Bangladesh

Now that I have a little time, I feel obliged to explain.
Wikipedia gives a fairly accurate account on the development of the Bangladesh textile industry.
Bangladesh was very much like China when it comes to foreign investments on the manufacturing sector - except that Bangladesh was not able to prosper the way China did in the same time frame.

To simply put:
At the beginning factories were developed by foreign investors (I believe they are led by Li & Fund HKG) but were government owned i.e. joint venture.
Then they were de-nationalized - government made money by selling them to foreign investors.
Then smaller foreign investors flooded the country, establishing small factories, making some local people rich.
So these locals were able to establish their own even smaller factories.
These small factories all compete in price and minimum n order to gain business - in the hope they could expand, to compete with bigger ones.
Reduction in wage to compete starts with the smallest factories and ripples up but ends at factories certified by global social compliance organizations like WRAP.
So when the documentary spoke of cutting wages, it was the small business operators - and I think this is clear.

Now fair trade.
I don't need to explain this kills the only way that the smallest business could ever compete and grow.
And that's the agenda of capitalism in perfect disguise.

But then this topic seems to have nothing to do with God, doesn't it?

I only saw this thread recently.

The documentary in question is called "The True Cost". The movie invites us to consider the "costs" that are not included in the price tag of clothing nor the bottom line profit of companies, such as:
1. Cost of pollution to the environment
2. Cost of suicides/deaths due to poor working conditions, poor construction and accidents
3. Cost of birth defects, diseases and mental illnesses caused by contact with pesticides and chemicals
4. Cost of farmers having their land seized and suiciding due to the monopoly of genetically-modified seed companies
5. Cost of displacement of habitat and loss of drinking water to local communities and animals from pollution
6. Cost of waste from unwanted clothing
7. Cost of consumers wearing clothing that are made using harmful materials or chemicals

By choosing to focus solely on the money and calling the movie "very biased", you ignore the documentary's core premise -- which asks the audience to shop less, which inevitably would lead to lower profits for everyone but would however help save on the costs above.

Does this topic relate to our beliefs? I believe it does because:
1. Our creator cares for the land and animals, and humans are supposed to govern it
2. Our creator cares for social injustice such as oppressing of the poor. (e.g. Eze 22:29, Micah 2:1-2)
3. His law asks for repayment of life for life (such as Ex 21:29). So if certain people/corporations or knowingly putting lives in danger due to working conditions, pollution, etc. their lives should be responsible.

Had not capitalism invaded Bangladesh, we didn't need the Savar Building to kill thousands. Hunger would, and many times more.
Unlike China, Bangladesh did not have much farmland to begin with to supply for it's population. What would they have done to survive?

Similarly on the Uzbekistan cotton ban, would the children have spent more time in school?

Do the people, who made the documentary, have any solution to meet with the basic needs of the people there?

Do they believe productions out of China, Vietnam, Cambodia, Thailand, Myanmar, Mauritius etc have found means to stop or to lessen impacts on lives and environment?

Morgan: I'm probably most proud that we avoided easy answers and instead chose to trust people to both feel and think deeply about the issues raised.

Huh?

boyscout wrote:

Had not capitalism invaded Bangladesh, we didn't need the Savar Building to kill thousands. Hunger would, and many times more.

That's an assumption.

boyscout wrote:

Unlike China, Bangladesh did not have much farmland to begin with to supply for it's population. What would they have done to survive?

No one suggested to not have textile manufacturing done in Bangladesh. But if consumers, corporations, and government cared, factories could have been built with greater awareness of working conditions, safety, and pollution.

boyscout wrote:

Do the people, who made the documentary, have any solution to meet with the basic needs of the people there?

Again, you are choosing to focus on the costs that ARE being captured in price tags and bottom lines. There are industries such as oil drilling or plastics that bring great wealth to the world and benefit consumers, corporations, developing countries. It's because the world is driven only by financial gain that these have become huge industries. That does not mean it is good for the environment, for animals, for our next generation. It is worth thinking about the other things that matter besides wealth.

boyscout wrote:

Do they believe productions out of China, Vietnam, Cambodia, Thailand, Myanmar, Mauritius etc have found means to stop or to lessen impacts on lives and environment?

As far as I know, the documentary did not promote certain countries' production vs. others.

boyscout wrote:

Morgan: I'm probably most proud that we avoided easy answers and instead chose to trust people to both feel and think deeply about the issues raised.

Huh?

That is the point. To raise some questions that we can think about. It may be that after all you decide to do nothing or that the best course of action is what you're already doing. By jumping to conclusions you deny others that opportunity.

You are totally right.