Not really sure of what you are arguing here, Harry. On the one hand, you seem to be arguing that work can always be found, and on the other that the economy is so inadequate that there are large numbers of people in trouble. I think one has to understand that the economy responds to influences that are independent of government, but that government policy has a large bearing on how it will respond. It would seem that, right now, the US economy (perhaps the global economy) has taken a rather serious downturn and people are losing their jobs and their livelihood because of this, in many cases having to turn to church operated charities. What policies governments implement can slow or accelerate this process, though not likely reverse it. What the Bush administration is doing would appear to be accelerating it. It is almost as though Bush, through his tax cuts, has consciously decided to let the economy sink, abandoning the poor, but rewarding the rich. One could speculate that he foresees two US economies, a happy one for the rich but a very difficult one for the poor. We may be witnessing the emergence (unmasking?) of a class system with a wealthy nobility at the top, and a growing lumpenproletariat at the bottom. Of course there will always be peasants and artisan in between trying to move up, but deathly concerned about sliding to the bottom, and willing to take wage cuts to try to stay somewhere close to where they are.
Take a look at an op-ed piece in today's NYTimes: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/29/opinion/29HERB.html?th Ed Weick ----- Original Message ----- From: "Harry Pollard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Ed Weick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "futurework" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 1:27 PM Subject: Re: [Futurework] Fw: Reality Internet > > Ed, > > People in trouble can be helped by churches and other good people who do > that kind of thing - until they get back on their feet. > > Work can always be found for people who are unable to do very much - either > because they are not particularly clever, or because they have some kind of > disability. In all cases there need be no loss of "dignity" because these > things happen (shrug) and a helping hand at the right time does a mess of > good. (I think those last few words are colloquial American rather than > anything English.) > > Except, the modern economy is so inadequate that those in trouble are not a > small number eagerly helped, but a huge proportion of every country's > population. (People in trouble are not only those in the soup kitchens.) > > Economic problems cannot necessarily be laid at the feet of economists. As > a group, the economists I have known have been generally been superior > people. However, they are working with inadequate tools. At the time they > should be querying the flawed material, they are busy trying to get their > degrees, so the economic ABC's are accepted quickly as they head toward the > difficult stuff. > > I've only been friendly with one Nobel economist, and much of what he said > I didn't understand. But, he was enthusiastic and was good enough to think > (or pretend) I understood. (On the other hand, the economic Nobels I did > understand I was mostly confronting.) > > Yet, none of them, right or left wing (try to imagine right or left wing > physics or chemistry) know enough about the economy to ensure that anyone > who wants to work has many choices from which he can pick. > > It's a problem of distribution. Yet, so inadequate is modern economics, > that it cannot provide us with just economic distribution, but must rely on > political distribution - a practice guaranteed to inspire a web of > corruption and inevitable injustice. > > All because economists were swept through the inadequacies of their basic > theory by the need to get to the complicated stuff. There is no time to > discuss what should be the simple question - which you have heard before. > > "Why in spite of increase in productive power do wages tend to a minimum > which will give but a bare living?" > > This was asked in 1979. I suppose not even Brad can blame failure to answer > this on Bush. > > Harry > > ---------------------------------------------- > > Ed wrote: > > >The following exchange is from another list in which the poor and working > >poor discuss their problems and those who are in a position to try to help > >them. Many of the problems arise out of the difficulty of accessing > >Canadian federal and Ontario programs, and the meanness of those > >programs. The messages say, in various forms, that if you are down and > >under there isn't much you can do to get up and out. "OW" is "Ontario > >Works", a program that makes welfare recipients work for the money they > >receive, which may not be bad in concept, but which is often very bad in > >application. > > > >The official line of the Government of Ontario is that "Ontario Works is > >working. Since 1995, approximately 600,000 people have left the welfare > >system, with savings to taxpayers of more than $13-billion." It doesn't > >say whether the people who have left the welfare system have found jobs or > >have simply fallen out of any system. > >Some of you may find the exchange interesting. > > > >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
