On Sat, 02 Mar 2002 18:31:20 -0800, Harry Pollard wrote: > At 12:34 AM 3/3/2002 +0100, Christoph Reuss wrote: > >Harry Pollard wrote: > > > You "don't advocate the butter mountains" - you merely advocate the > > > restrictionist policies that create the butter mountains. > > > >Neither. The EU's butter mountains are a result of corrupt concentrations > >of corporate power -- something that I'm the last one to advocate! > > I see we have to begin at the beginning. No farmer in the free market would > build a mountain of butter at a direct loss. Not even a corporate farmer - > for corporations don't like losses.
Strawman argument again -- I didn't claim that the free market creates butter mountains. But the free market is not the only way to remove the BMs, so no need to peddle the FM by the BM argument. > > > I don't advocate any insanity. I merely think that people should be >allowed > > > to trade freely, without your blokes sticking their noses in where they > > > aren't wanted. > > > >I see: starving African people *want* to export food to the EU, right? > > Perhaps you should ask them. If they don't want to export food you should > find out why. I bet it's those African corporations that are doing it! If they don't want to export food perhaps it's because they're starving already? You bet, it's those African corporations / corrupt "elite" few who are exporting it. (The kind of guys who are importing arms instead of food, medicals etc.) > >If "Free" Trade is what the people want, then why does the WEF, WTO, G8 > >etc. have to meet in bunkers and secret greenrooms, without any democratic > >control or legitimation ? > > Do I have to tell you everything? The job of these international agencies > is to persuade those with the privilege of raising prices to the poor to > give up these privileges. Since those with the privilege of raising prices are a small minority, I would think that they could be dealt with by democratic means. But that is not how the WEF &Co. works -- on the contrary. > This, and the threat of force (which doesn't amount to much with the Yanks > and the Euros) is all they have to break the strangleholds of the > monopolistic corporations. It probably has to be done behind closed doors > - or the WTO would be speaking to themselves. No, *this* would be even more effective in public, but this is not the goal. > So they wheel and deal to carve little chips off the protectionist > structure. If you study the structure of US agricultural subsidies, isn't it interesting how compatible to the WTO they are, *although* they feed the fatcats. Perhaps you believe in too many fairytales from the WTO (like you did with the healthcare privatization thing). > > > I recall a particularly interesting exchange back in the forties. Trees > > > were cut down in Norway and sent to Britain to be sliced into match s >sticks. > > > Then they were sent - I think to Sweden - to be tipped. Then they >were sent > > > back to Britain to be packaged and sold. > > > > > > Why? Because that was the best way to do it. > > ^^^^ > >"Best" by which criteria? "Best" for whom? E.g. for the people who live > >along the highways on which the trucks are taking the stuff back and forth? > >(Btw, the EU is full of such examples.) > > Actually, Chris, trucks don't travel across the North sea. How about answering my questions instead of making silly evasions? Trucks travel from the ports on to the factories and supermarkets throughout the continent. Both the trucks and the ships generate a lot of pollution. > The reason why tariffs, quotas, and > non-tariff barriers to trade exist is not to diminish profits. The barriers > are erected to raise profits. A "minority of bullies" find their way to > profit maximization by preventing competition - not by allowing it. Your free trade fairy tales (FTFT) have long been disproved by reality. > I used to send plain text, but I thought that pretty much > everyone now uses E-Mail programs that handle HTML. I've been experimenting > with HTML and forgot to turn it off. If you haven't got such a program some > of the best are free. HTML is a waste of bandwidth by a factor of more than 2. > It's a matter of courtesy to enclose a full quote. This means that when I > answer several different paragraphs, the reader can check to see if I'm > using them out of context. You don't even answer direct questions, so why bother to enclose a full quote? Chris
