John, [Keith writes] Might I suggest with great respect that many of the weaknesses of the 'Seven Point Action Plan' could be overcome by a reading programme of world economic history. Keith, [Bill Ward writes] rather than sweepingly discounting everything you have written below [as you have done with John], I would simply like to say that in trying to discredit him, you might have been guilty of some generalizations, yourself. I, personally, have never failed, to be guilty of such things. Nevertheless, I feel that I need to respond in order not to lose the thrust of some very good ideas which John is positing that might move us forward as a civilization from where we are today. John offered: >All (?) of the economic relationships that history has seen, up to now, seem to have >been coercive - force-full - in nature. Keith responded: The parenthetical question mark is certainly needed because the rest of the statement is plainly false -- in a seriously big way, too. There have been several large trading networks that lasted for long periods without the faintest coercion being involved. Let me mention just one of these: the Phoenician trading system which connected most ports of the Mediterranean for almost three millennia. They had no empire and no army and operated from peaceful and totally defenceless utonomous city-states such as Sidon and Tyre. The Phoenecians were primarily Lebanese and Palestinians so we are talking here of something much more like a cartel than what existed between Harapa and Mohenjedaro in the Indus Valley Civilization, the Tigres/Euphrates society and the Egyptian kingships in the period around 2500 BC. While the latter trading [system] would be assumed to be based on mutual interest, where the system failed as an example was in the onerous burden the trade placed on the poor in each of these countries [the 'value added' piece that international economists refer to]. The trade was similar to that found today between the wealthy of different countries who are really marginalized away from the people of their own countries and are more like the weathy of other coutries. For example, the meetings of the Group of 77 nations was a meeting of those in the developing world who benefit individually from the actions of the WTO and IMF and are not likely to challenge the general thrust of those organizations, what we would call a scam game. This is akin [pardon the pun] of saying that the trade among European states in the 1700s and 1800s was another example of noncoercive exchange - however, the trade was carried out among nations who all had sovereigns who were relatives - another cartel. Without email, they had to make policy at weddings and funerals. I hope you don't think I'm being patronising [neither is the Miami population re the Elian issue], John, but please read your history books before you come out with such grand plans. Your ideas well-intentioned but many of them run counter to what has been tried and tested throughout history. The truth of the matter is that when coercive empires and aggressive nation-states have arisen in the past, then trade promptly declines and large segments of populations suffer great poverty. Best wishes, Keith Keith all of the best - but before closing, could I ask you to share just a wee bit of evidence to support your last couple of paragraphs above. --- Bill Ward Research Director Arthritis Research Institute of America [EMAIL PROTECTED] Join 18 million Eudora users by signing up for a free Eudora Web-Mail account at http://www.eudoramail.com