Ray, Oh, that Phenomenology.
Shows the inadequacy of philosophy as compared to science. Harry -----Original Message----- From: Ray Evans Harrell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 2:16 PM To: Ray Evans Harrell; Harry Pollard; 'Christoph Reuss'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Futurework] E.European Women discover the Joys of Free Trade Phenomenology of Fire rather REH ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ray Evans Harrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Harry Pollard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "'Christoph Reuss'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 4:39 PM Subject: Re: [Futurework] E.European Women discover the Joys of Free Trade > Gee Harry, have you ever read the Phenenology of Fire? > > REH > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Harry Pollard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "'Christoph Reuss'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 2:22 PM > Subject: RE: [Futurework] E.European Women discover the Joys of Free > Trade > > > > Chris, > > > > We have fallen into the trap of word definition. Any word can mean > > anything you want it to and people often use the same words to mean > > different things. Then they cannot possibly find agreement. > > > > I've told you what I mean by free trade again and again. It is > > simply the dropping of tariffs and quotas and antidumping > > legislation that now stop goods coming into the country. > > Internally, a free market removes restrictions on the passing of > > goods and services between people. > > > > It is the essence of freedom. > > > > It doesn't mean you remove such things as health regulation or the > > banning of dangerous substances. It doesn't mean the ending of > > pollution restrictions and suchlike. It also doesn't mean the > > coercion and force that are present in such things as the trade in > > prostitution. > > > > The free market tends to produce better quality goods at lower > > prices -- by competition. > > > > People who dislike the market lay every problem on it. It seems that > > every nasty thing that happens across the world is labeled free > > trade. It's rather like Orwell's "1984" (peace is war). > > > > I personally like people, and peoples, coming together and > > cooperating. The first expression of this is the trading of goods > > and services which, as Keith has noted, has happened since the dawn > > of history. > > > > There are other considerations. The old free trade dictum said "if > > goods don't cross the frontiers, armies will". That makes sense to > > me. Interdependence is an important factor in maintaining the peace. > > > > A warning note is sounded when a nation decides to become > > self-sufficient. > > > > The Third World antipathy stirred up by the WTO is not because they > > are advocating free trade, but because free trade has not been > > generated. The major contenders in the global market -- Europe and > > the US -- have maintained their tariff structure and coupled it with > > enormous subsidies to agriculture and other industry. The Third > > World has been prevented from earning a living. No wonder they are > > annoyed. > > > > The Third World is not blameless. Governments are riddled with > > corruption. Money that comes to them from the developed nations > > doesn't often seem to reach the people it is designed to help. My > > favorite, as I've said, is the $60 million that Nigeria "lost". > > They simply have no idea what happened to it. > > > > I'm not against government, but I have a jaundiced view of > > governments as they have developed. This extends to international > > government organizations such as the IMF, the World Bank, and the > > WTO. I had some hopes for the WTO as its intention, which was to > > break down barriers, seem good to me. However, as I've mentioned, > > the big boys won't play and that makes a mockery of any good > > intentions. > > > > The international government organizations seem to follow the "least > > exertion" principle and adopt a 'one size fits all' > > program. Instead of analyzing the problem of a particular country, > > they try to make it conform to their standard plan. The result is > > sometimes disaster. In their defense, we should note that the IMF is > > usually not called in until the country is already a basket case -- > > the result of the ineptitude of their government. > > > > What I would like you to do is to stop labeling any disaster a > > result of free trade. We don't have free trade. We have very unfree > > trade, for the fingers of government poke into every aspect of our > > lives. Trade is now distorted and murdered by governments. > > > > So, let's talk about the same subject. Either the monumental > > government interference in our lives, or the freeing of people to do > > their own thing in harmony and with profit to everybody concerned. > > > > Harry > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > -------- > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christoph > > Reuss > > Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 4:45 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: [Futurework] E.European Women discover the Joys of Free > > Trade > > > > About what "free trade" means: > > > > I wrote: > > > The free trade/market is characterized by the lack of (or > > bypassing > > > of) regulations (from gov't) and of ethical considerations, and > > by > > > treating humans as commodities. All these criteria are met in > > the > > > trade described in the forwarded article, so it does have a lot > > to do > > > with free trade/market. (Note that it's a trade _with_, not > > > _by_prostitutes.) > > > > Harry replied: > > > Free trade is simply the breaking down the barriers between > > people -- > > > and between peoples. The restrictions that stop people from > > > cooperating are removed for everybody's benefit. > > > > The two definitions above are not incompatible, except for the last > > part ("for everybody's benefit"), which is in contradiction to the > > example. > > There are countless other examples (externalization of costs) where > > removal of trade restrictions is harmful to many, such as the tunnel > > fire example which you still didn't care to reply to. > > Another example is that bans on hazardous substances (e.g. food > > colorants) must be lifted by countries that previously had these > > bans, because the FTers (WTO) consider the bans "trade barriers". > > This is harmful to anyone except a few shareholders of the > > substances' manufacturers and the pharma industry that benefits of > > the resulting cancers etc. > > > > > > > Free trade means dropping tariffs, quotas, anti-dumping > > measures, and > > > the rest. It allows people freely to exchange their goods and > > services > > > for the benefit of all. > > > It has nothing to do with the coercion of human beings, so your > > > > > suggestions are nonsense > > > > It has a lot to do with coercion, such as being forced out of > > business just because polluters and exploiters (wage dumpers) > > produce cheaper stuff. > > > > > > > Protection is the opposite of free trade. It is the granting of > > > > > privileges to certain groups of people, or corporations, or > > political > > > cronies. Protection allows them to get rich at the expense of > > the > > > consumer, which is everyone of us. > > > > Free trade allows polluters and exploiters to get rich at the > > expense of the planet's inhabitants and workers, which is everyone > > of us. > > > > > > > I cannot understand your support of privilege, but apparently > > that is > > > what you do. > > > > If clean air/water/etc. and decent wages are a privilege, then I > > support privilege. If making $10,000+ profits by selling crappy > > unsafe cars (SUVs) --instead of $1000 profits with good cars-- is a > > privilege, then _you_ support privilege, or so you did recently on > > this list in the SUV thread... > > > > Chris _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
