Re: FW: / BI: Harry Pollard
Bob, I'm no sure myself how this became a multiple posting, but we can break lose in due course. I must have replied to a multiple poster without realizing it. Some years ago, I had a radio program called "From the Radical Center". I pointed out that I was in neither the Left Corner, with their restrictions on Liberty, nor in the Right Corner with their restrictions on Liberty - Liberty being, of course, Freedom under the law. Rather, I was on a tack separate from both - in the Center. Yet the Center is thought to be a wimpish place for people afraid to take a position - hardly descriptive of me. Indeed, I was a radical - someone actively seeking the root cause rather than fiddling with effects. Thus the Radical Center and my description of a Radical Centrist. The term does bother some people safely ensconced in their unthreatening political niches, but there you are. I am philosophically opposed to forcibly taking from one and giving to another. As you may have read in an earlier post, I call this a Privilege - a private law intended to benefit one at the expense of another. Thus, I'm "philosophically opposed" to the idea of a Basic Income that takes from one and gives to another. You said: ROBERT: 'Harry says, "Basic income suggestions seem to be essentially welfare payments." Calling something a name doesn't make it either good or bad - it simply attaches a label, usually a threadbare label, which is supposed to bring certain pictures into the minds of the reader.' "Welfare payment" really touched a nerve, I fear. You must get this kind of comment a lot. A welfare payment presumably is taken from the better off to give to those in need. However, you couch it, that is precisely what a Basic Income seems to do. Indeed in your answer to Keith, you said: ROBERT: "One comment on that: Persons in need will certainly welcome it, as will those whose income is marginal." I suspect you mean they would welcome it because they are getting something for nothing. Now, you might suggest that they are welcoming it because it's a just distribution of society's Wealth At least, I would respond like that. But, to take that position, you have to separate Wealth produced by the community and which should be returned to the community, from Wealth produced by individuals that justly should remain with individuals. There again, we must consider how an individual obtains his Wealth. I doubt this is done in any society. If a person works for a large income, I would think that the income justly belongs to him - no matter how large. Nothing should be taken from him and given to those with "marginal incomes". On the other hand, if a robber steals to get his large income, he shouldn't keep any of it. It should be given back to those from whom he stole. Present policies everywhere seem to say - if you have a large income, a large piece should be taken and given to those with marginal incomes. This might be expedient, but it is hardly just. But, perhaps you believe charity is greater than justice - something philosophically rather suspect. However, you seem down of philosophical thinking. I blinked at your statement about who enforces a "philosophy. You said: ROBERT: "Obviously the ones that have the *physical* power (money, guns, influence or whatever) to enforce their point-of-view." Sounds like the same people who would enforce a"Basic Income". You mix your concepts a little but that's all right. You should know the difference between "power" and "authority". Power enforces - authority influences. So, a soldier with gun and bayonet is power. Einstein has authority. You obey the soldier's force, you may accept Einstein's authority. When you philosophize, you think about things and maybe come to a conclusion. How money and guns comes into it I don't know. But you do, so as long as one of us does, that's fine. Robert, you remind me somewhat of the 12th grader who declaimed: "We don't want ideas, we want action." You continued: ROBERT: "One of the things that Basic Income or GAI advocates are working towards is a society in which both the need and "idea" of welfare. whatever anyone's conception of it might be, becomes a thing of the past." However, I've probably got it all wrong. I'd like to know - how do welfare payments differ from payments made by a Basic Income policy? However, I am apparently trespassing on the Basic Income list, so if you don't wish to answer my simple question, please don't. I'm sure you've covered it all in the past and are now eager for action. It was nice of you to say I "haven't changed at all". To enjoy a consistent philosophy is indeed a boon. It was nice of you to appreciate that. Harry __ Robert Rosenstein wrote: >First, apologies if you are on both Lists and thus get this twice. Harry >wrote about Basic Income and Sent it to FW. > >Harry says he is "Philosophically" oppo
Re: FWk:Re: BI: BI or GAI ? (fwd)
Sally, I am philosophically opposed to a "Basic Income", for it seems to indicate that some people are getting an unfair and even criminal share of the pie, and that somehow we should take it back and share it out. As radical centrist, I would suggest that a better direction for effort would be to tackle those privileged people directly by ending the privilege. In the absence of doing the right thing, most basic income suggestions seem to be essentially welfare payments - particularly if they are not given out equally to all Such as Conall's suggestion of an : " 'Enterprise Allowance'. This would be given to all of working age (16-70 these days) who are actively engaged doing something useful." If a Basic Income is a right - everyone should get it. Does a baby have less right than an adult? If I work only enough to stay healthy - then hike in the mountains - am I not engaged in something useful, therefore unfit for a share?" We shouldn't get bitter about such things as: CONALL: "It's the ECONOMY that values the effort of say Tiger Woods playing games with stick and ball, and classifies caring for your children as 'unproductive'. There are even the truly farciacal campaigns to 'get mothers back to work' in both UK and US. Surely WE can think differently?" The so-called "ECONOMY" doesn't measure non-productive occurrences. Neither Tiger Wood, nor my wife, directly add to the total of production when they have finished their day's work. We can make up scenarios such as Tiger helping to sell gold clubs (production) - or my wife's successful work to keep me healthy so I can get to the factory every day - but their jobs are essentially service. Service doesn't add extra widgets, though in advanced economies service takes a greater and more important part of our energies. If there are economic measurements to be made, counted should be the extra widgets, not the activities of the hairdresser. However, the only reason for calculating the GNP, or the DNP, or the CPI, or any of these statistics is governmental. They are of little interest to anyone else, though perhaps they are the meat and drink of economists, who continually are searching for things on which to waste their time. Does anyone ever think that they can find a tiny fractional percentage increase in (say) the GNP from thousands - perhaps tens of thousands of measurements. When next month they tell us the GNP is increasing at 3%, it means that from all their sources, they've detected an 0.25% change. Baah! However, one tiny gleam of light shows itself: CONALL: "Now maybe instead is we raised tax by reclaiming for the community the value created by all our effortsResources Taxation, then we could claim that BI is an Entitlement Income, just like the dividend paid out to Aunt Maud on those bonds she inherited. But finding an appropriate way to raise the money to pay for BI is another story! (P.S. The British Chancellor Gordon Browne has gained £13 billion ($20 billion) selling fresh air! He is selling leases to use the airwaves. But who does that money belong to? Why shouldn't it be distributed as BI? Ah the joy of Resource Tax!)" If here is anything that really belongs to us all, it must be the electromagnetic spectrum. In the US the Feds split it into sections for AM and FM radio, and TV Channels - then give these bits of the spectrum away. These are great gifts that achieve a sales value often exceeding $100 million. Lyndon Johnson couldn't get a TV licence - he was a Federal employee. But Lady Bird could - and did. It would be of interest to see what kind of multi-millionaire she became because of that simple piece of paper. The value of the Channel location is created by the people who surround the station. It makes sense that they should get it back. In fact it is an example of simple justice that the value they create returns to them. In similar fashion, city land-values are created by the people of the city. Without people, city land would be worth nothing. So, again, these land-values, whose market value can become astronomical, are appropriate as a source of value to be recaptured by the people who created them. Yet these values are not a tax on the productive - a major criticism of "Basic Income". They are simply an example of a community value being recaptured by those who created it. Georgists who support this thinking call the recapture a "Citizens' Dividend". Looks a lot like a "Basic Income" to me - but with a distribution that seems just . I'll post this on the LandTheory list. Maybe you'll get some people who will answer your questions. Harry _ Sally wrote: >A stimulating note from thre Basic Income list Sally Lerner > > >X-Originating-IP: [193.60.131.100] > >From: "Conall Boyle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Subject: Re: BI: BI or GAI ? > >Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2000 10:55:24
Re: FW: Re: The Functions of Poverty (was Blaming the Victors)
Robert, You suggested: "society's rationalizations for not being able to solve its problems?" I suspect therein lies the problem. Society doesn't solve problems though it may create them. You and I solve problems. However as said Einstein (I think) in a quote that I enjoy: "Solutions are easy. The difficulty lies in finding the problem." Harry ___ Robert wrote: I sent this to BasicIncome by mistake. If you receuved it once already, my apologies. This is a response to JohnCourtneidje's posting about poverty. To the 15 points may be added: War is good because so many wonderful medical and technological inventions are made. If there weren't criminals, we wouldn't need the police and penal institutions, and unemployment would rise and the GNP would suffer. Emerson: for every evil there is a good and vice versa And, ultimately, Orwell: love is hate, war is peace . Aren't these nothing more than society's rationalizatios for not being able to solve its problems? Robert wrote: >I sent this to BasicIncome by mistake. If you receuved it once already, >my apologies. > >This is a response to JohnCourtneidje's posting about poverty. > >To the 15 points may be added: > >War is good because so many wonderful medical and technological >inventions are made. > >If there weren't criminals, we wouldn't need the police and penal >institutions, and unemployment would rise and the GNP would suffer. > >Emerson: for every evil there is a good and vice versa > >And, ultimately, Orwell: love is hate, war is peace . > >Aren't these nothing more than society's rationalizatios for not being >able to solve its problems? > >Robert > >Robert Rosenstein >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET! >Juno now offers FREE Internet Access! >Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit: >http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj. >- End forwarded message -- > > >YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET! >Juno now offers FREE Internet Access! >Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit: >http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
Re: FW: Breeding, was: Re: FW: The structure of future work...
>America succeeded because it was more seperated age and the Brits >couldn't intervene to stop the ethnic cleansing here in the way that Clinton >did in Kosovo and Bosnia. George Washington's name amongst the Iroquois >means "Destroyer of Villages."The invention of the murderous >Hunter/Gatherer pillager comes from Lewis Cass, Thomas Jefferson's >apologist and Andrew Jackson's Secretary of War. It is an invention >of his experience and a projection of his imagination. "They may have >been great once but they are now degenerate and deserve to die." A >sentiment echoed by "Wizard of Oz" author L. Frank Baum fifty >years later in his comment on his approval of the massacre at Wounded >Knee even as he lamented the loss of life amongst the soldiers who >murdered the women and children on Christmas. > >All of which is to say once more. If you control the history and define >the information that may enter the argument, then you can prove anything. >Ask President Bob Jones of Bob Jones University. His world is complete. >But completely wrong. > > >REH > > > >Harry Pollard wrote: >>Ray, >> >>You are quite right, Ray. Government run American education is a mess. It >>should be part of a private competitive system. Then things would improve. >> >>Harry >> >>Ray wrote: >> >> >Good point. I believe that Mike Hollinshead was the first to point >> >this out to me. I think that it will take a correlation of all of the >> >external factors with requisite comparisons before serious conclusions >> >can be drawn. Of course if you define the parameters you can >> >prove almost anything by virtue of what you leave out. >> > >> >One of the >> >things that is often left out of the Com/Cap comparison between the >> >U.S. and the old Soviet Empire is the weather. They didn't suffer for >> >want of oil but it was a hell of a lot easier to get it out of almost any >> >of our fields than it is out of Siberia. >> > >> >Agriculture is another point. >> >lf your growing season is short you need tremendous amounts of >> >land to compete with those who can plant many crops in a small >> >amount of land.And on and on. >> > >> >My point is that in areas where >> >we are roughly equivalent like education, we have gotten our behinds >> >whipped. >> > >> >The Arts are another area even though the official dogma >> >is that they were pampered, anyone who knows their refugees >> >finds the opposite is true although they are magnificently trained and >> >have far superior work experience since they did have work before >> >the collapse of the Soviet. >> > >> >American graduates who paid for their >> >own education have an average full time employment of 2%. They >> >also lose out to the émigrés because of the superior work experience >> >that they bring to America. That makes the competitive advantage >> >overwhelming in their ability to be creative, improvise and invent >> >new models. >> > >> >If you have no work experience, your creativity is >> >profoundly impaired as most of America's performing artists have >> >discovered. Those who have succeeded usually have European >> >experience to replace America's cultural poverty. >> > >> >William Bradford Ward wrote: >> > >> > > HARRY: Every year a bunch of US cardiac specialists went to the Soviet >> > Union and for two weeks, they would work solidly in a Moscow hospital >> > doing, I suppose, triage as they took patients from the multitude to >> > operate and save lives. I remember one comment from a US doctor. He >> > couldn't believe that the Head of Cardiology at the Moscow hospital got a >> > salary of $7 a week - about the same as a bus driver. A sure way to >> > attract the best people into medicine. >> > > >> > > I couldn't let Harry's comment go unnoticed although I really am not >> > interested in the communist/capitalist argument but do have problems with >> > people who use irrelevant arguments to make their point. >> > > >> > > At a meeting of the American Heart Association one year a bunch of >> > cardiovascular surgeons said that the reason that there had been a 30% >> > drop in cardiovascular deaths in the previous ten years was that open >> > heart surgery was up 30% in the same period. A biostatistician friend of >> > mine got up after that and showed that beer consumption was up 30% in the >> > same period and said that it was truly the increase in beer drinking. >> > > >> > > By the way, no one has ever been able to show any relationship between >> > health services in the US [except for immunizations] and improvement in >> > health [except for the health of health care workers].
Re: FW: Breeding, was: Re: FW: The structure of future work...
Ray, You are quite right, Ray. Government run American education is a mess. It should be part of a private competitive system. Then things would improve. Harry Ray wrote: >Good point. I believe that Mike Hollinshead was the first to point >this out to me. I think that it will take a correlation of all of the >external factors with requisite comparisons before serious conclusions >can be drawn. Of course if you define the parameters you can >prove almost anything by virtue of what you leave out. > >One of the >things that is often left out of the Com/Cap comparison between the >U.S. and the old Soviet Empire is the weather. They didn't suffer for >want of oil but it was a hell of a lot easier to get it out of almost any >of our fields than it is out of Siberia. > >Agriculture is another point. >lf your growing season is short you need tremendous amounts of >land to compete with those who can plant many crops in a small >amount of land.And on and on. > >My point is that in areas where >we are roughly equivalent like education, we have gotten our behinds >whipped. > >The Arts are another area even though the official dogma >is that they were pampered, anyone who knows their refugees >finds the opposite is true although they are magnificently trained and >have far superior work experience since they did have work before >the collapse of the Soviet. > >American graduates who paid for their >own education have an average full time employment of 2%. They >also lose out to the émigrés because of the superior work experience >that they bring to America. That makes the competitive advantage >overwhelming in their ability to be creative, improvise and invent >new models. > >If you have no work experience, your creativity is >profoundly impaired as most of America's performing artists have >discovered. Those who have succeeded usually have European >experience to replace America's cultural poverty. > >William Bradford Ward wrote: > > > HARRY: Every year a bunch of US cardiac specialists went to the Soviet > Union and for two weeks, they would work solidly in a Moscow hospital > doing, I suppose, triage as they took patients from the multitude to > operate and save lives. I remember one comment from a US doctor. He > couldn't believe that the Head of Cardiology at the Moscow hospital got a > salary of $7 a week - about the same as a bus driver. A sure way to > attract the best people into medicine. > > > > I couldn't let Harry's comment go unnoticed although I really am not > interested in the communist/capitalist argument but do have problems with > people who use irrelevant arguments to make their point. > > > > At a meeting of the American Heart Association one year a bunch of > cardiovascular surgeons said that the reason that there had been a 30% > drop in cardiovascular deaths in the previous ten years was that open > heart surgery was up 30% in the same period. A biostatistician friend of > mine got up after that and showed that beer consumption was up 30% in the > same period and said that it was truly the increase in beer drinking. > > > > By the way, no one has ever been able to show any relationship between > health services in the US [except for immunizations] and improvement in > health [except for the health of health care workers]. > > > > --- > > Bill Ward, MA, MPH, DrPH > > Research Director > > Arthritis Research Institute of America > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > On Wed, 26 Jan 2000 13:32:24 Harry Pollard wrote: > > >Victor wrote: > > > > > >>I am by no means a communist or socialist, but this looks like > > >>propaganda-sriven tunnel vision to me. Comments follow. > > > > > >I rarely find a genuine communist or socialist. Lots of waffling liberals, > > >but hardly any genuinely philosophic communists, or socialists. It's a > shame. > > > > > >Meantime, you did not answer a single point in my post. > > > > > >You said: > > > > > >VICTOR: "There were most certainly inequities with high party officials > > >living in > > >luxury and ordinary people living very humbly in crowded apartments. > (By the > > >way what's the difference in life-style between a US senator and your > > >average Washington, DC resident?)" > > > > > >HARRY: The Ukraine after the separation was landed with a dacha of a high > > >party official. The story appeared in the newspapers because they were > > >trying to get rid of it. They couldn
Re: FW: Breeding, was: Re: FW: The structure of future work...
Victor, The Russians are criminals. They must have slipped in with all the good people Ray talked about. So, the Russians are good and bad - heck, they must be human. The patenting of genes is an an outcome of the patent system. The problem can be solved by ending this system, but that's too radical for the modern liberal. But, it would end the problem. So, as you are busy being eluded, think a little about solving problems instead of commenting on them. Harry __- Victor wrote: >Thanks, Ray, for your very interesting and detailed information, both on >lead poisoning and on Russian immigrants. You did fail to mention one >important group among the Russians. Shall we call them the entrepreneurial >group? I mean the ones whose presence caused the Toronto police to set up a >"Russian crime unit". They stole two tractor-trailer loads of product >(natural gas fireplaces) from my employer 70 miles north of Toronto. It was >fortunately recovered when a Toronto cop spotted the cartons in a warehouse, >and a wiretap (requiring a translation from the Russian) led the police to >the boss. Harry Pollard might quibble about my choice of terms, but the >difference between these gentlemen and the American entrepreneurs trying to >patent the genes of indigenous people rather eludes me. > >Victor
Re: FW: Breeding, was: Re: FW: The structure of future work...
Bill, Thank you for not resisting: "another simplistic explanation of a complex problem." You didn't much like my "find out why the peasants are inefficient producers." and proceeded to explain to me how efficient they were. It seems to me that if they are so efficient, they shouldn't need the billions of dollars of aid that flows into the peasant cultures. If they are so efficient, why can't they feed themselves? Well, you have excuses for them - even though they don't need them. You declared in your complex fashion: "The peasant family is one of the most efficient farming units in the world." Then, why can't they feed themselves? I said essentially: "The way to attack the problem of services) is to make it possible for people to provide them themselves." "It must begin with a land reform that provides sufficient land for a family to live on and expand its production." ' . . . more plans to put hoes into the hands of peasants working their own land." " . . . they fail to carry out the important reform - letting people escape their problems with their own effort." "Instead of worrying about 3 billion mouths, think of 6 billion hands and how to put them to work." And the rest of paragraph, which you quoted: "Second, change the economic structure so that people can do things for themselves - instead of passing much of their production to the friendly neighborhood rack-renting landlords." Hey, Bill, sounds as if I think the peasants are quite capable of running their own lives, doesn't it? I also mentioned the Taiwanese peasants, who were so efficient that, with a population density exceeding 1,300 to the square mile, managed toproduce a net export of food. So, why are so much of the world's peasantry unable to produce efficiently enough to feed themselves. We have clues The peasants in the Mekong delta were highly efficient producers in that magnificently fertile area. Yet, there living conditions weren't good. Well, of every ten sacks of rice they produced, nine would go to the landholder. When American troops arrived to clear out the View Cong, behind them would come the cousins of the landlords to collect their 9 sacks. It was called 'winning the hearts and minds of the people'. I suggested, and you quoted it - (without apparently addressing it further): That there should be a change in the "economic structure so that people can do things for themselves - instead of passing much of their production to the friendly neighborhood rack-renting landlords." Yet again, I suggest that peasants can and should support themselves. But they can't - why? If you would stop looking for complicated reasons, there is a chance you could move to change the situation. The reason why the peasants may starve, thereby requiring aid, isn't difficult, if you take the trouble to think it through. Harry __ William B Ward wrote: >I can't resist another simplistic explanation of a complex problem. > >Re the comment: > > First, find out why the peasants are inefficient producers. >Second, > change the economic structure so that people can do things for > themselves - instead of passing much of their production to > the friendly neighborhood rack-renting landlords. > >The peasant family is one of the most efficient farming units i the >world. With the advent of Standard and Mobile Oil Companies as the >premier food producers in the San Juaquin Valley in California, >production per acre actually dropped but the sheer size of the farms >meant that the owners dominated the system for getting produce to market >and put the small farmer out of business. This process was repeated all >over the country and is repeated in many developing countries. The Green >Revolution in the Far East was the same. Although the local folks didn't >like the type of grain produced, the cost of adding fertilizer meant that >fields were exhausted much faster than was the case with the small >producer. I witnessed the same thing happening in Ghana among farmer >friends of mine who worked the land by hand but were unable to sell their >produce at a profit when large scale farming led to a surplus [at a >greater cost per acre]. The myth that small farmers are inefficient is >that they go out of business first since they don't have venture >capitalists supporting them. > >Bill Ward
Re: FW: Breeding, was: Re: FW: The structure of future work...
Ray E. Harrell wrote: >My apologies to the list for not being able to punch the >spellcheck button on the last two posts. It's the Neurontin. >Makes me woozy but fun. Ray, I've already said you write well. You write even better when you are stoned! But, get off it as soon as you can. Harry
Re: FW: Breeding, was: Re: FW: The structure of future work...
Ray, I suppose your mother is to blame for teaching you to type. You are off and running with a kind of stream of consciousness torrent running from your typewriter ribbon. It makes great reading - I love it - but it's difficult to grab hold of to answer. You dodge around covering many points - never too deeply, but always with absolute assurance. I'll grab a few. I suppose you believe the 20% below the poverty line for the USSR. But then it is obviously a line. When all avenues of information are owned by the State, we can trust their statistics, can't we? Ho, ho! I must confess that I think very little of the statistics put out here - but there are dozens of organizations who independently work the street and often disagree with the official stuff. In the Soviet, one could always go to Pravda for the Truth couldn't one. Again a hearty guffaw. Most of the potatoes arrived expensively in the mouths of Muscovites via the black market. It's interesting how the "black" market becomes white - or at least gray, when the collective fails to produce. And don't compare the bleakness of the soviet with the Mafia type society it is now. To turn 80 years of collectivism into some kind of free system is probably an impossibility. When people are used to doing everything through official departments, telling them they can now do it themselves probably frightens the life out of them. Of course there was no really wealthy class in the USSR. I can see now the peasants putting gown their cellos and rushing to Moscow to shop in the GUM Department Store. Oh, beg pardon, only Party dignitaries could shop there, right? Don't knock toilet paper. The US version sure beats the sandpaper found in some countries. If a guy makes a lot of money to give me what I want, so be it. I'll enjoy the symphony better if I get back to my seat from the washroom without a sensitive bottom. But, you mix two objectives. The job of the toilet paper manufacturer is to provide what we want. The job of the artist is not to provide what we want - but what he wants. Whether anyone likes what he does is beside the point. If, however, he provides what we want, he's an entertainer. Which is all right. And of course we are rarely in one corner or the other. We are all mixtures of things. So, we don't all appreciate some "artistic" things. I doubt the American is any better or worse than the Russian in his appreciation of finer things. But, that is not the issue, Ray. The fact is that you want more tax money to go to artistic ventures. Perhaps you should think instead of a person's right to use his own money as he himself wants to use it - not as you want it used. In a dictatorship, money goes where the bosses want it to go. The USSR spent money on the arts because it was the thing to do. It showed the country had class. But, the non-artists lived three families to an apartment - rather like the illegals in California who often face death to get across the border to live and work in the US. But in a free system (and I have no illusions about how the US falls short) if people prefer seeing a movie to listening to a quartet, that's the way it is. You tell me of the privations of the ballet dancer. So? It's the same here. But, this is what he/she wants to do and this seems to be the way to do it. What else is new? I agree with you that American education is pretty awful. Then, it's a government institution. Catholic schools do much better and (in Los Angeles) with proportionally one third of the bureaucrats needed by the public system. I wonder why you are: "embarrassed and worried that they will replace America's undervalued cultural capital with a pure Russian one." Whether art in any form is Russian or American doesn't matter does it? Why should it matter whether the painter, the triangle player, the dancer, is American or Russian? As for the lead contamination, like many things we found out belatedly (not without hindrance from the perpetrators) that a lot of things are dangerous. The Unions tell us that apart from the scores of people killed getting coal to our furnaces, there are some half-million miners with black lung. (A good enough reason in itself to use nuclear furnaces.) Will you tell me that in Russia there are no mining tailings, no coal mining, none of the other toxic results of our desires to eat and be warm? Do Russians use lead-free gas? Sorry, old friend, but the USSR will go down in history as something closer to Reagan's "Evil Empire" than to a failed experiment in socialism. Harry Ray wrote: >To the list, > >This is long, (since my mother taught typing). So if it bothers you just >cut to the next post. But the article at the end is an important one, I >
Re: Fw: One Country Two worlds [more than 2...]
Arthur, et al,
Don't we pine for the days before globalization, when there were no poor in
the world, everyone had a living wage, there was no unemployment, and
corporations weren't making exorbitant profits?
But, they were the good old days. Now we have this enormous international
WTO that threatens to allow us to trade with each other.
Should local fat cats want to keep the share of the action that tariffs and
import controls give them (at the expense of the poor) the WTO objects.
That's known as "interference with the internal affairs of autonomous states".
Harry
__-
Arthur wrote:
>Agree with Brad. Thomas Friedman's writing has deteriorated as he embraces
>everything and anything associated with globalization and trade.
>
>Arthur Cordell
> --
>From: Brad McCormick, Ed.D.
>To: Michael Gurstein
>Cc: futurework
>Subject: Re: Fw: One Country Two worlds [more than 2...]
>Date: Sunday, January 30, 2000 8:21AM
>
>Michael Gurstein wrote:
> >
> > -- Original Message -
> > From: John Hibbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Friday, January 28, 2000 7:55 AM
> > Subject: One Country Two worlds
> >
> > > ==
> > > Since the theme for GLD2000 may well be "Bridging the Gap", I thought it
> > > worthwhile to enclose this entire Thomas Friedman editorial found at:
> > >
> > > http://www.nytimes.com/library/opinion/friedman/012800frie.html
> > >
> > > CAIRO -- I just had an interesting experience. I did an author's tour of
> > > Egypt, meeting with students at Cairo University, journalists at
> > > Egyptian newspapers and the Chambers of Commerce of Cairo and Alexandria
> > > to talk about the Arabic edition of a book I did on globalization.
> > > Two images stand out from this trip. The first was riding the train from
> > > Cairo to Alexandria in a car full of middle- and upper-class Egyptians.
>[snip]
> > > The other image was visiting Yousef Boutrous-Ghali, Egypt's
> > > M.I.T.-trained minister of economy. When I arrived at his building the
> > > elevator operator, an Egyptian peasant, was waiting for me at the
> > > elevator, which he operated with a key. Before he turned it on, though,
> > > to take me up to the minister's office, he whispered the Koranic verse
> > > "In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate." To a Westerner,
> > > it is unnerving to hear your elevator operator utter a prayer before he
> > > closes the door, but for him this was a cultural habit, rooted deep in
> > > his tradition.
>[snip]
> > > After enough such conversations I realized that most Egyptians --
> > > understandably -- were approaching globalization out of a combination of
> > > despair and necessity, not out of any sense of opportunity.
> > > Globalization meant adapting to a threat coming from the outside, not
> > > increasing their own freedoms. I also realized that their previous
> > > ideologies -- Arab nationalism, Socialism, Fascism or Communism -- while
> > > they may have made no economic sense, had a certain inspirational power.
> > > But globalism totally lacks this. When you tell a traditional society it
> > > has to streamline, downsize and get with the Internet, it is a challenge
> > > that is devoid of any redemptive or inspirational force.
> > > And that is why, for all of globalization's obvious power to elevate
> > > living standards, it is going to be a tough, tough sell to all those
> > > millions who still say a prayer before they ride the elevator.
>[snip]
>
>(1) Perhaps globalization *shall* elevate living standards for Egypt's
>poorest -- if they can find any employable job skills
>with which to engage themselves into the world
>market --, since they are presumably *below* the world-competiton
>"normalized" average wage. Though the valley may be much larger than
>the mountains around, we cannot deny that lopping off the mountain
>tops must perforce to some small extent raise the valley
>floor -- unless the material is carted away to some place else (a
>parable for the world marketplace).
>
>(2) Anent "inspirational power": There *is* inspirational
>power in modern technology, provided human technological
>praxis (the living individual transforming what merely
>exists into what is good, thru the passionate coordinated
>exercise and development of mind and hand). But this power
>seems to me (a) to be largely ignored by the "invisible hand"
>which grinds all things down into the uniform powder
>of "exchange value", and (b) probably most of even the most
>highly "educated" (i.e., *schooled* -- like the graduates
>from Harvard Tech, etc.) have no notion of any of this.
>("Forgive them, Lord, for they know not what they
>do." Etc.)
>
>Who has not studied and semiotically
>*metabolized* into their every daily thought and act --
>and, especially, into their *work life*! --
>such authors as Edmund Husserl [esp. his: _The Crisis of
>European Sciences..._], R
Re: capitalism and "health" care quality
Chris, It would seem to be true that anyone who survives umpteen years of medical school in order to get a job for $7 a week is not in it for the money. But, the way the Soviets used to work was to give perks - such as a good apartment. Or, to provide a luster to certain desirable occupations. On the other hand, I really don't care how much the doctor gets. I just want him to know his job, to practice skills on me which are well practiced. You suggest that: "The still-increasing excesses of the medical-industrial complex in the West illustrate quite "well" that public health and profit-making is rather *inversely* related." In the US, medical and hospital services aren't bad at all. My experience has been very good over the 38 years I've lived in California. The other day, I took my wife into my HMO to see her doctor. She needs a wheelchair, so I dumped her inside the doors, while I parked the car in a structure. I picked her up, wheeled her to the doctors waiting room, where she was seen immediately The doctor gave her a careful and friendly examination then we left with a couple of prescriptions. I dropped them off at the pharmacy (the 10 pharmacists and a bunch of assistants were pretty busy) and took her down in the elevator to the laboratory. There she provided blood and so on for testing, whereupon we went upstairs for the prescriptions which were ready. Then I left her inside the door while I went for the car. Picked her up and we drove away. We had arrived there at 10.15 am and we left at 11 am. Doctor/patient appears to be excellent. In fact last month, I went in for a look at my bladder. He put a camera inside me while he examined it. He asked if I would like to see what he was looking for. The nurse hooked up a monitor to the camera and he took me for a tour of the inside of my bladder - explaining as he moved the camera around. I found it fascinating and asked a number of questions. But, the point is that there is an easy relationship between doctors and patients. Oh yes - the prescriptions cost a standard $7. They are all generic. The cost of this service - medical and hospital - is about $40 each month, deducted automatically from each of our Social Security payments. I bet that isn't a lot different from the taxes that must be paid to support the "free" national health systems. It seems to me that a large lump of their Budgets goes to Health. Though, back when, I can't imagine the bladder bit happening to me in the UK's NHS. While most people seem satisfied with their medical in the US, there are bound to be bad spots. The inner cities have a lot of government money sent in to improve medical treatment. Much of the problem seems to be lack of education among the people there. Nurses complain that they have great difficulty getting mothers to take the kids in for shots and suchlike. Clinton said he intended to press legislation so that no child in America would be without the shots he needed. What he didn't know (?) was that there were already programs in place to do this. Problem was to get the mothers to cooperate. All medical services have problems. The US system isn't all that bad Harry _________ Chris wrote: >On Wed, 26 Jan 2000, Harry Pollard wrote: > > Every year a bunch of US cardiac specialists went to the Soviet Union and > > for two weeks, they would work solidly in a Moscow hospital doing, I > > suppose, triage as they took patients from the multitude to operate and > > save lives. I remember one comment from a US doctor. He couldn't believe > > that the Head of Cardiology at the Moscow hospital got a salary of $7 a > > week - about the same as a bus driver. A sure way to attract the best > > people into medicine. > >Harry obviously said this last sentence in jest, but it's actually true: >Giving doctors a small salary will attract the best people into medicine -- >those who become doctors to help and heal people, instead of those who are >"in it for the money" (as in the West). The still-increasing excesses of >the medical-industrial complex in the West illustrate quite "well" that >public health and profit-making is rather *inversely* related... > >Chris > > > > >To quote from an earlier posting on this list: > > > > Report Says Profit-Making Health Plans Damage Care > > > > July 14, 1999 > > > WASHINGTON -- Patients enrolled in profit-making health insurance plans > > are significantly less likely to receive the basics of good medical care -- > > including childhood immunizations, routine mammograms, pap smears, > > prenatal care, and lifesaving drugs after a heart attack -- than > > those in not-for-profit plans, says a new study
Re: FW: Breeding, was: Re: FW: The structure of future work...
Brad, Paying down the Debt - which is what they should do - isn't a great political ploy for the folks in Peoria. "Saving Social Security and Medicare" is good news to the electorate. So, I don't expect them to do what in this time of a relatively good economy can actually be done. On the other hand, a Pace University research team called a press conference, because they had run across something they didn't expect. They had found that 79% of the Budget is composed of transfer payments. The country runs on 21% of the amount collected. The 79%? That's how incumbents stay in office. Harry _________- Brad wrote: Harry Pollard wrote: > > Victor wrote: > > >I am by no means a communist or socialist, but this looks like > >propaganda-sriven tunnel vision to me. Comments follow. > > I rarely find a genuine communist or socialist. Lots of waffling liberals, > but hardly any genuinely philosophic communists, or socialists. It's a shame. [snip] I've met a few. But I want to digress here to report something I heard on the NPR Morning Edition this morning (26 Jan 00), which I found almost Orwellian: The Republicans are claiming that Clinton is putting too great a burden on the present generation by using the budget surplus to quickly pay off the American national debt. The Republicans are saying that this is harmful to the working people and that they can't understand how Clinton will be able to increase benefits to the elderly and infirm while paying down the debt. What could be more harmful to the working people than all the *transfer payments* in the form of interest on the national debt, paid to the rich? (Aside: Transfer payments to poor people are called "welfare", etc.) If we don't pay down the debt, the logical conclusion ill be that eventually we won't have any money for anything *except* interest payments on the national debt. Conversely, without the debt, all the money that goes to transfer payments to the rich (interest on the national debt) could go to transfer payments to the needy (Social Security, Medicaid, etc.), without taking anything extra away from any working person (sure, the rich would have to find other investments, but that provides income to the investment banker class). Have I stated this clearly enough for everyone to get what the report said? I can only assume that the Republicans must have deceived themselves into believing the nonsense they speak, for otherwise they'd have to be real sociopaths, and I once read that one should never attribute to conspiracy what can be explained by simple stupidity.
Re: FW: Breeding, was: Re: FW: The structure of future work...
Victor wrote: >I am by no means a communist or socialist, but this looks like >propaganda-sriven tunnel vision to me. Comments follow. I rarely find a genuine communist or socialist. Lots of waffling liberals, but hardly any genuinely philosophic communists, or socialists. It's a shame. Meantime, you did not answer a single point in my post. You said: VICTOR: "There were most certainly inequities with high party officials living in luxury and ordinary people living very humbly in crowded apartments. (By the way what's the difference in life-style between a US senator and your average Washington, DC resident?)" HARRY: The Ukraine after the separation was landed with a dacha of a high party official. The story appeared in the newspapers because they were trying to get rid of it. They couldn't afford the $300,000 a year it cost to maintain it. Yep! There certainly were inequities. But the USSR was a classless society - remember? The "to each" and "from each" nonsense - remember? Meantime, Senators like other politicians all over the world lead the good life as they "serve us". VICTOR: "However, medical care was universally available and pensioners could live without financial anxiety. This is not the case after a decade of US-driven free enterprise in Russia. For another communist country, Cuba, I read recently that the infant mortality rates are less than in the USA." HARRY: Every year a bunch of US cardiac specialists went to the Soviet Union and for two weeks, they would work solidly in a Moscow hospital doing, I suppose, triage as they took patients from the multitude to operate and save lives. I remember one comment from a US doctor. He couldn't believe that the Head of Cardiology at the Moscow hospital got a salary of $7 a week - about the same as a bus driver. A sure way to attract the best people into medicine. I also wonder whether the millions of "officials" in the communist hierarchy used that hospital - or perhaps they had an inequity somewhere, fully over-staffed and without the problems the common folk suffered. Vivid in my mind is a Ted Koppel television program in which a place looking like an abattoir had a line of people awaiting abortions - there was no anesthetic. One woman was having her 35th abortion. A high school kid was having her fifth. Ugh! Yes, medical care was universally available, all right. And of course "pensioners could live without financial anxiety". I fear you have "propaganda-driven tunnel vision" when you look a a country where practically anyone not official was not long way from the edge of starvation. Thank God for the free market, beg pardon - black market. That kept the people fed - at a cost. Our child mortality is certainly not the best in the world, though I expect that if we measured only those outside the inner cities, it would be best. The inner cities is where the greatest concentration of welfare state services are. Yet, all we need to do to improve things is to decriminalized drugs. That would remove half the inmates of our prisons, too. However, in dictatorial countries such as Cuba, statistics such as child mortality are more likely to come out of their public relations office than the medical department. You said: VICTOR: "Good God! I'd far rather have a doctor who discussed football results than investments. I'd fear the latter's main preoccupation would be operating on my wallet rather than healing me. In fact the US health care system is a mess. HARRY: In a market system, if a doctor doesn't do something properly, his wallet empties. We probably have the best doctors in the world. We should - because they come here from all over the globe to enjoy our higher standard of living. And they are not hired, or they are fired if they don't measure up. (The AMA, which is not a market organization, may try to sweep things under the rug, but that's another discussion.) VICTOR: "Nine years ago in a study in the New England Journal of Medicine it was pointed out that one private insurer (Massachusetts Blue Cross/Blue Shield) with subscribers equal to about 10% of the population of Canada (2.6 million) needed more employees than all ten provincial health plans combined! Presumably this army of free enterprise gnomes is needed to prove that subscribers are not entitled to the treatments they thought they were." HARRY: Perhaps, the Canadian system doesn't have the money to hire adequate staff. However, not to worry. Canadians can purchase insurance policies to let them hop across the border to get the care the Canadian system fails to give. And they do just that. But, apparently, you are critical of Massachusetts. Their patients need more service than Canadian patients. Well, guess you'll just have to live with it. These pampered Americans. You know how it is. Last two times I went in for day surgery, as I left I was presented with a rose wrapped in plastic. Such fol-de-rolls! Studies of the satisf
Re: FW: Breeding, was: Re: FW: The structure of future work...
Ray, How nice to cross swords again. And how nice to chat on FutureWork again. And you are still prepared, like Stephen Leacock's economist, to jump on your horse and ride off in all directions. All without answering the point that: "Socialism and Communism and their spin-offs have proven themselves to be hopeless at increasing production." And well you should avoid answering it, for their ability to put potatoes into the mouths of their peoples is atrocious. It was the job of the State to support the Bolshoi, the Kirov, the two Moscow companies (three if you include the Kremlin) and the rest of them - and they did very well. The people they trained at great expense were often superior - and they had every reason to be so, for the competition for these plum positions must have been great. A very good ballet dancer would be treated like royalty. But, not so the bulk of the Russian people. The peasants who suffered under the Czar suffered equally under the Soviets - at least those who were left after the massacre of the millions. The Soviet was the country of the very rich and a poor that suffered deprivation that makes our inner cities look like heaven. As soon as they were allowed, the Republics got away. As soon as they could, the more able people dodged around the barbed wire at the borders. Welcome them! There won't be many peasants, but the well-trained elite will head for the US and other western countries. That they are available for American kids is a pretty happy thing for us. That it cost the Russian peasant who paid for their training a bowl of soup a week we can forget. You might wonder, occasionally, why the US tries to keep people out by force - while the old Soviet Union used force to keep people in. Doesn't that tell you something? Are you able to see what is there behind your conditioning? Any able person worth his salt heads for the US. My nephew - an anesthesiologist - now in Virginia told me with amazement the change. While back in England the doctors over coffee would discuss football results, here they discuss their investments. Once you have been trained at considerable expense to the English or Russian peasants, go for the money - which you will get in the US. Of course, I'm glad the kids are going to Russia to study "Stanislavsky techniques". I'm sure you know that Stanislavsky predated the Soviet. Maybe you should commend the Czar for initiating Stanislavsky and his techniques. But, you won't. When you properly mention the lead in your bones, a picture floats before me of a Russian service station "Lead or no-lead, Sir?" Ho, ho, ho! I'm sorry, Ray, but your God has indeed failed and I can understand the unhappiness that attends such a philosophical disaster. But, maybe we will get now to the point - that socialist and communist economic systems are a pile of junk.That, insomuch as our system copies them - and it does - so will we become less effective. Harry ________ Ray wrote: Harry Pollard wrote: One major warning! Socialism and Communism and their spin-offs have proven themselves to be hopeless at increasing production. The international conferences to "solve the problems" are loaded who want to "provide proper services". Hello Harry, Long time no read but you are still beating the same horse. Actually the refugees from the former communist countries are so well trained that they are doing just fine once they were allowed to take their training and intellectual capital and run away to the older and more advanced economies. But all is not well here. USA Today pointed out last Wednesday on their front page that America's computer companies are creating their own Berlin walls around their hired and company trained help. Sound familiar? "Mr. Gates tear down that wall!" Like the stores filled with communist fashions on 34th street in NYCity, fashions that were considered junk when the old Soviet Union existed are now high fashion. It's all just politics, hypocrisy and whoever has the media and money.Communism, like Capitalism has huge problems but the problems bear little resemblance to either side's rhetoric. Otherwise American business and Republican Congressman wouldn't be sounding like apparatchiks when it comes to facing the same problems that an ulcerous Berlin was in the 1950s before their bloody wall. Do I think that American businesses would do the same (with guards and all) if they could, you bet. Read how Truman applied the same person and process to the Indian problem as had worked with the Japanese in world war II in Chief Wilma Mankiller's biography. America didn't win the cold war we just spent the East's young nations broke and now are in the process of being locked out by the intellectual capital of their refugees
Re: FW: Breeding, was: Re: FW: The structure of future work...
Steve, You worry too much. You said: STEVE: "is that there is adequate fertile soil, sufficient moderate rainfall (irrigation ultimately ruins soil), sufficient sustainable energy for warmth & cooking, and climate conditions conducive to production of a healthy diet. A small % of the planet fits these requirements. Do you propose that there are 5 such hectares for each of the billions in need?" If there isn't enough land, how do they survive now? The five hectares went to a family. However, everyone won't need five hectares, because everyone doesn't have to produce food. The Taiwanese peasant's five acres per family had an economic groundwork that worked. The paid their Economic Rent to the government, but there were no taxes. Everything you produced was yours. If you produced twice as much, you kept it all. In fact, the farmers produced as many as five crops from the same 5 hectares. Mushrooms in the cellar, fish (imported from Indonesia) in the paddy fields while waiting for the rice to come to harvest. Given the opportunity, human ingenuity will do things nobody previously thought of. For a while, Taiwan had a net export of food - on an island with a population not far short of 1,400 to the square mile. Then, many of the farmers worked the land part-time as well-paying jobs opened up in the city factories. Once food is ensured, other things can be done. However, while the idiots keep counting acres and counting people and worrying themselves sick, things are not standing still. As the Report below says: > During the past 40 years nearly 30% of the world's cropland was >abandoned because it was so seriously degraded by wind and water erosion >that it was no longer productive. Cropland degradation continues to take >place throughout the world and is intensifying, especially in developing >countries. Unfortunately the conservation practices that Avery proposes >are not practiced to protect our vital cropland? Why? Well, here we go again. It said: "Unfortunately the conservation practices . . . . . are not practiced to protect our vital cropland?" What on earth is 'our vital cropland'? I wouldn't spend a moment trying to save "our vital cropland". I would work like hell to save MY cropland. Once I knew the problem, I would no doubt seek help, but I would not lose my cropland if it were possible to save it. My home is there and my family. I've buried a lot of fertilizer there. I've drained it, dug ditches, erected fences. To hell with letting it go. And to hell with the landlord, for whom I wouldn't lift a finger to save his land. Again, when I have 3 acres for my family's sustenance, I have nothing to spare. I am not in a sustaining position. Why did I choose 3 acres? Because that's the kind of distribution seen so often in fake land reforms. It's followed of course by trained economists and untrained politicians sagely commenting on the inability of the peasant to sustain himself and his land. So, we need a land reform that is free market oriented. If someone is misusing his land, economic pressure must work to push him off. Free market pressure should put the best producers on to the most productive sites. This is easily done. Political pressure must not be used (regulations and laws). They are invariably venal and self serving. They cost the farmers and interfere when he should be left alone. Oh, and one other thing. You will probably not often find a place with adequate fertile soil, sufficient moderate rainfall, sufficient sustainable energy for warmth & cooking, and climate conditions conducive to production of a healthy diet. So, most of the new farm-owners will have to make do without perfection - and they will just so long as the state leaves them alone. Harry _ Steve wrote: >Harry, > >Major assumption here: > > The not very secret solution to the problem is to change this potty > > thinking that we must find ways to feed the multitude. The way to attack > > the problem of inadequate "proper services and health care" is to make it > > possible for people to provide them themselves. > >is that there is adequate fertile soil, sufficient moderate rainfall >(irrigation ultimately ruins soil), sufficient sustainable energy for >warmth & cooking, and climate conditions conducive to production of a >healthy diet. A small % of the planet fits these requirements. Do you >propose that there are 5 such hectares for each of the billions in >need?. > >Steve >- > >David Pimentel, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences > >Marcia Pimentel, Division of Nutritional Sciences > >Cornell University > >Ithaca, NY 14853 > > >DENYING THE FACTS ABOUT THE EFFECT WORLD POPULATION GROWTH HAS ON HUMAN > >FOOD SUPPLY AND HEALTH IS DANGEROUS > > > > Dennis Avery believes the escalating world population is not a > >probl
Re: FW: Breeding, was: Re: FW: The structure of future work...
Steve, Your quote suggests why the problem will never be solved (which will prove the prophet of doom and gloom is right). His web page is below. Look at the mindset. "The more people living in a country, the harder it is to provide proper services and health care to all." While these people are fluttering their hands in dismay at the terrible difficulties facing them, not one hoe hits the ground. As Henry George pointed out, every mouth comes with two hands. The not very secret solution to the problem is to change this potty thinking that we must find ways to feed the multitude. The way to attack the problem of inadequate "proper services and health care" is to make it possible for people to provide them themselves. This would mean fewer international conferences at which people are able to view with alarm, show worry and concern, offer portents of disaster. (While, no doubt, sipping their martinis over a leisurely lunch.) First, find out why the peasants are inefficient producers. Second, change the economic structure so that people can do things for themselves - instead of passing much of their production to the friendly neighborhood rack-renting landlords. This means land-reform of the proper kind - with market pressures pushing the best producers on to the best producing land. It must begin with a land reform that provides sufficient land for a family to live on and expand its production. The Taiwan experiment offered five hectare plots. Depending on the quality of land, this might vary upward. It should not be less. Any help offered should be advice and small devices to make it easier to produce. There should be fewer discussions of the "changing paradigms of population issues" (whatever they are) and more plans to put hoes into the hands of peasants working their own land. Now, we need not do anything practical. After all we are assured by the Oxford or Harvard educated politicians in the Third World that everything possible is being done. Of course the fact that they are landlords, or that they front for the landlords, has little bearing on the fact that they fail to carry out the important reform - letting people escape their problems with their own effort. One major warning! Socialism and Communism and their spin-offs have proven themselves to be hopeless at increasing production. The international conferences to "solve the problems" are loaded who want to "provide proper services". Jay's gloomy predictions will become fact if we continue to try these cute little failed excursions into collective action. Instead of worrying about 3 billion mouths, think of 6 billion hands and how to put them to work. Harry _- Steve wrote: >I suggest that this topic is a wee bit more complex than Bill Ward >implies. There's extensive research, but a good short essay is >available: >http://dieoff.org/page56.htm > >. . . . . . . . and FYI there is a "South-South Initiative" which >involves LDCs helping >each other in pop. stabil. at their own request. > >"The 1994 conference addressed the changing paradigms of population issues >and the inverse relationship of a nation's state of development to the >size of its population. The more people living in a country, the harder it >is to provide proper services and health care to all."
Re: Deeper Places (Was: Earned !! ?? )
Please remove my address: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Add: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thanks! Harry Pollard - Original Message - From: "john courtneidge" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, November 05, 1999 5:14 AM Subject: Deeper Places (Was: Earned !! ?? ) > Dear Co-operators and friends, all, > > In response to: > > * > -- > >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.brian.) > > > >Terry Leahy (Chair, Tesco) earned £671,000 in 1998(Tesco is one of > the UK's largest supermarket chains.) > > ** > > I wrote: > > ** > > !!! Earned ?? > > Or got ?? > > It was the night-shift (and etc) who did the earning. > > (And what of the shareholders cut ?? ) > > ** > > And, then, > > Carl wrote as below.: > > >> > >miaow! ;-) > > > > ** > > And, so: > > I now write: > > Firstly - thanks to Carl for this prompting. > > Secondly, I accept that my comments, above, might appear as The Politics of > Envy. > > I hope, however, to take this to deeper places: > > a) Ineqality is bad for the physical, mental and spiritual health of *all* > the members of a society (check the first and last paragraphs of Richard > Wilkinson's 'Unhealthy Societies') > > b) The (unthinking?) pressure creating inequality is *the* automatic process > of capitalism - what Vaclav Havel calls "auto-totality" - a totalitarianism > where there is no physical dictator (see Sharif Abdullah's, recent, > 'Creating > a World Theat Works For All.') > > c) This "auto-totality" is, for me, the combination of capitalism's two > linked drivers: > > firstly, wealth concentration > > and, then, > > further use of the profits that, then, flow from ownership of that > concentration > > (These form the two components of power concentration) that, *when put > together* is so frightening about > capitalism - the "auto-totality of whic Vaclav Havel speaks.) > > Thus, we *must,* as co-operators, work to dissolve away the *two* elements > of > power concentration - the mechanisms by which wealth is concentrated *and* > also > the further use to which those concentrations are put. > > In other words, our task is to re-mutualise ownership of land and productive > resources, which we *can do,* peacefully, by returning money to its proper > use > as a *shared* measuring device (see Alan Watts, quoted in the first chapter > - The > Absurdity of it all - in Peter Lang's 'LETs Work: Rebuilding the Local > Economy.') > > Thanks, again, Carl ! > > Co-op-ly hugs, to, for and from, all, > > j > > > > BTWs: > > The best book I know on power is Ken Galbraith's 'The Anatomy of Power.' > > And, > > All this is the (??!!) reasoning for our Campaign for Interest-Free > Money, > since taking hold of money's power is *the* route to remutualising the other > two. > > More hugs !! > > >
Re: How free enterprise benefits people
This is of course why in countries with controlled economies they never have to worry about "risking unintended bad consequences". Because they don't have the substance either. Harry - Brad wrote (see below): >>From today's (Sun, 26 Apr 98) New York Times: > >There is a serious shortage >(in the United States) of a vital drug made from blood >plasma, which certain persons with compromised >immune systems need to live. With the drug, many of >them live normal lives; without it, they get all >sorts of infections (and, presumably, die, or at >least, as one patient says, it: "tak[es] my life >away as I know it" (p. 1). The >source of the problem is complicated (article >begins on Page 1), but it is all tied up with >issues of the "business case" for (i.e., against!) >pharmaceutical companies producing the drug. Here's >the reason I'm calling attention to this story: > >"With lives in the balance, this should be >fixed," said Dr. Arthut Caplan, Chairman of the >blood advisory committee of Health and Human Services. >"But when you leave the supply of a vital substance >simply in the hands of the free market, and you don't >keep an eye on what is going on, you will wind up * Harry Pollard (818) 352-4141 Henry George School of Los Angeles Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 *
Fwd: Trade liberalization kills Banglade
s >local manufacturing activities, retrenching thousands of people. >Fans made in India, China, Pakistan, Taiwan and Malaysia are >available in shops everywhere, while popular local brands like >'Millat', 'Jumana' and 'Hira' have all but vanished from the >shelves. > > The labour-intensive electric fittings industry is in the >doldrums. The industry had grown in 1992-93, exporting products to >Middle Eastern and European markets, but the lifting of tariff >restrictions has been a death blow. > > The imposition of 15% value-added tax (VAT) on local >production has also added to the burden of manufacturers, who are >unable to compete with the imported goods in so far as price >competitiveness is concerned. Smuggled products at lower prices >have entered the market in a big way, analysts said. > > Enayet Hossain Chowdhury, former president of the Electrical >Manufacturers Association, said foreign goods have invaded the >local market. Our products can compete only if duty on raw >materials was lowered, and locally manufactured items exempted from >VAT, he added. > > Economist Abdullah Harun warned of mounting losses of small >and medium enterprises, which are up against unequal global >competition. The government has to improve infrastructure - power >supply, transportation, port facilities, customs clearance - if >local industry was to compete, he advised. > > Illegal cross-border trade has been frustrating industrial >revival plans. What the government needed to do was to rationalise >trade and taxation policies to enable Bangladeshi business to take >on international competitors. > > Dr Muzaffar Ahmed, a well-known economist, however, advised >the need for controls on liberalisation, arguing that mere adoption >of a liberal trade policy and the opening up of the economy would >be counter-productive. For instance, the gap between the poor and >the rich has widened in Bangladesh with the new rich lacking even >a social conscience, Dr Ahmed observed. > > The trend was new for Bangladesh, which, despite having the >highest concentration of poverty, is not so inequitable. The lowest >40% of the population command around 23% of national wealth, >according to Human Development in South Asia 1997, a report >prepared by an Islamabad-based NGO. Income disparities between >the 65 districts of Bangladesh are not as wide as in the various >regions of India and Pakistan. > > Normally the income disparity is between 10% and 25%, the >report states. According to Dr Qazi Kholiquzzaman Ahmed, an >economist, the government must not remove all state controls on the >economy, because investments in the country's human capital were >essential. > > Currently Bangladesh only invests $5 a year per person on >providing education and health services, very low compared to >Pakistan's $10, India's $14 and Malaysia's $150. > > 'Wherever Bangladesh has invested in skill-training, as in the >garments industry, it has made tremendous progress. However, such >investments in human capital have been very limited and need to be >greatly accelerated,' the Human Development report states. > > 'Reliance on market forces is not a panacea for all economic >ills... the dogmatic reliance on market forces is unjustified and >misplaced,' asserted Dr Kholiquzzaman. > > He questioned the right of Bangladesh's donors like the United >States, European Commission and the World Bank to insist on >'unfettered market mechanisms', when they themselves set aside >billions of dollars for agricultural subsidies in their own >countries. - Third World Network Features/IPS > >-ends- > > >About the writer: Tabibul Islam is a correspondent for Inter Press >Service, with whose permission the above article is reprinted. > > >When reproducing this feature, please credit Third World Network >Features and (if applicable) the cooperating magazine or agency >involved in the article, and give the byline. Please send us >cuttings. > >Third World Network is also accessible on the World-Wide Web. >Please visit our web site at http://www.twnside.org.sg. > >For more information, please contact: >Third World Network >228, Macalister Road, 10400 Penang, Malaysia. >Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Tel: (+604)2293511,2293612 & 2293713; >Fax: (+604)2298106 & 2264505 > > > > > >1740/98 > * Harry Pollard (818) 352-4141 Henry George School of Los Angeles Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 *
Re: comments on eva durant's position on mass production
Bahar wrote (see below line): Mass production is a useful way to get a lot of goods at lowest cost.If the conditions of work are pretty bad, just get a different job. Harry Pollard > > Thoughts on the character of Mass Production; > > This discussion of course is one about the character of technological systems >themselves. Are they neutral, value free or socially constructed. I think enough >evidence now points to technologies as social control mechanism as well. Among many >possible technical paths to the solution of production questions some are preferred >over others due essentially to the power game. > Mass production is a particularly poignant example of this due to its embodiment of >Taylorist management and deskilling. To expect a participatory outcome from mass >production would be impossible due to its development as an elite control technology. > > A good example of the impossiblity to democratically control mass production was the >beginnings factory soviets in the opening phases of the bolshevik revolution. Mass >production technologies transferred or rather copied from the west allowed only >hierarchical control giving rise to the consolidation of the management elite. > > That participative and democratic control of technology is necessary, there is no >doubt. But the design of production technologies is where the real social control has >to come in, all the way to the initail research&development phase. How present >capitalist technologies can be reconfigured for a fairer workplace and production >process is the baffling question!!? > > Baha Kuban > > >>> "Durant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 02/16/98 10:31 >>> > I've forgotten who I responded to here, > sory if it is a repeat. > > Eva > > I think I did have a similar question before - > I don't think that the "home-industry" > style production can satisfy the needs of the present number > of people. Also, if we can find the sustainable means > of cutting down on the soul-numbing jobs, why shouldn't > we? Lets keep the capitalism created wonders > of science and technology, through democratic > control, let's make sure it is done sustainably > and with minimal environmental degregation. > I picture the next era witha minimum of > rotated unwanted task, and full individual > creative development. > > Eva > > > > > Eva, why would we want to keep mass production; which is a > > particular manifestation of capitalist production relations > > pertaining to a particular accumulation regime of a particular era > > in the techno-eco omic history of capitalism, for a sustainable > > world may I ask. I am sorry if I am out of context here because I > > didn't listen well... > > > > baha > > > > > > > > > > >>> "Durant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 02/12/98 12:51 >>> > > Mass production and globalisation is necessary > > if we want to sustain sustainably the earth's > > population. That is why we cannot go back > > to some quaint early form of capitalism. > > > > Eva > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- * Harry Pollard (818) 352-4141 Henry George School of Los Angeles Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 *
Re: Response to Keith Hudson
David wrote: > >>KEITH: Well said. The "modern" debate about free trade, globalisation and so forth >>is merely today's equivalent of the debate about usury that went on for a >>thousand years in the Middle Ages (and before that in Greek and Chinese >>times). Every time free trade resumes and prosperity revives, some >>authoritarian body wants to lay their hands on the profits -- the Church, >>principalities, guilds, more latterly nation-states -- and so they start to >>impose restrictions on trade by taxing it. This succeeds for a while but >>inevitably fails as the general population sinks into increasing poverty. >> >The problem with free trade is not prosperity, although some few are >becoming enormously prosperous, but in fact impoverishment of the majority, >and of the planet itself. Free trade is simply unrestricted exchange of goods between people. In other words it is the continuance of cooperation between people that has existed since the beginning and which has taken us from tribal insularity to a broad vision of the whole world. That's all - if that weren't enough. It doesn't (it cannot) make a few prosperous and a majority poor. The market is impartial. It doesn't take sides. To blame it is a lazy way to avoid the real reasons for the tremendous difference between the very rich and the very poor. It would be too much, perhaps to ask you to read Henry George's "Progress and Poverty" where he asked 120 years ago 'why, in spite of enormous progress in production, is it so hard to make a living?" Then he proceeded with magnificent reasoning to come to conclusions - and offer remedies. Or, you might read his "Protection or Free Trade", where he makes the best case for Free Trade ever penned - then shows why the benefits of trade don't get to the people at the bottom of society. The same arguments can be used to show why the benefits of capital, of machines, of factories, innovation, and invention, also fail to benefit the poor. The more Capital we have, the more trade we have, the more wealth is available for all of us. But it doesn't reach everybody, either in the US or in the third world. For heavens sake, ask why? >We are seeing with globalization of trade a rapid increase in the gap >between rich and poor. We also see El Nino, poor SAT scores, and a Republican Congress Harry * Harry Pollard The Henry George School of Los Angeles Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 Voice : (818) 352-4141 Fax: (818) 353-2242 *
Re: How to stop clear-cutting
Barry wrote (see below the line): Timber quantity in the US has increased most of this century from a low point in the mid twenties. You must look to the third world for the problem. And there the problem is not loss of timber, but poverty. And looking even deeper, you will come across monopolistic land tenure. Harry - At 11:15 AM 1/19/1998 -0800, Barry Brooks wrote: >Futurework, > >It's no newsflash, but to stop the clear-cutting of all the world's >forests the interest rate must be kept below the sustainable yeild on >the slowest growing forest. If the interest rate is too high it will pay >more to clearcut and buy bonds than it would pay to manage the forest >for sustainablity. High interest rates and corresponding high rates of >return on investment are popular with investors, but high rates of >return will always prevent stewardship of natural resources. > >I think we should consider how little future work there will be with no >forests to maintain. And, even if we keep rates down and save the >forest, won't automation and the use of durability and population >stability make the number of paying jobs drop down to way too few? > >Isn't the most important work unpaid? > >Barry Brooks >http://home.earthlink.net/~durable/ > * Harry Pollard The Henry George School of Los Angeles Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 Voice : (818) 352-4141 Fax: (818) 353-2242 *
Re: FW/fw-l Employment and the "Economic Miracle" (fwd)
Sally wrote (see below line): Sally, I enjoy your posts. This one is particularly good, and I've saved it. Keep them coming Harry >I made a print copy of this one - don't want to lose it or forget about it. >Canadians too need to hear this, loud and clear. Sally > > >>Mime-Version: 1.0 >>Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 22:17:07 -0800 >>Reply-To: Caspar Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>Sender: The Other Economic Summit USA 1997 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>From: Caspar Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>Subject: Employment and the Economic Miracle >>X-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Status: U >> >>Dear friends, >> >>Brian Grant sent me the following article, which I thought you might like >>to see. It has finally begun to explain for me the US "economic miracle" of >>low unemployment: they have rolled back 150 years of social progress and >>made wage slaves cheaper than machines (or actual slaves, who have to be >>cared for and supported even in old age) would be. Also the 1.8 million >>people in jail* >>are not considered unemployed, nor are the 1.5 million in the military. >> >>Simon Legree is alive and well in South Carolina. >> >> >>Caspar Davis >> >>* This is the highest per capita incarceration rate in history. >> >> >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Progressive Economists' Network) >>Subject: AUT: AMERICA All work, low pay (fwd) >> >>For those unfamiliar with Australian industrial relations history, "the awards" >>referred to at the end of the article are industry-wide standards of pay and >>working conditions (I gather something similar once held in New Zealand also). >>Traditionally these awards were ratified (and often arbitrated) by State-level >>or Federal-level industrial courts after negotiations between employer and >>union bodies - more and more, they are being pared back to very minimum >>criteria, with the emphasis being shifted to workplace and/or individual >>contracts . . . >> >>Steve >> >> >>Subject: Sydney Morning Herald: AMERICA All work, low pay From: Paul >>Canning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Sun, 28 Dec 1997 23:22:20 +1100 >>(EST) >> >>AMERICA >> >>Saturday, December 27, 1997 >> >>All work, low pay >> >>The deregulated, no-union, zero-employment economy of the United States is >>seen by some Australian employers and politicians as a model for this >>country. But as ADELE HORIN travelled America, she found the downside - an >>army of worn-out, exploited working poor. >> >>"GETTING a job is easy," says Rose Scott. "It's getting the pay you want >>that's hard - $7 an hour is the most I've ever made." A small, blonde, shy >>woman in her 30s, Scott is talking in the office of the Adecco Employment >>Agency in Greenville, South Carolina, where she has come to get a job. >> >>In Greenville, population 65,000, a Bible-thumping, anti-union town, the >>jobless rate is 3.8per cent, even less than the US national rate of 4.9 per >>cent. >> >>As Scott says, getting a job is easy. In the booming US economy, where >>unemployment is at a 25-year low, crack addicts have jobs, alcoholics have >>jobs, and single mothers of newborn babies have jobs. For an Australian, >>accustomed to more than a decade's bad news on the jobs front, the >>atmosphere is electric. >> >>South Carolina, which only four years ago recorded Australian-style >>unemployment rates, has achieved what economists loosely define as full >>employment - and other States such as Nebraska, South Dakota and Wisconsin >>boast even lower jobless figures. >> >>But having a job in the US does not mean having a living wage. >> >>When Scott's husband left her with three children under eight to support, >>she found a job in a convenience store, working the midnight to 8 am shift. >> >>"It paid $6 an hour and I could barely support myself let alone my >>children," she says as we wait in Adecco's over-bright, no-frills office. >> >>Unable to find overnight child care or feed her children, Scott was forced >>to send them to live with her mother in a town 50 kilometres away. >> >>But relinquishing her children was not the only trauma for Scott. An armed >>robber held up the convenience store when she was on duty. Terrified, she >>resigned the next day, which is what has brought her, still shell-shocked, >>into the Adecco employment office. >> >>It isn't long before Adecco's placement officer calls Scott to the desk, >>having scanned the computer and found her another job - just like that. >>This time, she will be making boxes for a packaging company at $US7 (about >>$10.50) an hour, starting at 7am. >> >>"I should be able to have my children back in a few months," Scott says >>happily as she leaves, clutching complicated directions to her new >>workplace. >> >>But who, I wonder, will mind her children when she leaves for work at 6.30 >>am, and how will she afford child care? >> >>AS I travelled around the US, wondering whether Australia should emulate or >>beware the US
Re: Moral Meaning of Work: Part 2 (fwd)
Michael wrote (see below): Chase Manhattan Bank had a program for hiring 'disadvantaged' workers, but found they were ill-educated. It instituted a 6 week course in basics for the new employees. During the 6 weeks, students, on average, improved by two full grades. Draw your own conclusions. Harry --- >-- Forwarded message -- >Date: Sat, 10 Jan 1998 15:21:06 + >From: Robert Campbell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Moral Meaning of Work: Part 2 > >Wilson belongs neither to the left nor to the right's tradition of >romanticizing a world beyond necessity. For him, the disappearance of >work is not an opportunity but a tragedy. Yet Wilson parts company >with those conservatives who insist on work to teach lessons of >unfreedom. Conservatives see in such an agenda the necessary >correctives to what they take to be immoral conduct, whereas for >Wilson the "disciplines and regularities" of work provide an >opportunity for deprived people to become autonomous agents in >charge of their own lives. > >In his effort to find out why so many jobs have disappeared from >inner-city neighborhoods, Wilson and his associates interviewed >employers representing 179 Chicago-area firms seeking workers for >entry-level, low-wage jobs. One of the reasons the firms said they >were reluctant to hire people from the ghetto was the lack of >language and mathematical skill required even for the most basic of >jobs. There may well have been racist elements in their reasoning, >although Wilson reports no differences on this point between black >and white employers. At the same time, these employers were taking >note of an unexpected consequence of the digitalization of the >American economy: Jobs are not so much rendered mindless but rather >require the application of cognitive capacity. Some jobs in America >may have been de-skilled, but most of them remain too skilled for >badly educated inner-city black males without sufficient work >experience. >Robert Campbell >[EMAIL PROTECTED] Harry
Re: They Own the Courthouse (2)
Charles Mueller You wrote that I put words in his mouth. I couldn't understand it. Now I see. I wrote: Charles wrote (see below): None of the problems would arise if the Patent Office were abolished. So, that is the answer. The (see below) referred to your post which I appended to my remarks. I then began my message. You thought it referred to my immediate remarks - which, of course, you denied. I'm sorry I confused you. I said the first thing to do to get rid of the Microsoft monopoly - and a lot more - is to abolish the patent office. A patent is likely to turn a $50 idea into a $50,000 privilege, by virtue of its ability to stop others from doing similar things. Harry
Re: They Own the Courthouse (2)
Charles wrote: >Harry: >Wrong Charles. I've never suggested abolishing the Patent Office. >Charles Mueller No, I did - but you should. The power of Microsoft and many of the other monopolies rests on their patent ownership. Get rid of patents and copyrights and the monopolies would have to fight it out in the marketplace - and win by providing better service than any others. There are other protectors of monopoly, such as import tariffs and quotas, licences, subsidies, ownership of natural resources, and so on. However, a good place to start would be to abolish the patent office. Then Microsoft would have to sweat for its dollars. Harry - >>HARRY: None of the problems would arise if the Patent Office were >>abolished. >> >>So, that is the answer. >> >>And before anyone starts worrying about people not inventing >>things without patent protection, remember Wordstar. >> >>Wordstar had no protection of any kind. All of us used it >>from the moment we got our young hands on a computer. But, >>as we got older and went to work, what did we know? Why >>clunky old Wordstar. The offices bought the program because >>'everyone' knew it. >> >>Other programmers piggy-backed their programs on the old >>favorite and a Wordstar dynasty was born and we were all >>pressing ^KB, ^KY, and similar horrible key combinations >>which, however, we all knew - and often became the standard >>key-presses for other programs. >> >>If my memory serves me right, some 3 million copies were >>sold before better word processing began to arrive. >> >>Well, that didn't matter. Wordstar brought out its 'Wordstar >>2000' and proceeded to make an horrendous mistake. >> >>It protected the new program. >> >>Programmers, who had helped to make Wordstar a dynasty had >>trouble with the encryption process and turned away from it. >> >>As did the customers in their millions. >> >>After 6 months, the company removed the protection, but it >>was too late. >> >>Now, if you see Wordstar it is bundled with a new machine as >>one of the GREAT programs offered. >> >>The lesson should be learned. When Wordstar was free for >>anyone to use, it prospered. Once it was protected, it went >>down the drain. >> >>Let me say that we should get rid of patents and copyright >>protection. We don't need them. >> >>Only downside is that Charles would be out of a job. >> >>A merry Christmas to everyone and a Great New Year! >> >>Harry
Re: They Own the Courthouse (2)
Charles wrote (see below): None of the problems would arise if the Patent Office were abolished. So, that is the answer. And before anyone starts worrying about people not inventing things without patent protection, remember Wordstar. Wordstar had no protection of any kind. All of us used it from the moment we got our young hands on a computer. But, as we got older and went to work, what did we know? Why clunky old Wordstar. The offices bought the program because 'everyone' knew it. Other programmers piggy-backed their programs on the old favorite and a Wordstar dynasty was born and we were all pressing ^KB, ^KY, and similar horrible key combinations which, however, we all knew - and often became the standard key-presses for other programs. If my memory serves me right, some 3 million copies were sold before better word processing began to arrive. Well, that didn't matter. Wordstar brought out its 'Wordstar 2000' and proceeded to make an horrendous mistake. It protected the new program. Programmers, who had helped to make Wordstar a dynasty had trouble with the encryption process and turned away from it. As did the customers in their millions. After 6 months, the company removed the protection, but it was too late. Now, if you see Wordstar it is bundled with a new machine as one of the GREAT programs offered. The lesson should be learned. When Wordstar was free for anyone to use, it prospered. Once it was protected, it went down the drain. Let me say that we should get rid of patents and copyright protection. We don't need them. Only downside is that Charles would be out of a job. A merry Christmas to everyone and a Great New Year! Harry > C.A. Behney is skeptical that--even assuming Microsoft owns the > courthouse (and wins all the way up through the Supreme Court)--this > 'guarantees an easy victory' for Bill in the end. His reasons: > > (1) We're in a global environment 'where court decisions in one > jurisdiction influence but do not bind other jurisdictions.' > > (2) Microsoft 'cannot dictate innovation,' which will undermine its > monopoly. > > (3) 'Once on the docket, public scrutiny can drive the Court's > decisions.' Even Justice Scalia may not like the idea of having everything > on his computer controlled by 1 company. > > (4) 'Microsoft could win the court wars, and still be blindsided by > the anger of an aware and aroused public.' > > Logical though these arguments certainly are, I know of no evidence > in the antitrust record of the last couple of decades that would support > them here. As to (1), is antimonopoly policy in the EU, Japan, Australia, > and the rest of the 60 plus countries with antitrust laws on their books > more STRINGENT than that of the U.S.? Hardly. It is almost invariably even > weaker everywhere else than it is here. As for (2), it's true that > technological innovation--as Schumpeter pointed out a half century ago--does > indeed EVENTUALLY erode all monopolies. A life span of 50 years or more, > however, has been typical for most U.S. monopolies (e.g., oil, steel, > aluminum, tobacco). We can live with Bill's monopoly of the computer > industry 'til 2050? While technology is moving considerably faster here > than in, say, oil and steel, Bill is--as I understand the situation--either > stamping it out or buying it up at an even swifter pace. (His fortune is > not exactly stagnating: The reported $20 billion increase in his net worth > in 1997, for example, works out to--according to my cheap calculator--an > average profit of $55 million per DAY.) If it's not his, it won't be > tolerated now or in 2025. > > As to (3), the possibility that 'public scrutiny'--once the > Microsoft case reaches the Supreme Court's docket--might somehow deter its 8 > pro-monopoly justices from exonerating Bill's monopoly, strikes me as > remote. To be sure, this could occur if the national MEDIA was aroused and > united against the monopolist. But the media is not and cannot be, simply > because it, too, has recently been monopolized. With the killing of U.S. > antitrust in the mid-'70s, ambitious media moguls bought up (or bankrupted) > their competitors, with the result that we now have major American cities in > which there is a single daily newspaper, a single owner of its radio and/or > TV stations, and even the situation where a sole 'conglomerate' controls all > three. No one doubts that the Supreme Court reads the election returns. > But our 1997 media monopolists have every incentive to defend rather than > condemn Bill Gates' monopoly--and thus to shape public opinion in his > favor, not in the public's. > > Public anger in the WAKE of a Supreme Court decision, (4), > exonerating the Microsoft monopoly? How is it to arise, given the fact, > again, that the country's media is compelled by its own self-interest to > take a pro-mono
Fwd: FW Response to Durants posting
Tom Lunde quoted me but ascribed it to Ed (see below):
His Microsoft example doesn't alter the fact that we buy Gates' products
because we are better off. Surely we won't pay money to be worse off.
That's silly.
So that isn't an issue.
However, perhaps we feel we should be better off at less cost. So, why can
Gates get so much from us for his products.
The answer is the patent law, which gives him the privilege of extracting
the extra bucks.
The patent is a privilege, which you'll remember is a private law ('privi'
'lege'). a law is supposed to apply to everyone equally. A privilege takes
from one and gives to another.
When Windows is wanted by the public, the price goes up. If the market
worked properly, the higher price would attract the competition. But, there
isn't any, because the patent law won't allow it.
Now, there is a something to attack, if you have the stomach for it. But, I
fear that the network of privileges which raise prices, hurt consumers and
keep people from working is too tough a target.
Let's flail away at capitalism - whatever that is - and chase after the
sillies like overpopulation and global warming.
Bah! Humbug!
Harry
---
>>HARRY: No, it doesn't. If you profit from my excellent goods, and indeed
many
>>others do also, I will earn a profit from my service to you consumers.
>>
>>When a trade takes place, both sides are better off (have made a profit)
>or
>>they wouldn't have traded.
>
>Well Ed, this thread is a little old now and others have posted their
>opinions. I guess in idealistic Adam Smith sense of the world, you may be
>right. But the question is the profit. Charles has been posting a lot re
>Microsoft lately and the gripe with Bill Gates is that through a
>manipulation of the capitalistic system he is making an inordinate profit
>and yet I find I have to buy his operating system to be effective in this
>communication. Now, I know you could argue that I could buy a Mac or use
>OS2 and there is some truth in that but to exercise that freedom, I have to
>be willing to put up with their prices and the limitations or benefits of
>there product. I do not feel I am better off if I pay too much for a
>product because the seller has me over a barrel.
>
>As all sellers are out to maximize their profit, the marketplace through
>competition is supposed to keep that within reason. However in many
>situations from renting my suite to buying an operating system, the market
>doesn't protect me without also inconveniencing me. This compounding of
>profit maximization through all the component parts and services in a
>product produces a product that has costs and profit - I would argue excess
>profit in every product. Much like the Canadian Goods and Service Tax,
>taxes every item 7% through all of it's transactions which means the end
>purchaser pays much more than just 7%.
>
>Respectfully,
>
>Thomas Lunde
--
Fwd: Re: It looked like a hand grenade ...
Neil wrote >>HARRY: If we run out of something, we'll use something else. We are >>a small species spread thinly across an enormous planet. > > >Mr. Pollard, what planet is it that you are talking about? Out species >consumes an immense fraction of the total biomass of Earth. (I could look >up a more precise figure, but you can as easily.) A small example, off the >top of my head: about half the total land area of the United States is used >to raise beef for the extravagant American diet. I'm talking about the only planet I have experienced - Earth. But, you've made my point. Apparently - you say - given a need for more and cheaper food, we have half the US available to plant broccoli - should we decide we're getting hungry for veg. You'll recall Ed's magnificent an eloquent description of the Brazilian favalas. I replied with a description of the empty land in Brazil. You may remember I wrote of the peasant occupation of an 86,400 acre farm which was fully occupied supporting 110 cattle. The evil conditions of the favelas seem to spring from the (as Marx put it) the "expropriation of the peasant from the soil". As a lot of 'futureworkers' are sympathetic to Marxist ideas, it would behove them to read Volume III of Das Kapital. They'll find such tidbits as his assertion that 'surplus value' disappears into the Rent of land. Also the point that the accumulations of wealth that financed capitalism came from the landlords. Instead of trying to overturn capitalism, perhaps it would be better to collect Land Rent (and therefore 'surplus value') and stop the continuing accumulations that go to the landlords. If this were done in Brazil - along with a heavy program of land resettlement, which means providing sufficient space for families to produce - food production would increase enormously. Also, perhaps, the favelas would empty. In Taiwan, in the early 50's, a similar policy, which collected Land Rent which bore no relationship to actual individual production led to tremendous increases in harvests. Most peasants grew as many as five crops from the same 5 hectares. At one point, the island with a population density on the way to 1,400 to the square mile, had a net export of food. Could the Brazilians do something similar? I think they could. Yet the only, somewhat oblique, answer to my post detailing the emptiness of Brazil came from Elizabeth who quoted the failure of government settlement of peasants in the rain forest. Which reference had nothing to so with my post. So, you can look at the crowded favelas for evidence of overpopulation - or raise your eyes to the real Brazil in all its vastness. Of course stupidity can kill the lot of us and our leaders are good at it. But, replacing their stupidity with another stupidity won't get us off the hook. The red herrings of Global Warming, Bio diversity, and the rest of the environmental playbook, can send us to Hades as quickly as can the existing scenario. Harry
Re: Brazil
Elinor wrote (see below): World Watch offers a sanitized version of the situation. I assume that Elinor is countering my suggestion that there is plenty of good space for peasants to farm in Brazil. I suppose that is politically incorrect, for it runs counter to the advocates of Pop-Dread, who simply *know* that we're going to hell in a hand basket. Elinor tells us that nature will not always cooperate with us, and suggests that "if we, with a little humility, try to >learn her ways . . . . . ". Apparently World Watch didn't want to learn. The government of Brazil (you will remember from my other post that one third of congress are large landlords) opened a project to colonize the rain forest. It settled peasant families on 40 acre plots, where they had to cut and burn the forest ready for planting. The rain forest has a termite ecology. That's perhaps the 'alive' part of the soil for, indeed, rain forest earth is without merit. The sole reason for the earth is to support the trees which get little nourishment through their shallow roots. Which makes them easy to knock over, but more about that later. Incidentally, the termites emit great amounts of methane - a favorite greenhouse gas. I've suggested that we should destroy the rain forests and the termites, thereby reducing this serious methane problem. OK! I was kidding. A project to measure termite methane is under way at JPL, but I don't know their conclusions. After burning, the farmers used the nutrient in the tree ash to feed their first crop. That lasted the first year, then there was no more, so they starved. The government brought in fertilizer - but the land was simply unsuitable for farms. The peasants should never have been settled their in the first place. But, this was not an economic project. It was a purely political venture, doomed to failure. It does, however, provide World Watch with the opportunity to make the sage comment "Much of the land that could not sustain ongoing, intensive cultivation was converted to grazing land or abandoned", with the implication that peasants can't cut it. Then they can dribble in their beards, as that conclusion helps to prove the nonsense that there is a "Land-Scarce" world. Meantime, over the hill another government plan was underway. They gave great tax advantages to those who would clear the forest and put cattle on the cleared land. Farmers, such as Volkswagen and Xerox sprang into action pulling down the trees with chains slung between bulldozers (remember they are shallow rooted). It was ridiculous. They burned without even bothering to cull the good stuff. A mahogany tree can fetch $10,000 - but they didn't care. It's estimated that some $250 million of good hardwood went up in smoke. Such was the rush to get some cattle in, and some taxes off. So, Elinor, that's the way it was. I haven't been following it recently, so I don't know what is happening. I am pretty skeptical about the governments ability to do anything that will enfranchise the peasant. And without a free peasantry - which means free land - people will still be filling the favelas from the north, looking for work and hope. Harry >In "State of the World - 97" the World Watch Inst. has a commentary in a section >called "A Land-Scarce World" (p.54-55) on Brazil. Part of it reads: > >"Brazil's attempt to colonize the Amazon region in the 70's is a clear >demonstration of the difficulty of introucing farming to remote regions with >poor soils.The Transamazon colonization scheme, announced in 1970, >envisioned construction of a highway through the Amazon jungle that would >open millions of hectares of forst for farming. The plan foresaw >resettlement of a million families by 1980. But by 1978, only 7600 families >had been settled; turnover rates were high, as the scheme was plagued by >lack of infrastructure, administrative difficulties, and above all, poor >soil fertility. Tropical soils like those in the Amazon are notoriously >meagre in nutrients, and can be farmed sustainable only with long fallow >periods. In the late 70's, rice yields in the resettled areas were lass than >half the US average, and well below the world average. Much of the land that >could not sustain ongoing, intensive cultivation was converted to grazing >land or abandoned; by 19890, the program was sharply curtailed." > >World Watch in this and other publications has a wealth of information on >land and other resources. I imagine they are available in most libraries, >and the yearly subscription to the bi-monthly magazine in the US is only $20. > >All of which goes to say to me that nature will not always cooperate when we >crack the whip over her head, but if we, with a little humility, try to >learn her ways and let her lead us, we may after all accomplish something. -
Re: It looked like a hand grenade ...
Jay wrote: >>HARRY: The earth is a veritable storehouse of everything we need. >>If we run into a temporary shortage, the market will handle >>it while government is printing the appropriate forms. >> >>If we run out of something, we'll use something else. We are > >You are probably right Harry about using something else. It >may be possible to boil raw sewage into something edible. I >suppose road kill may not taste too bad if one adds lots of >spices. No oil though, so you're your going to have to cook >with reclaimed Pampers ... but again no problem, you can wrap >wet rags around your head to survive the greasy smoke. > >I am constantly amazed that economists would prefer to live >like this. Do economists assume that everyone would prefer >live in the gutter? This kind of hyperbole, unfortunately will get you everywhere. Perhaps conditioned by "Film at 11" we expect ever escalating scenarios. It bares little relation to reality, but it isn't intended to. It's intended to shock, to present a frightening aspect of society. That wakes 'em up! Jay, you escalate very well, using Ed's wonderful description of the hellish conditions in Sao Paulo. By the way, thank you, Ed. What you didn't say, Jay, is revealing - but then you were making what passes as a biggie point - somewhat irrelevant, but big. The trouble is you are caught, with others, in that obsession with silly things like prospective global warming, overpopulation, and the end of food as we knowÿ it. More can be said about Brazil. There are five and a half million homeless. Every day 32 million go hungry. That's 1 in every 5 Brazilians. Well, that's overpopulation for you - and the taste for raw sewage. But, not quite. You didn't mention the land problem in Brazil, where just 2.8% of the population owns 57 percent of Brazil's countryside--an area greater than Spain, France, Germany, and England put together. Making matters worse, 62 percent of that land lies idle. Just 342 farm properties cover 183,397 square miles - an area larger than California, yet 70% of rural households have little or none. Ed mentioned the first stage favelas, which "are usually occupied by people who have recently come in from the country, especially from the north of Brazil, to look for work". Northern Brazil is often compared to the American Wild West, where powerful barons rule almost feudal fiefdoms. Huge undeveloped tracts account for more than 70 percent of the land. A single company, Manasa, owns land the size of Belgium. Now you know why they came to the city. They were landless - so they chose the work and the raw sewage. Others are not quite so passive. The largest land occupation ever staged happened in the rich farming state of Paraná in southern Brazil. Paraná is the bread basket of Brazil, yet ÿ 40% of the land is fallow. Late one night, in April 1996, 10,000 squatters descended on a 200,000-acre spread owned by the Giacometti lumber company. Many held out against the company through a winter of cold and hunger. There were deaths on both sides. Eventually, the government announced 38,000 acres would be turned over to the remaining squatters In Pará state, there have been 67 similar land invasions so far this year. Last year, 536 families settled on a 86,400-acre ranch. Backed by government credit they plan to produce chicken, peaches, and packaged rice. Their tents have already been replaced by cinder block housing. Before they arrived on the 86,400 acres, the ranch was fully occupied by no less than 110 cattle. The people have been promised land reform, but one third of the seats in Congress are held by the large landholders, so don't hold your breaths. But, Jay was too busy making his funnies to let you know that Brazil is better known for its emptiness than its overpopulated sewage eaters. The world is empty. We should stop crying the sky is falling and attend to the real problems. Harry
Response to Durants posting
Tom said: >First, let me state that >I am in favour of the tone of Eva's post. There is a tacit agreement >throughout government and academia that the poor will always be with us and >it comes out of the total acceptance of the concept of "the economy" which >is based on the concept of "profit" which by it's very nature implies that >some will gain while others lose. No, it doesn't. If you profit from my excellent goods, and indeed many others do also, I will earn a profit from my service to you consumers. When a trade takes place, both sides are better off (have made a profit) or they wouldn't have traded. What, perhaps, both of you are angry at is 'privilege' income. This is income that comes from a licence to occupy a valuable location (given by the State). Or, the income that comes from some other privilege, such as that given by trade restrictions, both inside the country and at the borders. A privilege is a 'private law' (a privi lege). It gives an advantage to one at the expense of the other. These private laws are passed by legislatures of various kinds. At times, it seems to be their sole job. You wouldn't ask the burglar to put locks on your doors. That, I fear, is what you are doing when you ask Congress or Parliament to stop this handing out the special deals to their favorites. Their favorites are of course mainly corporations and unions, who often swill at the same trough. The unions are anti-free trade like their employers, because that provides higher prices with which the corporations get better bottom lines and the unions push up their wages. The fact that these benefits are at the expense of the whole population is of little concern to the fatcats in either organization. And you are both worried about 'profit'. We'll never get done the "underlying job to change this outdated, chaotic, uncontrollable anti-human system" (Tom) and we'll never accomplish the ultimate reform (Eva) - the ending of poverty - while we fool around with this outdated socialist thinking. I'm a radical advocating a completely free market in conditions of social justice. I'm the fellow who stands in the middle of the road while the corporation behemoths thunder in one direction and the socialist juggernauts pound along the other. Not a very safe position - but when one's heart is pure . . . . . . . Harry
Re: It looked like a hand grenade ...
Jay Hanson wrote (see below): The government handled the gas shortage real well. I remember we were paying more than $1.20 when the estimate of the Wall Street Journal was an 89 cent clearing price. But I like their forethought in printing ration coupons. Pretty nice coupons with a picture of George Washington. These were hurriedly withdrawn when it was found that bill-changing machines would give money for the coupons. They printed more which cost us $16 million - and were never used. The point being that while they were fooling around, the market sorted things out. >Have you ever been sailing Harry? How about camping? Did > you "run out" of anything? If so, did you ever wonder why? Camping - and if I found myself short, I'd go without - or take steps to remedy the situation. But, I would blame me for putting myself in this situation. The earth is a veritable storehouse of everything we need. If we run into a temporary shortage, the market will handle it while government is printing the appropriate forms. If we run out of something, we'll use something else. We are a small species spread thinly across an enormous planet. Our biggest worry should be the antics of the clowns meeting in Kyoto. We must hope that they won't do too much irreparable harm. Harry - > At 12:17 PM 11/27/97 -0800, Harry wrote: > > >Public policy has nothing to do with 'optimizing > >consumption'. > > > >That's for individual people to decide. > > I have been trying to imagine how the concept of "finite" can > be demonstrated to someone who has apparently never > experienced it. > > I was talking to a friend yesterday about why most people > -- especially economists -- are simply unable to imagine > running totally out of something. We are both trying to come > up with some device (a computer game?) that can demonstrate > the concept of "finite" and "running out" to economists. > > The problem is that I cruised for four years on my sailboat > (my friend ten years on her's), so the concept of "finite" > was demonstrated over and over in our daily lives. For > example, we had just so many gallons in our water and fuel > tanks, and when that was used up, we were OUT. > > On long trips, we "rationed" water and fuel so we wouldn't > "run out". This is because if one "runs out" of water in > the middle of the ocean, one can die. > > Have you ever been sailing Harry? How about camping? Did > you "run out" of anything? If so, did you ever wonder why? > > Jay -- http://dieoff.org/page1.htm > == > TIME, January 14, 1974 > > It looked like a hand grenade, so the Albany, N.Y., station > operator played it safe and assumed that it was a hand grenade. > He gave the man who was toting it all the gas he wanted. > Attendants elsewhere last week faced curses and threats of > violence, sometimes backed by suspicious bulges in the pockets > of jackets. When a huge bear of a man warned a Springfield, > Mass., dealer, "You are going to give me gas or I will kill > you," the dealer squeezed his parched pumps to find some. > "Better a live coward than a dead hero," he said. > > Such incidents were not exactly common last week, but they > occurred often enough, especially in the Northeast, to indicate > an outbreak of a kind of gasoline madness. The New Year's > weekend was the first time that many drivers became really > desperate for gas. Many stations ran out of their monthly > allotments as the weekend started and closed until they could > get new deliveries after the holiday. Those that stayed open > backed up long lines of drivers whose tempers sometimes > exploded -- especially if they found the pumps dry when they > finally got to them. > > The gas shortage is sparking other types of deviant behavior. > Flouting of the law is on the rise. In New York City, two > gasoline tanks trucks, each loaded with 3,000 gallons, were > hijacked within a week. Price gouging by station owners has > become distressingly common. Miamians complain of having to pay > $1 a gallon or being charged a $2 "service fee" before a station > attendant will wait on them. > > At best, many gas station owners and attendants have become > unapproachable to strangers; they will wait only on longtime > customers. Some issue window stickers to the regulars; others > sell by appointment only. Oregon Governor Tom McCall last week > rolled into a Union 76 station only to be told by the manager: > "Sorry, Governor, we're only selling to our regular customers." > So the Governor meekly drove to the end of the line at a nearby > station that was taking all comers. * Harry Pollard (818) 352-4141 Henry George School of Los Angeles Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 *
Re: nothing but competition and consumption?
Jay wrote: >Charles, this "economic" world view -- nothing but competition >and consumption -- is at odds with the scientific community. > >Do you really believe that public policy should optimize >"competition and consumption"? > >If not, what should the goal of public policy be? Competition gets us the best goods at the cheapest price. Is there any opposition to this function of supplying people with what they want? Public policy has nothing to do with 'optimizing consumption'. That's for individual people to decide. The state should certainly have a policy of ending their existing curbs on competition and not adding any new restrictions in future. Unfortunately, that policy won't happen. The privileged pay them well to not free the market. Harry
Re: Antimonopoly is Anti-Capitalist?
Neil Rest wrote: >At 11:47 AM 11/24/97 -0800, Harry Pollard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>Leo, >> >>It depends what you mean by capitalism. >> >>I mean this present mixed economy, which is overflowing with privilege. >> >>If you mean the free market by capitalism, obviously there will be no >>'monopolies'. > >It is empiricly verifiable that this proposition is "obvious" primarily to >True Believers, and to few other people. > >>But then what do we mean by the free market? >> >>Harry Go ahead, Neil. Verify it. Harry
Re: FW RE: Few reap benefits of global trade push
Tom Walker wrote: Tom, Good post. If only governments eralized that the thing to do (next to doing nothing) is to encourage imports, we'd get somewhere good. Harry --- > Carol Goar wrote (forwarded by Mike Gurstein), > > >It is almost as if there are two economies - one for global high-flyers and > >one for ordinary citizens. > > > >That is exactly the conclusion of a study just published by the New > >York-based Council on Foreign Relations. The culprit, it says, is > >globalization. > > > >While trade enriches nations, the council acknowledges, ``global > >integration may not benefit middle-class citizens as a group.'' > > The CfR's assumption that "trade enriches nations" is off the mark. Some -- > but not all -- trade does enrich a nation. However, governments that pursue > trade for trade's sake can, and often do, promote exports at the cost of > economic efficiency. The formula (elixir) of neo-liberal policy for the past > two decades has combined domestic austerity -- high interest rates, cutbacks > in social programs, slow growth to contain wage inflation -- with trade > expansion and liberalization. The two approaches are hardly independant -- > they're equal parts of a comprehensive strategy. The whole POINT is to make > the rich richer by making the poor poorer. > > There's one thing to be said for "liberalizing trade" -- it sure forces the > tariffs, barriers and subsidies underground. The more "free trade" removes > trade barriers and subsidies you can see, the more governments improvise > barriers and subsidies you can't see. The Canadian "Employment Insurance" > system is a beautiful example of a byzantine export subsidy system > masquarading as a social insurance program. The federal government chooses > to maintain an artificially high level of unemployment not just to fight > inflation but also to subsidize exports UNDER THE TABLE. > > It's long been understood that high interest rate policies are *designed* to > keep unemployment high. While Unemployment Insurance wasn't designed to > create more unemployment, that feature of the program was tolerated for 25 > years because it provided an unofficial subsidy to export industries. When > the program was "redesigned" a couple of years ago as so-called Employment > Insurance, guess what feature of the program was NOT ON THE TABLE? That's > right the unofficial, job-killing export subsidy. > > Regards, > > Tom Walker > ^^^^^^^ > knoW Ware Communications > Vancouver, B.C., CANADA > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > (604) 688-8296 > ^^^ > The TimeWork Web: http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/ -- * Harry Pollard (818) 352-4141 Henry George School of Los Angeles Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 *
Re: Antimonopoly is Anti-Capitalist?
Leo, It depends what you mean by capitalism. I mean this present mixed economy, which is overflowing with privilege. If you mean the free market by capitalism, obviously there will be no 'monopolies'. But then what do we mean by the free market? Harry - Leo M. Lee wrote: > > You know, I'm not really surprised at the confusion. There are so many sloganeers >around who really don't know what capitalism is. Equating monopoly with capitalism is >like mixing up Jesus with Lucifer. > > Leo M. Lee > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Deep Cove, North Vancouver, B. C. Canada > > "Only strong personalities can endure history, the weak ones are extinguished by it." > > Friedrich Nietzsche -- * Harry Pollard (818) 352-4141 Henry George School of Los Angeles Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 *
Re: (sigh)
All, There's the story of the tourist out west. He came across an old Indian sitting on a blanket, smoking a pipe. He passed the time of day then said: "Chief, why do you just sit there. Why don't you get a job?" "Why should I want to do that?" "Well, you can work hard, learn a lot, rise through your company, make a good salary, until at last you can retire - and then you won't have to work any more." The Indian thought for a moment, then said: "Not working now." Harry Brad McCormick, Ed.D. wrote: > > AR Gouin wrote: > [snip] > > Let's celebrate for a year, OK? :-). > > > > Amicalement, > > "The end of labor is to gain leisure." Aristotle. > > -- ARG d'Ottawa ON Canada. Futuriste-au-loisir maintenant. -- > > I would argue that a big factor in the present-day economic > situation, at least in the United States and other > proudly neo-laissez faire countries is that we have forgotten > this wisdom of Aristotle's (along with his other wisdom > that slaves would not be necessary if machines operated > themselves). > > Freedom *from* enterprise is a very > different aspiration than freedom *of* enterprise (Hannah > Arendt dealt with this devolution in _The Human Condition_). > > \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 > --- > Visit my website ==> http://www.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/ -- * Harry Pollard (818) 352-4141 Henry George School of Los Angeles Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 *
Re: FW Unemployment and the economy
Robert wrote (see below): One of the major problems is the way we think. The problem is not in any way overproduction - but underproduction. Overproduction implies that all consumers have everything they want - an obvious error. It just looks like overproduction. Harry >In response to Alan Scharf and Thomas Lunde > >Two reasons (among others) for overproduction can be: > >1. Rising costs for repairing the damages caused by industrial >production >(ecology, health, security systems) lead to sinking money for private >consumption. > >2. Economic theory is not aware of the limits of time which exist for >all consumers. Consumption needs a lot of time: time for earning the >money to buy a product, time to use it and time to repair it. >The limits of consumption due to the limits of time were predicted by >the Swedish economist Staffan B. Linder in his book "The Harried Leisure >Class", 1970, Columbia University Press. > >Maybe a reduction of (industrial organized ) work and a better >distribution of paid work could lead to a higher quality of life. > >Robert Neunteufel ---
Re: FW - Brief Response to Grieber Article re Harry's quote
Tom wrote (see below): If the same rate of tax is imposed on all appropriate businesses, they will raise prices. If a differential tax (some paying more than another) is imposed - they can't raise prices (some conditions can change that general rule). However, increased taxes are not paid by business, nor by the consumer - but that's a more sophisticated analysis. Keynes thought that monopolies don't matter - if they are taxed for their illgotten gains. You are essentially saying the same thing. I would say that if someone earned his $100 million in a free market servicing consumers, he should pay no tax. (Libertarianism) If he had a privilege that returned to him $100 million, he should be taxed 100% of his $100 million. (neo-Keynesianism) Best, however, is not to give the lucrative privilege in the first place. (Georgism) But, that's too radical Harry >HARRY: "Taxing high incomes is very hopeless. It would be better to consider why >they are high. Taxing profits merely passes those taxes through to the >consumer." > >Well Harry, this bit of truism has stumped me for quite awhile but I think >I have a rebuttal. > >The conventional neo-con wisdom is that if you tax my profits, then I have >to raise my prices which makes the price of my goods and services higher >which means that you can buy less. So, why don't you pay all the taxes and > >for my part of the bargain I will deliver the best and lowest priced >products to >you and because of my superior wisdom and entrepreneurial spirit, my >benefit >should be increased income because I am more productive. > >Well, if that is the Faustian bargain they offer, let me try a counter >proposal. Let the prices rise, tax the profits and your income heavily or >at least at the same level as mine. This will in effect lower my taxes >giving me more disposable income. Now the difference is that with more >disposable income, I have more choice as to which of the high priced goods >you produce I might want to purchase and own/use. > >In my personal life, I have four kinds of income that come from my gross. > >1. The portion I owe the government for all the services it provides. > >2. Essential income - food to continue living, shelter and transportation. > >3. Disposable income, which is what I spend in the private sector for all > the goods and services they provide. > >4. Savings and emergency income for when my car breaks down or I want to > retire and not take up residenceon the pavement at some future time. > >Now, if I pay out too much for one and two, then number three becomes less. >Because it is less, there are many things I can't buy even though the >price is low. If my share to the government was reduced by 10%, that money >goes down to income number 3 and 4 where I am the one having choice. So, >what I am saying is that I would rather have the choice of which high >priced goods I buy, because I will have some money, rather than paying it >in taxes so the neo-cons can work to produce lower priced goods which I >can't afford anyway because in the hierarchy of income, I don't get a >choice. > >Now, aside from all the other problems in the economic world, I would like >to thank you for giving me a reason for writing this and putting it our for >criticism and review. > >Respectfully > > >Thomas Lunde - * Harry Pollard (818) 352-4141 Henry George School of Los Angeles Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 *
Re: Challenging Assumptions in your discipline
Tom wrote: >I have to admit that there is a certain kind of "economy" (in the sense of >parsimony) in the fact that you have managed to amuse yourself for half a >century with a single solipsistic word game. A contemporary of Henry George, >Lewis Carroll, described this word game in "Through the Looking Glass". You >may recall that for Humpty Dumpty, words meant precisely what he wanted them >to mean (this might fit under the proposition that "desires are unlimited"). > >But here's another proposition: > >"revolution" means going around in circles; >when you go around in a circle you eventually get back to where you started; >isn't that revolting? Thomas, Thomas, Thomas! Isn't it annoying when you simply can't find a person who is not described by the two Assumptions? I suggest that you don't fight it. It really is a great beginning tool for analyzing human behavior. Incidentally, the two assumptions of all science are: "There is an order in the universe." "The mind of Man can find that order." You might like to try that - having failed with the Classical Assumptions. Harry * Harry Pollard (818) 352-4141 Henry George School of Los Angeles Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 *
Re: Challenging Assumptions in your discipline
Arthur wrote:>> They are: >> >>""; >> >>"". >> >> No exceptions allowed! >> >> The first, of course, means that that their can be no such thing as >> unemployment - which might lead to some rewarding questions. >> >> The second accounts for some behavior that we are sometimes affronted by. > >It seems to me that neither statement can be proved or disproved. >As assumptions one could just as well pose the opposite: 'desires are > 'desires satisfied with greatest exertion' Arthur, look around. Everywhere are people - including you and me - who are not described by your posits. These Assumptions are self-evident - which gives them their strength.>Or 'desires appear unlimited since they change over time' 'desires >satisfied with different levels of exertion, depending on the physical >and mental state of the individual', etc... Now you are, as they say, cooking with gas. Your examples are all covered by the two Assumptions. Work on these, for they give all of us who deal with people a beginning. However, it's important that they aren't complicated or amended into obfuscation. Harry * Harry Pollard (818) 352-4141 Henry George School of Los Angeles Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 *
Re: Challenging Assumptions in your discipline
Jay wrote: >>Harry Pollard wrote: >>The Classical Political Economy I teach has two Basic Assumptions. The >>whole science rests on these two assumptions. In half century of teaching >>adults, no-one has successfully responded to "Come up with two examples of >>people not described by both Assumptions". >> >>They are: >> >>"Man's desires are unlimited"; >> >>"Man seeks to satisfy his desires with the least exertion". > >Explicitly define "desires" and "least exertion". I don't mind the dictionary description of the term 'desire' - 'conscious impulse toward an object or experience that promises enjoyment or satisfaction in its attainment'. 'Want' is often confused with desire. 'Desire' may be described as 'want with intention to satisfy'. One may 'want' to be a film star. (In fact, lots of people want to be a film stars.) But, if you take acting lessons, perhaps get an agent and haunt the Hollywood studios, perhaps it can then be said "You desire to be a film star." The dictionary suggests 'to exert' is 'to put forth' - 'to put (oneself) into action or to tiring effort'. 'Exertion' is 'a laborious or perceptible effort'. I would simply say that when we do something we are exerting ourselves. In this context, both mental and physical exertion are included in the term. To remove the non-essentials we say that if the exertion produces nothing with exchange value. The product that has exchange value we call 'Wealth'. The exertion that produces it is named 'Labor'. >What economists usually do is the opposite of science. What has that to do with anything? However, I won't ask for anymore than a ballpark figure of 'usually'. >Rather than beginning with a hypothesis that contains >explicit definitions of key terms and then trying to >falsify their hypothesis through experiment, they >intentionally leave key terms ambiguous. This allows >them to adjust definitions of key terms to fit whatever >point they are trying to make while taking full advantage >of the normative and emotive (political) value of the terms. It seems to me you are describing many Global Warming advocates. >Here is the classic: > >"Adam Smith's key insight was that both parties to an > exchange can benefit and that, so long as cooperation > is strictly voluntary, no exchange will take place > unless both parties do benefit." [p. xv, Milton and Rose > Friedman, FREE TO CHOOSE; AVON, 1979; ISBN 0-380-52548-8] > >Although Friedman is one of the most influential economists >of the twentieth century, he is lying. Economists do not >even define the word "benefit" -- let alone measure it. We tend to do things that we believe will be of benefit to us. (Actually, see the Assumptions above.) I doubt the trading benefit can be measured. All we know is that if you invest exertion in trading you expect a return for it. (Otherwise you wouldn't trade.) Strangely enough, when goods exchange their value is the same. If I trade my new 10 speed bicycle for your old pen - at that place and time their market value was the same. So, why invest exertion in trading when each of us gets the same value as we gave? All we apparently finish up with is the same value less the cost of exertion. As well as market value there is something called personal value - the Austrians call it subjective value. When your personal value of something in the market is greater than market value, you'll exchange. If your personal value is less than market value you won't trade. The only time a trade will take place is when the personal values of both traders are greater than market. At the conclusion of the trade, each traders personal values have increased. How much - who knows? It's not worth bothering with. A thousand other trades have occurred while you think about it. So, Friedman was hardly lying. He was just describing something we all know. Harry * Harry Pollard (818) 352-4141 Henry George School of Los Angeles Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 *
Re: Challenging Assumptions in your discipline
Walter Derzko wrote (see below): It's best for a basic assumption to be a self-evident truth. It's good not to have too many, as errors are bound to creep in. (Bertrand Russell said better to have 2 than 16.) The Classical Political Economy I teach has two Basic Assumptions. The whole science rests on these two assumptions. In half century of teaching adults, no-one has successfully responded to "Come up with two examples of people not described by both Assumptions". They are: "Man's desires are unlimited"; "Man seeks to satisfy his desires with the least exertion". No exceptions allowed! The first, of course, means that that their can be no such thing as unemployment - which might lead to some rewarding questions. The second accounts for some behavior that we are sometimes affronted by. The Assumptions do not say that Man is greedy, nor that he is lazy or selfish. They are simply observations. In the interests of Political Correctness, we have replaced 'man' with 'people'! Harry >What do you take for granted in your discipline ? Is it carved in stone? > >What basic assumptions have been challenged in your field over the past >year ? What is it that you always took for granted but don't any more? > >Here's my candidate for physics/chemistry. > >Grade 10 physics and chemistry never prepared me for the possibility thatÿ >the melting point of a substance can be below its freezing point. > >But that's what happens when dimensions get really small. Scientists at >Washington Univ have discovered "that small clusters of atoms-say a dozenÿ >atoms across-exhibits properties so different from normal everyday >aggregations that they're essentially a new form of matter." >Small clusters of sodium don't melt at the usual melting point of 208Fÿ >but at 21F-below the freezing point. Why and how is still a mystery >(Ref Business Week, Sept 29th, page 106) > >...maybe that's why homeopathy workshmmm ?? new effects at the >microcellular level that we can't even imagine yet at our normal scale ofÿ >reality. > >So, what's your candidate for the most unique assumption challenge in >your field that was first suggested or proven in 1997 ? > >Please email me <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> your suggestions by Oct 20th. It's for a >journal article I'm writing. > >Walter Derzko >Director, Idea Lab >Toronto, Ontario >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >(416) 588-1122 - * Harry Pollard (818) 352-4141 Henry George School of Los Angeles Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 *
Re: (Fwd) Re: Sally's challenge
At 10:01 AM 10/15/1997 -0700, Leo M. Lee wrote: At 09:55 AM 14/10/1997 -0700, Harry Pollard wrote: >>> HARRY: I don't advocate capitalism. I want a free market. >> >>EVA: Beg your pardon? How can you have any market >>without capitalism? > >HARRY: You mean there would be no market in your socialist scheme? LEE:Trouble with pure public capital is that it belongs to everyone and no-one in particular, hence no-one really cares. Well said! I'd better say what I use these word for. At opposite ends of the spectrum are Communism and the Free Market. In between are mixed economies - Socialism and Capitalism. Both mixtures start toward their respective ideals. then falter. The socialists find they can't get along without a market. The capitalists find themselves adding more and more governmental interference to their system. Harry * Harry Pollard (818) 352-4141 Henry George School of Los Angeles Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 *
Re: (Fwd) Re: Sally's challenge
Eva wrote: >(Harry Pollard:) >> I don't advocate capitalism. I want a free market. > >Beg your pardon? How can you have any market without capitalism? You mean there would be no market in your socialist scheme? >> >EVA: You name it, it has been tried. Free market, keynesian market, >> >monetarist market, all end up in failure sooner or later. >> >> HARRY: Add socialism - then ask why? >I answered it, I hope you do listen, because that's the only way to >meaningful discussion. Socialism could not succeed in the climate of >not only >underdeveloped economy and technology, but also undeveloped literacy >and undeveloped democracy. The UK had all these things well developed - and a glorious majority in the Commons for the first Labor government. Unfortunately for them (and us) their idealistic socialism didn't work out in practice. >>HARRY: As you know, there is no such thing as free health care and free education. > >Actually, there was quite a decent one here in the UK, until Thatcher >happened. It's a miracle! A National Health Service that cost nothing! When I tell English friends how little I pay for first-class service from my private HMO - they are envious. Why is Blair trying hard to find money to improve the NHS? After all, it's free. >>HARRY: But. look at your previous paragraph. The 'socialism' has to be adopted by >> the "free will of the people". That knocks out practically all of its >> attempts. So, when they fail - even if they try all the policies that >> socialism suggests - its because it wasn't free will. >I agree - it was defeated, because it was not free will. There was >no democratic control or democratic collective planning. The UK's attempt at socialism - supported by the enthusiastic 'free will of the people' - was a dismal failure. In fact, that 'free will' brought the Tories back - eventually for more than a decade - because of the socialist failure. (Both Blair and Clinton are very good at adopting rightist policies. Could that be because of the rejection of socialism by the 'free will of the people'.) >Why couldn't it be >different now with so much more resources, experience in some >democracy and with i.t. that is cheap enough now to be >available for every human? There's a reason but, as yet I don't see you approaching it. >>HARRY: One of the attitudes seen often in socialists is "the tightly >>pursed lip" >> at the ignorance of ordinary people. The socialist knows what is good for >> them, but they don't. This leads to threats and coercion to make people do >> what is good for them. >I am not a pacifist, if I'd think, that force would work, I would go for it. But it evidently doesn't work. I wouldn't. >> Education was already free when they came to power. > >upto the age of 14, run by the church, 60 kids per classroom for the >poor, not being taught anything that the rich were allowed to learn >in the "public" (private) schools. Read your history. My education through technical college was free in the thirties. I - along with my contemporaries - could read at the age of 6. (We sat on our front door step - swapping the Champion, Hotspur, Wizard, etc. They were full of reading material - adventure, sports, science fiction, school, stories. They're still on the shelves of W.H. Smith - but now they are comic books, with lots of drawings - but little reading material. What does that tell you about the changes in British education?. After 50 years, no less! >By the way, Thatcher and most government is voted in by 40+ percent >of the 60+/- percent of the people who bother to vote, is this the >democratic parliament you are refering to? Is democracy a system where one MUST vote whether she wants to, or not? >>HARRY: The market makes a profit when it satisfies the desires >>of the consumer, >> which is all of us. People like cars. The market supplies their likes. You >> should understand that the market is simply the message carrier. You may >> not like the people's choices - but the choices are theirs. >If the consumer is a power hungry dictator? (Saudi Arabia, Iraq, >Iran, Indonasia, etc etc???) Not to mention Hitlers Germany so well >supplied for the market of killing. It's very difficult to discuss anything, when you introduce such nonsense. Try to keep your mind on real life, like Mrs, Smith going to Tesco to buy some sausages. >>HARRY: Human endeavor from it's very nature is "cooperative" - >>and the market is >> the place where their cooperation is complete. > >People cooperated very well for thousands of years before the >capitalist free or not free market, and hopefully they survive to >live and prosper without it, if they don't get crushed by it (again). The only way we can make progress is for you to tell me what you mean by Capitalism, Socialism, and the Market. Harry * Harry Pollard (818) 352-4141 Henry George School of Los Angeles Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 *
Re: (Fwd) Re: Sally's challenge
At 08:57 PM 10/5/1997 GMT, you wrote: >(Harry Pollard:) >> By far the best system for providing for "human needs" is the market, which >> is why the most controlled societies allow, or encourage, market mechanisms >> to make up for their deficiencies in 'gearing for human needs'. >you can say capitalism is better than feudalism or slavery, but you >have to convince me that is is the best we could have with even in >the US creating poverty, hopelessness and bitterness, with the >economical and consequently the social divide getting greater all the >time I don't advocate capitalism. I want a free market. The contemporary capitalists are as opposed to the free market as are the socialists. They talk a good story, but they are responsible for the 8,500 tariffs that penalize our consumers - who are all 260 million of us. And the quotas and patents and a whole bunch of other things that prevent the free market giving us the best at the cheapest. You are in good company - though I bet you're not happy about it. >> But, somehow the market sometimes fails to work. Attention would >>better be >> spent finding why instead of replacing it with it's alternatives - which >> have mostly failed horribly whenever they are tried. >> > >You name it, it has been tried. Free market, keynesian market, >monetarist market, all end up in failure sooner or later. Add socialism - then ask why? >The >latest "boom" we are witnessing is not even capable getting rid off >unemployment and deficits. Why? >The only alternetive tried so far was >non-democratic socialism. Even this deformed form of common ownership >had positive features for the majority of people, such as free >healthcare and free education. Why do you think so many countries actually >re-elected ex-communist governments in eastern Europe? There's an old Georgist story of the visitor to a model farm. He was shown around by the manager who pointed to a fenced field full of cows and declaimed of the advantages the cows. They were taken care of and were supplied with good food. But, said the visitor, why not open the fences and allow them to go into the fields beyond? They could feed themselves. But, said the manager, then we couldn't milk them. As you know, there is no such thing as free health care and free education. >Now picture, what could be achieved, and democratically controlled and >participated by everyone, using the literacy and the technology >unimaginable for 1917 Russia or 1945 Eastern Europe. Your problem is that you are describing as an alternative to the practical contemporary system that is a theoretical ideal. Now, if you want to compare theoretical socialism with theoretical capitalism, or practical socialism with practical capitalism - that's fine. But. look at your previous paragraph. The 'socialism' has to be adopted by the "free will of the people". That knocks out practically all of its attempts. So, when they fail - even if they try all the policies that socialism suggests - its because it wasn't free will. Except, perhaps, Sweden - with its excellent export arms industry - but even socialists have to live. >> Private property is essential to the well-being of people. Private >> appropriation is kind of a cliche - but we are likely to agree >>somewhat on it. >Really? In what way private property is essential for a peasant in >Mexico or Brazil or the Phillipines, who were chucked off their land?? Can't you look at these poor unfortunates and see their second problem is they have little or no private property. Their first problem - but then you mentioned it. I fear that without thought you will offer the cliche without attending to its implications. >Or a "downsized" US citizen, who is forced to take on short-term >contract work, part-time work and totally unsecure future? If he were not so interested in private property - it wouldn't bother him. One of the attitudes seen often in socialists is "the tightly pursed lip" at the ignorance of ordinary people. The socialist knows what is good for them, but they don't. This leads to threats and coercion to make people do what is good for them. It's like fascism but with different faces on the leaders. >> In the sense of stealing, we agree. In the sense of reward for exertion >> spent, we may not. >> > >Just reward d'you reckon? In 1965 average GNP per capita for the top >20% of the world population was 30 times that of the poorest >20%. In 1990 the gap has doubled to 60 times. UNCTAD report 1997: >The richest 1% of American households control 40% of the wealth. >Independent on Sunday 17/8/97: >20 years ago the average chief executive made 40 times what th
Re: (Fwd) Re: Sally's challenge
Eva wrote: >Dear Ed Weick, I think you need to spell out: a system that is >geared to produce for human needs and for the best environment >cannot be based on private property and private appropriation >milking social production, - >the global capitalism you aptly described. Need I go on? By far the best system for providing for "human needs" is the market, which is why the most controlled societies allow, or encourage, market mechanisms to make up for their deficiencies in 'gearing for human needs'. But, somehow the market sometimes fails to work. Attention would better be spent finding why instead of replacing it with it's alternatives - which have mostly failed horribly whenever they are tried. Private property is essential to the well-being of people. Private appropriation is kind of a cliche - but we are likely to agree somewhat on it. In the sense of stealing, we agree. In the sense of reward for exertion spent, we may not. > We could stop relying on a chaotic economic >scene, we now can collect all the data on human needs and >capacities directly, cutting out the tremendous waste. >We could even have fancy cars, until people figure out >that they are a waste of time if there is decent public >transport. I remember Douglas Jay - I think at the time he was UK Home Secretary in the first Labor Government, but am happy to be corrected - saying "We have people in Whitehall who know far better than the English housewife how she should conduct her affairs". Well, he and the Labor government didn't last long - which is as it should be - the arrogant "beep". People don't like being herded by 'those who know better' which is why the free market mostly works and socialism rarely does. I like my 'fancy car'. I make sure it works when I get in and I believe I had it washed last year - or was it the year before? If I had a convenient, cheap, and comfortable public transport available I would use it. In Los Angeles, the car is the chosen method of public transportation. Chosen by economic circumstances, which means it makes sense. It would be a fruitful endeavor to wonder why - and perhaps investigate it. However, there is a general thought process that attaches to collectivists - which is probably why they are collectivist. It's that people are simply unable to fend for themselves, to make appropriate decisions, to be free and independent. Yet, they can. Harry * Harry Pollard (818) 352-4141 Henry George School of Los Angeles Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 *
Re: FW - Brief Response to Grieber Article
ing power. > >Over-accumulation and under-consumption are obviously linked. The former >would not occur, or would at least be delayed, if potential demand (broadly >speaking, from the poor) could be realized. To do so, and thus to expand >the market, means of payment must be distributed to potential consumers, >through taxes on high incomes and, especially, on company profits. > >State taxes on company profits and their redistribution as social >expenditure, subsidies and public investments assume a far greater >strategic importance than the redistribution of part of private incomes. >For they ensure that total profits do not exceed the opportunities for >profitable investment. They prevent the market from collapsing after a >period of over-investment, with all the destruction of capital that would >entail through a series of company closures and stock liquidation. > >Keynesian policies, then, are acts of external regulation, performed by >state technocracy to compensate for the market economy's own inadequate >capacity for self-regulation. They are in the overall interest of >capitalism as a system - but they clash with the interests of individual >capitalists, of particular firms, since compulsory contributions and taxes >reduce the size of their potential profits before these have even been >realized. Each individual firm is led to believe that it would make a far >greater profit without state intervention, while in fact insufficient >demand and lack of opportunity for profitable investment would rapidly >produce a substantial drop in reliable profits. > >However, Keynesian regulation can work only during times of high profits, >of strong potential growth, and thus of strong capacity to invest. It can >regulate and sustain economic growth, but cannot alone create the >conditions for it. It cannot instigate growth when a long cycle of >accumulation comes to an end, and when, true market saturation, labor >shortage and exhaustion of the resources of technological progress, the >rate of profit falls and a long downward cycle begins. > >At best, Keynesian regulation can soften the affects of the structural >depression, but only at the cost of a sharper fall in the rate of profit >and/or higher inflation. It can never eliminate the structural causes of >the crisis. On the contrary, these are clear signs that capitalist >development, along with its Keynesian regulation, has reached its limit. > > >Note: shortage of labour in this case is shortage of appropriately trained >labour, noticeably the high tech sector which if it had all the labour it >needs, it would accelerate the elimination of more labour as the growth of >the high tech industry is to increase efficiency by reducing labour costs >through automation and intelligent tools. > >It seems to me, that "the long cycle of accumulation" has come to an end. >Welcome to the future. -- * Harry Pollard (818) 352-4141 Henry George School of Los Angeles Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 *
Re: FW Will My Daughters Be Serfs?
;question will be subverted by a world that has to deal with the petroleum >fact. This is the best, 1997, may very well be viewed as the pinnacle of >cheap energy and human indulgence. We were there, we will say and we will >forget that it wasn't so great because against what will then be facing, >this will appear to be heaven. > >It would be nice to think that our futurists and politicians and our >business community would face this altruistically, be honest, be fair to >all the people of the world and strive to make this transition with as many >souls as possible. However, we have spent the last 2000 years in >hierarchical models of survival, so I don't expect any change. Those who >come from a different model, the natives, the Quakers and those of >communitarian mind, we have done our best to exterminate, convert or >denigrate. Yes, authoritative governments of the military type, gangs in >the hinterland, daily grind for those in the middle, massive starvation for >those who chose the wrong place to be born, as Leonard Cohen says, "I've >seen the future, brother: it is murder." --- * Harry Pollard (818) 352-4141 Henry George School of Los Angeles Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 *
Re: Futurework/metamorphosis
Tom wrote (see below): Good luck with your exhibit. The V2s were frightening. People who had endured the air assaults for several years were scared stiff of them. As you know they were supersonic. They hit, then you heard them. Rather like the frightening aspect of an earthquake. Suddenly . . . . . . Harry -- Tom Walker wrote: > > A little over a year ago, I posted to the Futurework list a message quoting > a prediction from a 1957 Life magazine that guided missles loaded with > letters were being planned for the distant future. Brad McCormick replied, > pointing out that in London during the V-2 assaults it was said that you > were safe if you heard it coming because the rocket travelled faster than > its propaganda. > > Tomorrow, at the Moat Gallery of the Vancouver Public Library, > Futurework/metamorphosis will go on exhibit as part of the Word on the > Street festival. Futurework/metamorphosis is a "pop-up book" based on my > reply to Brad McCormick's post (which was a treatment for a pop-up book, > provisionally titled "Flight of the Postmodern, 1957"). > > An online version of Futurework/metamorphosis has been launched to: > http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/mail.htm > and will remain online for the duration of the VPL exhibition. > > Regards, > > Tom Walker > ^^^ > knoW Ware Communications > Vancouver, B.C., CANADA > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > (604) 688-8296 > ^^^ > The TimeWork Web: HTTP://WWW.VCN.BC.CA/TIMEWORK/
Re: Globalization Policy Discussion (fwd)
Gentlemen, Couldn't get through at the URL mentioned in your message. Harry Michael Gurstein wrote: > > -- Forwarded message -- > Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 09:47:38 -0700 > From: mckeever <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: Academic Council on the UN System Discussion List > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Multiple recipients of list ACUNS-IO <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Globalization Policy Discussion > > APOLOGIES FOR CROSS POSTING - REPOST TO ANY LIST > > The proper role of government in making and implementing economic policies > has received a lot of attention in recent days. > > The World Bank just completed a development report summary that effectively > turned the free trade, export oriented development strategy on its head. You > can read a summary of that report at > http://www.worldbank.org/html/extpb/wdr97/english/wdr97sul.htm/ > > Further, the UNCTAD recently issued a press release (TAD/1847, 9-11-97) > which suggested several policy alternatives to the export oriented model. If > you would like to read this release, please send me a return email and I > will forward it to you (I received the release courtesy of: > [EMAIL PROTECTED]). > > Additionally, you can read some further discussions of economic policy on my > web site listed below. > > As always, your comments are welcome. > > Cheers, > > Mike P. McKeever > > Assistant Professor, Economics and Business > Director, Graduate School of Business Administration > Armstrong University, Oakland, CA > > (Any opinions expressed herein do not represent the views of the University.) > > Founder: The McKEEVER INSTITUTE OF ECONOMIC POLICY ANALYSIS (MIEPA) > 1511 Woolsey Street, Berkeley, CA 94703 USA > Telephone 510-486-0275 > email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > URL: http://www.mkeever.com/ (Note: there is no 'c' in mkeever. This is a > free site) > > Author/Publisher: "CONCEPTUAL ECONOMICS" Copyright 1996; to receive a copy > of the Table of Contents and an order form, send a request via email > to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Thought for the day: "Relaxit's easier than you think." John. B. > Dunford, Ph. D.
Re: jobs jobs jobs (fwd)
Michael forwarded: >As far as percentage of jobs in US, construction provided 5% of all >jobs (excluding mining) from 1960 to 1990, and dropped to 4% between >1990-93 . . . . . . . . Thanks Mike! Interesting post. Although construction has only 4-5% of the jobs, it pulls a lot of the economy with it. A new house requires a stove, refrigerator, furniture and a lot more. I can't remember how much more production is pulled along. Is it 25% of the economy? Perhaps someone knows the estimate. In any event, a drop of 1% in construction affects a much greater part of the economy than is perhaps realized. With regard to service jobs, as the Economist said - advanced economies always show a large and growing service sector. Harry ***** Harry Pollard (818) 352-4141 Henry George School of Los Angeles Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 *
