Picking up on what Brad said about reality really being in the head. Following John Warfield and C.S. Pierce and many others who finally got it, it occurs to me that the concept of tariff has nothing to do with the theories but instead is simply a wall. We use walls for everything. The point is what works as a wall and what doesn't. Now if I was to use the local use of the ideal in the development of a wall then I would have to say that as few walls as possible are the best way to go.
For example, if your body doesn't use walls then you learn to live in the world with the elements and gain a vigor that is missing from the civilized society. If you get up each morning and go to the water for a cold bath no matter what the weather then you will not be cold in the winter or too hot in the summer and thus not need to use up all of that energy for heat and cool. If you don't have too many walls then you will feel the effects of air and water pollution and not be as prone to pollute them. If you only eat plants that are grown in the environment where you live (in season) then you will be much more in tune with the systems of your body which was built around such things. If you sleep under the stars then you will learn to retain your heat efficiently. If you sleep on the ground the same will be true. If you fast regularly and do cleansing rituals you will do the same for the inside as well. (flush and contraction) If you use as few walls as is possible then you will be able to wear only what you need and you will be more comfortable without all of those constraining clothes (body walls). Maybe we should call all of these tariffs. Or maybe we should just use as few walls as possible. Or maybe the ideal is no walls at all. No cars (transport tariffs), no houses (sleeping tariffs), no clothes (body tariffs), no families (social tariffs), no marriages (sexual tariffs) etc. Then we could all live in perfect harmony with nature like they used to. Oh goodness, do I sound like Rousseau? Was it Henry George Rousseau? Or were all of those Laisse Faire free market folks railing against market walls really closet Noble Savages? Then why are they against free love? And why aren't they Green in the environment? Maybe all of those professions actually act like people and work against each other to try to take over the center of power in order to build their own walls? Why? It ain't natural. Ask anyone. Gee! Lets just do away with all of those privileges from all of those walls. How do you feel about that Keith and Harry? Feel like sleeping outside in the snow for a while? It will be good for you and all of those other homos economicus's. Was that what Pol Pot was trying to do? Except he had everyone else live his dream with him in charge. Like the manor house, everyone should have a chance to live in their ideal dream for a while and see how they like it. Maybe the Noble Savage is the way to go, or maybe not. I'm 62, I know how I feel about that. I'm not romantic anymore. But I did have a beef sandwich today. Hope it wasn't from Canada. REH ----- Original Message ----- From: "Harry Pollard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Ed Weick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Keith Hudson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 3:22 PM Subject: Re: [Futurework] Camouflage -- again! ( was: Remaking America) > Ed, > > I'm not picking on you. Just that both of your posts invited comment. > > The lesson is that "People seek to satisfy their desires with the least > exertion." > > Your professor had it wrong. Erecting a tariff wall is not a "beggar my > neighbor". It's a beggar ourselves policy. > > When you or I work, we try to get as much back as we can for as little work > as possible. (Translation - as high a wage as possible for as few hours as > possible.) > > So, it makes sense that the more imports (wages) we can get for as few > exports (exertion) as possible should be our sensible objective. So, every > country in the world should be trying to import as much as possible, while > exporting as little as possible. > > Yet, we are persuaded the opposite. > > The things we produce, exchange, and receive as wages are material goods. > Introducing money seems completely to confuse common sense. As we get > "money" for exports but have to pay "money" for imports, it seems proper to > get lots of money from exports, while thriftily spending less on imports. > > Yet there isn't a member of this list who works for money. > > We work for bacon and eggs, shirts and shoes, and SUVs. Our wages are the > goods we get to keep us alive and make our existence tolerable. Money is no > more than a convenience to make trade more convenient. > > So, when trading, the object for both sides is to get more value from the > transaction - which means more goods. > > I'd be happy to help Japan with its export problem by taking all the goods > they want to send me. I promise not to send them anything back so I won't > increase their imports. > > They can send them to me directly to the beach where I'll be lying on a > large towel being shaded from the hot sun by a geisha, while another gently > fans me. > > I'm also willing to help Japan's unemployment problem by taking two ladies > off their unemployment lines. Japan would, of course, pay their expenses, > which would still further increase their export figures. > > I'm basically just a good person. > > I am ridiculing modern economics, but it lays itself open to ridicule. I > remember many years ago, noticing a peculiar thing in global statistics. > Total world merchandise imports were 5-10% larger than total world > merchandise exports. > > How can that be? If $1,000 dollars worth of goods are exported, how can > $1,100 arrive as imports at their arrival port? Do they pick up fish on the > way, or something? > > I'm not even sure they any longer use CIF (cargo, insurance, freight). They > may be using FOB (free on board) for everything. I'm out of touch. > > Anyway, the import statistics included the cost of getting goods there > (CIF). So, if two countries exported identical amounts to each other, each > would have a trade deficit with each other. It doesn't seem possible that > such a childish statistical error would be made but it was. > > One country acted differently - Canada. > > Canada's figures measured imports at the port of export, rather than at > their own port. Well that's sensible, so this reduced import figure > balanced their trade didn't it? > > Well, not quite. Canada didn't measure its exports at the port, but back > where things were produced in Alberta, or Saskatchewan. So, the cost (for > example) of transporting the grain from the prairies to the port wasn't > counted, thereby reducing the export figure. > > This allowed them to produce a deficit to view with alarm. > > "Those whom the Gods would destroy, they first make mad." > > Harry > ------------------------------------------- > > Ed wrote: > > >You may have a point, Keith. Tariffs are no longer in, so other means > >have to be used to reduce imports, boost exports, and get Americans to buy > >American. One of my long-ago economics profs called the competitive > >tariff raising games of the 1930s "beggar my neighbour > >policies". Increasingly making it more difficult for foreign producers to > >access the US market may be that kind of thing. > > > >As an aside, humerous but potentially dangerous, the prof had a habit of > >pounding the desk when he was making a point. One day, as he was pounding > >away at his most furious, a large section of the plaster on the ceiling > >came loose (because or workers on the roof) and rained down on the > >class. After that, he stopped pounding and started waving his arms in the > >air with equal ferocity. > > > >Ed Weick > > > > **************************************************** > Harry Pollard > Henry George School of Social Science of Los Angeles > Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 > Tel: (818) 352-4141 -- Fax: (818) 353-2242 > http://home.attbi.com/~haledward > **************************************************** > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.484 / Virus Database: 282 - Release Date: 5/27/2003 > _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
