Um... no.

You REALLY need to find some real world perspective.

Here is a good start.

Childhood Labour.  Good or Bad?

My guess is you said Bad.

You couldn't be anymore wrong.

The banning of Childhood labour in third world countries only correlates with one thing.   Childhood deaths.

Whenever childhood labour is banned in a poor country child mortaility greatly raises because children in some countries need money to eat.  They starve. 

You are trying to apply a very specific western view to the entire world.

A dollar here isn't a dollar in Zimbabwe.   You need to look at exchange rates and Purchasing Parity Power... aka what you can buy with what you are being paid.  You can buy a lot more in Zimbabwe with the "slave wages" you are getting paid then you could in the US.

Also what you are paid versus the wages currently available in your country.

Nah, if you have just a weak middle class there is a HUGE chance that anything that is out of your control could destroy it and screw you.

Basic Machevelli.  You need to make sure the people give are your base even if you don't give a shit about them.

That and you'd want to promote class and racial inequality as a big deal as a means to have the poor at odds with each other.

That way it deflects the anger.  Poor minorities are mad at the majority in general.  While the poor majority instead of being made at the rich people get mad at the minorities for getting extra benefits despite the fact that they are just as poor and don't know any super rich guys who give a damn about them but are treated as if they are in the same club.

Really... an optimal behidn the scenes puppet government would operate a lot like Bill Clinton.

Honestly capitalism is a horrible system of government in general to have a puppet government.  Your better off it communism or psuedo capitalism with lots of direct controls... take China for example.  China right now are doing a brilliant job of managing the economy so they get the benefits of capitalism to their people, but can still hold them down.  The growing chinese middleclass is greatly reducing strife and mistrust with the government.

Destroy the middle class and your screwed... allow the middle class to eaisly bridge into wealth and you've got the risk of putting more players on the board who's ideals you can't control.

Nah you'd want to be like Clintoneque.  Try for a strong middle class, try to make the poor rely on the government so they don't want to ever take it down and put in plenty of barriers for new people to become super rich via higher tax rates on earned income.  Keeps the old money strong.

I'm actually building a studio in my office in hopes of doing that :-p

Compare and contrast the growth rate and standards of living in countries that are supposedly being "exploited" by western powers to those that are free from western influence. Would you rather have the average standard of living of Zimbabwe or Japan, Haiti or South Korea, Guinea or China, Gambia or India?

Are the citizens of Japan worse off for being "exploited" by American industry after World War II?

Are the citizens of South Korea worse off for being "exploited" by American industry after the Korean War?

Are the citizens of North Korea well off for being free from Capitalist influence?

Now to make my point on how the citizens of these countries feel about being "exploited" ... If a company moves to your town, hires you with little or no education or experience, and started paying you $250,000 per year would you be upset if people in another part of the world who have a dramatically higher cost of living earn far more than you?

stupid point is irrelevant.

@ mr. stickball

You act like the people that are promoting the wars aren't the same people decrying taxation.  The very opposite is true  I agree the wars are an incredible economic drain.  But the Cheney/Rove neo-cons are the ones that want the Bush tax breaks wars = no deficit.  Which just is impossible.

So which definition of exploit or exploitation includes the collaboration of two parties for their mutual benefit?

I think you need to consider that there are social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, libertarians (or classical liberals), independent voters and partisan republicans who vote for the republicans; and just because one segment of their supporters favoured both the wars on terror and tax-cuts without spending cuts does not mean that everyone did/does.

I’m not an American but I supported the initial effort in Afghanistan (as did the United Nations and most western countries) because there was a legitimate reason to go to war, I rejected the war in Iraq because I doubted the reason to go to war, and I believe that since the United States choose these wars they have an obligation to remain in both countries until they are stable and secure countries with growing economies and raising standards of living. I am for tax cuts but only if there is a proportional decrease in spending, and I believe that cutting taxes without cutting spending is just as reckless as increasing spending without increasing taxes; and the deficit spending that results from either is more damaging in the long run than the problems you’re trying to solve with the increased spending or decreased taxes.

Right.  But if you look at the voting records in the Senate, especially, this never happens, especially on the Republican side, but true for both major parties.  The thought that cutting taxes for the rich will stimulate jobs and wealth trickling down to the rest of the country has utterly failed.  It only furthered the re-distribution of wealth in the upper 1/2 of 1% of the country.  And they cry about Obama or whomever "redistributing wealth" as if it's a criminal concept - - when that's what they themselves have been doing since 1980 (with the aid of Clinton, to an extent, once he had loss of the Congress midway through.)  

They've squeezed out the moderates in the Republican party in a race for the money that comes from the extreme social conservatives who are trying to cling to a fundamental  Christian model for the country:  which of course is ironic in that Christians are taught to care for others and the poor and the weak and they turn around and cut every support possible and treat the poor like their own personal slave labor force.  Their response is that the private sector and charitable organizations will pick up the slack through donations, but it's just not the case, especially in economic situations like our current one.  Charitable donations are way down except in the case of a disaster, like Katrina or Haiti.  People just don't feel like they have the extra money because the short term future is so uncertain.  But the people claiming the moral purity are largely using that as a front - - they delivered very little on that front throughout the Bush years.  Their larger goals are really to protect their money and the corporate structures they all have large investment and stake in and that fund their campaigns.  (The latter is true for most of both sides.)  You only need to look at how they handle reform on Wall Street, the banking crises and the BP oil spill to see this.