Morning Harry: Enjoying California weather here in the Great Northern Plains of Saskatchewan - hope you are enjoying the same.
The word "market" is a great big generalization. Underneath it is 10 million activiities. These activities are surrounded by laws and regulations to protect people from the market and direct the market into hopefully beneficial activities for all. Sad to say, these high ideals are often subverted by the actors in the market. It is even more compounded by the political actors who interact with the market for private gain over public good. Given that we were all given an "honesty pill" and a "let's share pill" and a "let's do no harm to our environment or the people in it pill" - the idealistic market might have some chance of living up to it's idealistic promise. Sad to say, such pills are unavailable. Underneath all the rhetoric is the sad truth of greed, exploitation, manipulation and philosophical distortion. I will make a little prophecy. The market as we know it will change from a profit driven activity that manipulates society to a sharing economy within the next twenty five years. For this current market will crumble. Millions will starve, die, be displaced and value will collapse. Out of these ruins will come the understanding of a cooperative market that redistributes the available goods and services in other ways. When the current crop of "experts" die off, new thought will come. What the shape of this new market will be will be answered by history. We will solve this problem and 200 years from now, people will study this last century with as much disbelief as we now think of nobility and kingship as a means of governance. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde ---------- >From: Harry Pollard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: "Thomas Lunde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: [Futurework] Free Trade kills :: Why not :economy games" like "war games" instead of economy like war? >Date: Sat, Oct 4, 2003, 3:23 PM > > Tom, > > The market is just a device for allowing people to exchange their goods and > services. It has no responsibility to anyone nor does anyone have a > responsibility to it. > > When a market is free, everybody benefits from its use. When everyone uses > the market and benefits from its use, then as they are the community, the > community benefits from the market "as if by an invisible hand". > > And that is all the "invisible hand" means. When every member of the > community is better off, then the community is better off. Does that make > sense? > > Harry > > --------------------------------------------------- > > Thomas wrote: > >> > Ed Weick wrote: >> > >> >> Brad, you seem to proposing that the market should be viewed as part of >> >> society, responsible to society, and not the other way around. What a >> >> radical thought! >> > [snip] >> >>Thomas: >> >>This is a radical thought that has a lot of truth in it and may answer one >>usasked question. What is first. The market or society. I would answer - >>society and society invents and defines the market to serve itself which is >>comprised of the individuals within that market - in current terms within >>our national boundries. An enlightened society would choose activities that >>benefited all members of that society - why because of the benefits of >>peace, order, safety, comfort, freedom, and choices offered to every >>individual. Currently we reward and idealize the rich and powerful. >>Perhaps that explains the defenders of the current society. They either are >>rich and powerful or aspire to be. A different ethos is possible, the >>greatest good for everyone and therefore a different activity of supply and >>demand might make more sense in the process of creating more equality. >> >> >> > >> > I don't think I've just drivelled out another obvious "romantic" >> > platitude, although I didn't give my reference: >> > >> > ...[T]he principle should be "Protect the worker, >> > not the industry." >> > >> > "Tariffs on steel: George Bush, protectionist: The >> > president's decision to place high tariffs on >> > imports of steel is disgraceful", The Economist, >> > 9-15Mar2002 (page ref. lost). >> > >> > This article is behind the pay-for barricade on the Economist >> > website -- It will take someone who saves the >> > print editions or has a subscription to get at the >> > article. >> > >> > But I believe the idea was that every country should provide >> > its workers a social safety net, and *then* remove >> > tariffs and let uneconomical industries fail if foreign >> > competition beat them. >> > >> > [Of course, this doesn't answer the question what to >> > do about a counry that is a universal loser like the >> > U.S. may have a predilection for tending to become -- >> > I'm thinking here about things like "Detroit" which >> > produces cars nobody except an American or somebody >> > with "American envy" -- would buy.] >> > >> > I hope this helps... >> > >> > \brad mccormick > > > **************************************************** > 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.comcast.net/~haledward > **************************************************** > > > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.518 / Virus Database: 316 - Release Date: 9/11/2003 > _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
