exploited."
you: "don't worry, there is intervention."
me: "What kind of intervention?"

Now, go.

I agree its not profound yet both your summations have been worng.

Its nothing like me saying 'market forces' and everybody else saying 'we dont want children exploited'. That's sounds like a profund misunderstanding.

OK. Let's go back to the beginning and clear up all misconceptions.

Feel free to go from here. Clear up anything you think has been misinterpreted along the way.

All,

Do you think the government should raid Nike headquarters and shut them down?

Okay lets go.

Do we agree that

a) the demand for more child exploitation is near enough just due to profits
and
b) the demand for less child exploitation is near enough just due to 'decent' people

is true independent of whether we have government or not.

Then I've attempted a start at laying out the non-intervention level (straightforward free market) which is the thing we can then talk about intervening with either via government or via other methods.

Then we know what counts as intervention and I believe it will be trivially obvious that government is not the only way to do it.

Along the way I believe we can tackle the historical thing and will comprehensively ignore people determined to whitter on brainlessly about versions of AC principles.

Which government?

any government but it's a US company so lets say the US government for starters

Like if the US wants to enforce labor laws on a factory on US soil, I gots no problem with that.

Go on

But you don't think they should hold us companies to the standards of us labour laws in all cases?

What cases are you talking about? I don't think it's a good plan for the US to raid factories in Bangladesh, but I'm OK with enforcing child labor laws on US soil.

Just to add, I would rather Bangladesh enforce child labor laws so there were no children making the shoes. But, it's still not a good idea for the US to raid factories in Bangladesh.

I'll go on a bit but we are trying to clear up misconceptions etc, that's going to be a 2+ way thing.

If we do agree with the bit I asked you if you agreed with then we can consider how it works without any intervention at all. We just buy and sell based on our own personal preferences at the time. This includes shunning and simply preferring products made by companies with ethics we appreciate.

Then there's an 'equilibrium' point where the extra profit made from child labour equals the average extra premium people are willing to pay and can direct to the right products/services. If the extra profit excedes the premium then straightforward market forces will strongly support child exploitation and vice verca though significantly more weakly.

If that makes sense then hopefully its clear that moving the equilibrium point changes how much child exploitation there is.

So what factors could move the equilibrium point? Not how do we change these factors, can we just consider what they are?

So there is an acceptable level of child exploitation to you? It's the level at which governments don't step on each others toes?

Obviously child labor in Bangladesh isn't acceptable, but the US can't be th worlds policeman.

The USA "could" stop all imports from countries that use child labor or countries that refuse to police the child labor, but I highly doubt that would ever happen.

I'm OK with tarrifs on products made with slave labor.

They could even be less draconian and just require companies to take some steps to ensure companies they import from meet certain standards. Not sure its a good idea though.

but the trolly types will tell us why its shouldn't be done until government does it when they will suddenly switch to a new state of certainty and lol at anyone who says what they used to say.

Yes, we all agree, market forces strongly favor child exploitation.

So far we've got.......

What else you got?

lol...we could put special stickers on products to let the consumer know that it was made with slave labor.

something with chains on it

Just like with GMO food.