How you describe is not how demand & supply works. To think that every product China puts on Amazon and whatnot is there because there's demand for it doesn't make sense. A lot of the time existence of supply creates demand. I see it first hand all the time. Some new thing is put out (accessory, electronics, etc), everyone gets on the bandwagon and buys it. It also helps if there's fashionable aura and gov subsidies (EVs). If it was not made & sold, people would instead buy something else made locally even if it cost more or simply not buy.
Yes, part of it is consumer choice (and yes some consumers do choose to not buy if they think it supports environmental damage or such) but it's wrong to pretend one side is the one who makes all the choices and the other side is powerless to resist because it's convenient for your argument.
> because everything's produced in the neighboring country
Unless the first country dictates neighbouring country's policies, not sure it's that relevant.
> it seems like a philosophical question about economics. Do you go to work willingly, or because you're forced to, because you want to be able to afford food, housing, and iPhone 17?
Either there's freedom of choice or not. This logic can go to "I should deceive people or dump waste into rivers or use slave labour, because market & I want to afford a new fancy yacht or invade a country". Yes, I can choose not to work or do different work that is more or less friendly to environment and I use an old iPhone.
> their citizens are forced by government to give up sources of income
There's unlimited hypotheticals. Should we say we are forced to give up sources of income if they involve crime or morally wrong things that are discouraged?
> And consumers in the West enable this behavior by wanting the cheapest bang for the buck.
"Enabling" can be used to justify anything or assign any guilt. It's a bit narcissistic. It reminds me of "America started the war in Ukraine" a little.
> Or it's a tragedy of the commons scenario.
I agree there is some tragedy of the commons here.
Yes, part of it is consumer choice (and yes some consumers do choose to not buy if they think it supports environmental damage or such) but it's wrong to pretend one side is the one who makes all the choices and the other side is powerless to resist because it's convenient for your argument.
> because everything's produced in the neighboring country
Unless the first country dictates neighbouring country's policies, not sure it's that relevant.
> it seems like a philosophical question about economics. Do you go to work willingly, or because you're forced to, because you want to be able to afford food, housing, and iPhone 17?
Either there's freedom of choice or not. This logic can go to "I should deceive people or dump waste into rivers or use slave labour, because market & I want to afford a new fancy yacht or invade a country". Yes, I can choose not to work or do different work that is more or less friendly to environment and I use an old iPhone.
> their citizens are forced by government to give up sources of income There's unlimited hypotheticals. Should we say we are forced to give up sources of income if they involve crime or morally wrong things that are discouraged?
> And consumers in the West enable this behavior by wanting the cheapest bang for the buck.
"Enabling" can be used to justify anything or assign any guilt. It's a bit narcissistic. It reminds me of "America started the war in Ukraine" a little.
> Or it's a tragedy of the commons scenario.
I agree there is some tragedy of the commons here.