Re: Crony capitalism
Gee, if you'd just listen to me, you could have saved a lot of your valuable time... Eva ... List, I came to the conclusion that no overall policy, certainly no government-led policy, could solve unemployment problems or determine the nature of future work. Keith
Re: Crony capitalism
I am sorry, but at times I get pricked by all the self-congratulatory tone around here... If you didn't already know, sarcasm is pretty cheap. I've experienced yours before and I wish you'd learn some ordinary courtesy. Gee, if you'd just listen to me, you could have saved a lot of your valuable time... I agree with you about the UK - it is clear that they are re-doing some of the failed tory initiatives under new fancy labels. Without touching the economic structure they cannot but fail; there are no "new jobs" whether the unemployed are trained or not. Training consists of ways of grovelling to potential - usually illusory - employers, some basic wordprocessing skills and long sermons about being your own fault and not the decrepit social conditions if you won't succed. Eva As for the latest, brand-spanking-new employment policy of the UK government -- the NEW DEAL (about the fourth major governmental effort in the last 20 years) -- and only 12 months or so old -- what has happened? About one-quarter of the prime group that were targeted (young people) have dropped out and have subsequently lost all their unemployment benefit (what do they do? -- turn to crime?). One half of the remainder are disillusioned with the poor training they are getting (costing about 30,000 UK Pounds each), and the other half who manage to get into low grade jobs (employers being heavily subsidised for each trainee) will be ditched (and some have been already) at the first signs of economic downturn. Politicians and civil servants have very little idea of what the world of work is really like and anything they say or plan about it is usually ludicrous. Keith Hudson, General Editor, Handlo Music, http://www.handlo.com 6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England Tel: +44 1225 312622; Fax: +44 1225 447727; mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
FW Workfare )fwd)
-- Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1998 21:47:02 -0400 I recently received some information from a union that is attempting to negotiate the following letter of agreements with their employer groups.(I am not sure if this is public information so I will not name them at this point) I am hoping that other unions and employer groups will also work to do the same, especially public sector unions, teachers, social justice groups, and social sector groups, etc. Draft Language Letter of Agreement between (employer) and (union) Whereas participants under the Ontario Works Act who are the subject of employment assistance are the be deprived of the protection of the Labour Relations Act, the Employer and the Union hereby agree as follows: i. The employer will not hire, engage or otherwise assign work or duties either directly or indirectly to any person who receives employment assistance under the Ontario Works Act unless such person is hired in accordance with the provisions of the collective agreement and such individual is entitled to all rights, benefits and privileges under the collective agreement. ii. This letter shall be appended to and form part of the collective agreement. Dated at _ (city), this _ Day of ___, 199_ For the Employer _ For the Union For more information about workfare in Ontario visit the Workfare Watch Project Website at: http://www.welfarewatch.toronto.on.ca/ Thank all, S Sherrie Tingley Barrie Action Committee for Women [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Crony capitalism
Tor Forde wrote:
Keith Hudson wrote:
And again, monopolies always fail. The more successful ones are those that
persuade governments to enact protective legislation. But protectionism
only works for a while, weakens their main purpose and causes them to lose
touch with reality and new needs.
Can this statement be called an exaggeration?
England was built upon monopolies.
[snip]
Somebody gotta help me understand this: Now,
it is my understanding that every capitalist's
objective is to destroy the competition (horizontally
and vertically). This is not only an abstract
fantasy, but something the most successful of them
often do pretty well at succeeding at (Standard
Oil, IBM, Microsoft, etc.). All the "competitors"
on all sides try to manipulate *regulation* in their
favor, with various forms of protectionism and
enforced "open markets" (The Japanese didn't
exactly want Admiral Whateverhisnamewas who
visited Edo in the mid-19th century and explained
to them that they would freely trade with the U.S.,
and I believe the factory system would never have
taken hold in England without police repression
of the workers, enclosure of the commons, etc.).
So I think the model must be that of the fat man
in Monty Python's _The Meaning of Life_: Corporations
eat up as much as they can until they burst (of
course this doesn't seem to happen: they just
keep getting bigger...).
As Prince Genji said: "Nothing lasts forever in this
world where one season changes into another." --
so why should we think that any monopoly won't
run into trouble eventually? The Roman Catholic
Church ran into trouble after ca. 1200 years.
And, in any case, there has never on earth
been a true monopoly -- there's always some
employee pilfering paperclips or something that
escapes the dictatorship of the managementariat.
And, most wonderful of all is how, when trade
is deregulated, we often end up paying *more*
for a worse product (like the current Airline
industry). What *was* so wrong with the ATT
phone monopoly? At least then government *could*
conceivably oversee what was happening, instead
of all the "competitors" pleading incuplability
due to "competition gives me no choice"?
Somewhere in Das Kapital is the wtory about
how the only way the work day could be
shortened was by *legislation*, since
competition would never allow an employer to
do better for his employees than the rest
(it would -- God save us! -- raise his *costs*!).
It almost makes me agree with the Darwinists
that language is not *meaningful* but only
a way for genes to struggle for dominance, etc.
But of course that is not true: Language is
a key instrument for "winning hearts and minds",
and the prime target of psychological warfare is
always a country's own "people" ("Civilization
and its Discontents"...).
\brad mccormick
--
Mankind is not the master of all the stuff that exists, but
Everyman (woman, child) is a judge of the world.
Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
914.238.0788 / 27 Poillon Rd, Chappaqua, NY 10514-3403 USA
---
![%THINK;[SGML]] Visit my website: http://www.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/
