I thought I sent this out earlier but it didn't appear on my email from the
list so I'll send it again.
Selma
----- Original Message -----
From: "Selma Singer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 11:03 AM
Subject: Re: Whining ("Stop it! And say: 'Thank you'! .... )
> Harry,
>
> It may get untangled if you can answer a few more questions for me; let's
> take them one at a time.
>
> Are you suggesting that all those who work, at any level, receive the full
> value of what their work produces? That is, there would be an accounting
> system that would be able to account for the value of what every person
> produces, from the lowliest laborer to the ceo and that person would
> receive, in payment, exactly what s/he is worth in terms of her/his
> contribution to the ultimate product. The accounting system would have to,
> of course, take into consideration all the maintenance, upkeep, research
and
> development costs as well as the cost of maintaining the roads, airports,
> waterways, fire and police departments, sewer and water systems, etc.
> necessary for the businesses to function.
>
> Selma
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Harry Pollard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Selma Singer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Brad McCormick, Ed.D."
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Ray Evans Harrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: "Mantle, Rosalyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Anthony, David"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Bradskey, Teresa"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Cole, Karen Watters"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Dawn Anthony" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Downs ,
> Jason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Dunn, Darcy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "H,
Joan"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "harrell, jane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Krueger,
> Jack A." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Sagowa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
"Sleigh,
> Ben and Roz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Watters, Valorie"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
> "futurework" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 5:16 PM
> Subject: Re: Whining ("Stop it! And say: 'Thank you'! .... )
>
>
> > Selma,
> >
> > As you probably realize, I'm replying to the interesting posts that I
put
> > on one side to answer later.
> >
> > I use the word "capitalism" to describe what we have now. Capitalism, in
> > practice, is not a lot different from socialism, in practice. They are
> both
> > mixed economic systems in which there is a divide between the leaders
and
> > the followers. In both, there are the very well off and the poor.
> >
> > I approve of a free market system which is the opposite to those mixed
> systems.
> >
> > You say the bottom line for capitalism is making a profit. I assume you
> > mean the companies in the economy.
> >
> > How may that profit be maximized? In an economy that is swollen with
> > subsidies, protection, and market regulation - or in a market economy in
> > which "cut throat competition" and the "Law of the Jungle" describe the
> > arena in which they struggle to supply us with the things we want.
> >
> > I should say in passing that in any sensible economics, profit has no
> > meaning. It is an accounting term meaning an excess of income over
outgo.
> >
> > So you can have a balance - or you can give higher salaries to the
owners
> > to mop up the balance. Or you can have a "profit" which is really "set
> > aside" money for necessary maintenance or new equipment purchase.
> >
> > Profit is just an accounting term. It doesn't even show a healthy firm.
> > Maybe you get a "profit" by not replacing equipment you should replace.
> > That's a no-no.
> >
> > In a free market, how can a "capitalist" (which is all of us) advance
its
> > own interests? Only by supplying consumers with what they want - and
doing
> > it better than competing capitalists. Isn't that an excellent way to
> > improve the health of the community?
> >
> > The capitalist who best services the community will achieve the best
> > profit. The capitalist who fails to supply the community with what they
> > want will go broke - or will need to change his ways.
> >
> > Do you consider it untangled, Selma?
> >
> > Harry
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---
> >
> > Selma wrote:
> >
> > >So, maybe you can help me out here, Harry.
> > >
> > >I need to have someone explain to me how capitalism can exist
separately
> > >from the power it generates to maximize its own interests as the
> > >corporations do when the fix prices and ask for government bail-outs,
> etc.
> > >etc.
> > >
> > >The bottom line for capitalism is making a profit; given today's
> > >technologies, that's not easily done by small businesses; the logical
> > >progression of things (certainly not a new idea-see Karl Marx) is for
> > >businesses to become larger and larger until only one dominates in each
> > >industry. We are already seeing that progression. The very principle of
> > >either get bigger or die seems to me to be antithetical to the idea of
> > >competition.
> > >
> > >What I need explained is, as I said above, how can capitalism be
divorced
> > >from trying to exert its power in its own interests since capitalism is
> > >based on advancing its own interests and not the interests of anyone
> else.
> > >
> > >I know that theoretically, an intelligent capitalist will recognize
that
> > >her/his interests are served better when the community is healthy but
> even
> > >theoretically that appears to offer a conflict with making the most
> profit.
> > >
> > >So can someone untangle this for me?
> > >
> > >Selma
> >
> >
> > ******************************
> > Harry Pollard
> > Henry George School of LA
> > Box 655
> > Tujunga CA 91042
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Tel: (818) 352-4141
> > Fax: (818) 353-2242
> > *******************************
> >
> >
>
