Harry Pollard claimed: > You really are more amusing all the time. You get all worked up > about the chicken farmer Mohammed Hussein, yet you would not > countenance, I suspect, US Steel making the same complaint about > foreign imports.
What an unfounded allegation -- of course I countenance that. > > He says that today it costs about a > > thousand dollars to produce a ton of chicken meat in Iraq, while > > frozen imported chicken from overseas can be had for only $480. > > I know you are affronted by millions of Iraqis getting chicken > half price. All they will do with it is eat it, when they should > really be eating brocolli. You got it! :-) > You have a choice. You can support the obscene profits of > Hussein, or you can applaud the action of importers in providing > cheaper chicken meals for Iraqis. The economy can only work if the consumers' money is spent domestically. Consumers can only spend money if they have jobs to earn it. But maybe you want to sentence Iraqis to work as security guards instead of farmers. If you had read the article thoroughly, you would have seen that the farmer's "profits" are not "obscene", but they are used to pay workers' wages. In other words, they're not even profits, but covering costs. In your rants about "fatcats", "supporting privilege", etc., your mistake is that you don't distinguish between obscene profits and covering costs. The latter are re-spent for decent wages, environmental/animal-rights care and good product quality. Whereas obscene profits are just skimmed off by rich shareholders & managers at the expense of worker wages, environment and product quality. Sadly, so-called consumer organizations make the same mistake. Chris ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword "igve". _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
