> 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.
> 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.
Just trying to catch up on my
email, which I haven't been able to look at very much for the past few
days. This caught my eye. All I can say is Good grief, Thomas,
you're predicting something as big as the second coming of Christ!!
Ed
----- Original Message -----
From: "Thomas Lunde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2003 2:03 PM
Subject: Re: [Futurework] Free Trade kills :: Why not :economy games" like
"war games" instead of economy like war?
>
> 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
