torn

[Andrew Straw]

I must admit that I am often torn between supporting those who want freer
trade and those who are interested in protecting workers in core countries
like the US.

On the one hand, laborers in the US have fought for decades to attain fair
wages and reasonable benefits for the hard work they do.  Making trade
freer gives management a huge leverage and bargaining tool: either take
our offer or we will do a serious cost/benefit about whether we should
move to Juarez/Singapore/Thailand, etc.  Of course this is a threat to the
livelihood of core-country laborers and their unions.  I think of it as
macro-level union busting.

On the other hand, providing good jobs in other countries is not such a
bad thing either.  How many workers in SW Indiana complained when Toyota
built a factory there?  People were lining up to work there because jobs
are scarse in such rural areas.  The same happens when an American company
moves to a rural part of another country: they line up for those jobs
because for them, they ARE good jobs.  If the jobs paid a relatively awful
wage in that country, there would not be such a demand to become an
employee.

In my opinion, after listening to the many distinguished voices on this
list, we are in a period of turbulence which will last for some
time--perhaps another 20 years?  After which time, the dust will have
cleared, and most jobs will have workers who are paid the rate that
benefits stockholders the most.  Whether or not that result is a living
wage capable to sustaining a quality standard of living has yet to be
determined.

I don't see protests in Seattle as changing this verdict in the least.
It was happening before the WTO, and will continue whether that
organization is abolished or not.  As someone who does care about workers
both in core and peripheral countries, I think the best thing is to use
what little nation-state power there remains to increase the diversity of
precisely the stockholding ownership that drives this system.

Make more people owners.  Active owners.  Both in core AND in peripheral
countries.

Any other answers?  Concerns?

Andrew U. D. Straw
Fredericksburg, VA

Re: torn

[Timework Web]

That is, unless this is postumism. Which it is. What is postumism? It
ain't exactly capitalism and it ain't exactly fascism. It's definitely not
socialism, although "anti-socialism" might be about as close as you're
going to get.

The political economy of postumism poses the following question: would you
rather have your appendicitis cured by eating Grape-Nuts (the individual
free enterprise system) or would you rather be fed to a hideous sea
monster (socialism)? You think I'm kidding? Don't I wish.

Tom Walker
TimeWork Web
http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/worksite.htm

RE: torn

["Cordell, Arthur: #ECOM - COMÉ"]

I think we passed the high point of globalization about a year ago.  Present
protests at the WTO are significant. Globalization carried out by the
multinationals for the benefit of the few has peaked.  Can I prove it?  No.
But this is what seems to be the case.

Another straw in the wind?  The recent elections in NZ.  A retreat from
Thatcherism.

arthur cordell
 --
From: Andrew Straw
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: torn
Date: Friday, December 03, 1999 1:03PM

I must admit that I am often torn between supporting those who want freer
trade and those who are interested in protecting workers in core countries
like the US.

On the one hand, laborers in the US have fought for decades to attain fair
wages and reasonable benefits for the hard work they do.  Making trade
freer gives management a huge leverage and bargaining tool: either take
our offer or we will do a serious cost/benefit about whether we should
move to Juarez/Singapore/Thailand, etc.  Of course this is a threat to the
livelihood of core-country laborers and their unions.  I think of it as
macro-level union busting.

On the other hand, providing good jobs in other countries is not such a
bad thing either.  How many workers in SW Indiana complained when Toyota
built a factory there?  People were lining up to work there because jobs
are scarse in such rural areas.  The same happens when an American company
moves to a rural part of another country: they line up for those jobs
because for them, they ARE good jobs.  If the jobs paid a relatively awful
wage in that country, there would not be such a demand to become an
employee.

In my opinion, after listening to the many distinguished voices on this
list, we are in a period of turbulence which will last for some
time--perhaps another 20 years?  After which time, the dust will have
cleared, and most jobs will have workers who are paid the rate that
benefits stockholders the most.  Whether or not that result is a living
wage capable to sustaining a quality standard of living has yet to be
determined.

I don't see protests in Seattle as changing this verdict in the least.
It was happening before the WTO, and will continue whether that
organization is abolished or not.  As someone who does care about workers
both in core and peripheral countries, I think the best thing is to use
what little nation-state power there remains to increase the diversity of
precisely the stockholding ownership that drives this system.

Make more people owners.  Active owners.  Both in core AND in peripheral
countries.

Any other answers?  Concerns?

Andrew U. D. Straw
Fredericksburg, VA

Re: torn

[Bob McDaniel]

This reminded me of a thought I had many years ago when learning linear
programming. It seems that when solving a problem to, say, maximize revenue
subject to a number of constraints imposed by limited resources (materials,
labour, etc.), one automatically solves a dual problem which minimizes costs by
imputing to each unit of resource a value exactly commensurate with the
contribution that a given resource makes to the total revenue. This is what is
supposed to happen under the conditions of perfect competition (free
enterprise, invisible hand, etc.)!

It occurred to me then that perhaps only in a centrally planned economy could
one ensure the results of perfect competition or free enterprise!

Bob


"Brad McCormick, Ed.D." wrote:

> I heard a lovely report by one of the pharmaceutical company
> "free marketeers" on NPR:
>
> http://www.users.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/etc.html#fm
>
> He very clearly explained what a "free" market is, in contrast
> with the chaos of a "wild west" market!
>
> Ah, the joys of centralized government planning (aka "free enterprise")!
>
>

--
http://publish.uwo.ca/~mcdaniel/

Re: torn

[Judi Kessler]

I share some of the same sentiments. And I am conflicted...

Huffy is closing the last of its US factories in Farmington, MO. Folks
(with years of experience in blue-collar manufacturing jobs) are
scrambling for service sector employment. Their training and employment
history disqualifies them from all but the low-wage positions.
At the same time, Los Angeles-based Garment Services Int'l recently
opened an apparel maquiladora on the outskirts of Tijuana (I have spent a
fair amount of time in the plant). Workers (mostly because the labor
market is so tight in the border region) are earning 2-3 times the minimum
wage, have a decent work environment, access to free on-site child care,
and labor-management relations are quite good. Turnover is about 2%.

Cut, make, and trim work (sewing) is tough, but the GSI employees leave
work to better living environments, more money in their pockets, and don't
have to pull their school-age kids out of school to sustain the family.

These folks are unionized under the CTM (the government "puppet" union).
The AFL-CIO has attempted to work with independent unions to reorganize
the factory. The workers are livid. They want no part of it.
Although I would like to see GSI workers earn 10 times (rather than 2-3)
the prevailing wage, I can't help but question US labor tactics in
relation to developing countries' workplaces.

This bothers me, given that I have been pro-union all my working life.
Am I being overly-critical?


"A man who works with his hands is a laborer;
a man who works with his hands and his brain is a craftsman;
but a man who works with his hands and his brain and his heart
is an artist" Louis Nizer (1902-1994)



*
Judi A. Kessler
Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies
University of California, San Diego
9500 Gilman Drive, Dept. 0510
La Jolla, CA 92093-0510 USA
(858) 534-4147 or (858) 534-4503
*

On Fri, 3 Dec 1999, Andrew Straw wrote:

> I must admit that I am often torn between supporting those who want freer
> trade and those who are interested in protecting workers in core countries
> like the US.
> 
> On the one hand, laborers in the US have fought for decades to attain fair
> wages and reasonable benefits for the hard work they do.  Making trade
> freer gives management a huge leverage and bargaining tool: either take
> our offer or we will do a serious cost/benefit about whether we should
> move to Juarez/Singapore/Thailand, etc.  Of course this is a threat to the
> livelihood of core-country laborers and their unions.  I think of it as
> macro-level union busting.
> 
> On the other hand, providing good jobs in other countries is not such a
> bad thing either.  How many workers in SW Indiana complained when Toyota
> built a factory there?  People were lining up to work there because jobs
> are scarse in such rural areas.  The same happens when an American company
> moves to a rural part of another country: they line up for those jobs
> because for them, they ARE good jobs.  If the jobs paid a relatively awful
> wage in that country, there would not be such a demand to become an
> employee.
> 
> In my opinion, after listening to the many distinguished voices on this
> list, we are in a period of turbulence which will last for some
> time--perhaps another 20 years?  After which time, the dust will have
> cleared, and most jobs will have workers who are paid the rate that
> benefits stockholders the most.  Whether or not that result is a living
> wage capable to sustaining a quality standard of living has yet to be
> determined.
> 
> I don't see protests in Seattle as changing this verdict in the least.
> It was happening before the WTO, and will continue whether that
> organization is abolished or not.  As someone who does care about workers
> both in core and peripheral countries, I think the best thing is to use
> what little nation-state power there remains to increase the diversity of
> precisely the stockholding ownership that drives this system.
> 
> Make more people owners.  Active owners.  Both in core AND in peripheral
> countries.
> 
> Any other answers?  Concerns?
> 
> Andrew U. D. Straw
> Fredericksburg, VA
> 

Re: torn

[Timework Web]

On Fri, 3 Dec 1999, Bob McDaniel wrote:

> It occurred to me then that perhaps only in a centrally planned economy could
> one ensure the results of perfect competition or free enterprise!


The same thought occurred to Oskar Lange in the 1930s.


Tom Walker
TimeWork Web
http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/worksite.htm

Re: torn

["Cordell, Arthur: #ECOM - COMÉ"]

thanx Tom.  I was trying to remember his name (without running to the
bookshelf).Yup, Lange thought he could do it.
 --
From: Timework Web
To: Bob McDaniel
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: torn
Date: Friday, December 03, 1999 10:23PM

On Fri, 3 Dec 1999, Bob McDaniel wrote:

> It occurred to me then that perhaps only in a centrally planned economy
could
> one ensure the results of perfect competition or free enterprise!


The same thought occurred to Oskar Lange in the 1930s.


Tom Walker
TimeWork Web
http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/worksite.htm

Re: torn

["Cordell, Arthur: #ECOM - COMÉ"]

I guess the question is ---In a globalized world there will be harmonization
(of wages, working conditions, environment, etc.), do we want to try to
achieve upward harmonization or do we allow a drift to lower standards.
There will be harmonization:  At what level.  I (as you can gather) would
like to have the world harmonize upward to what we call development and as
much as possible not reach harmonization by having the presently developed
give up the hard won gains of development.  I think this is what much of the
WTO dispute was about.

arthur cordell

 --
From: Judi Kessler
To: Andrew Straw
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: torn
Date: Friday, December 03, 1999 9:16PM

I share some of the same sentiments. And I am conflicted...

Huffy is closing the last of its US factories in Farmington, MO. Folks
(with years of experience in blue-collar manufacturing jobs) are
scrambling for service sector employment. Their training and employment
history disqualifies them from all but the low-wage positions.
At the same time, Los Angeles-based Garment Services Int'l recently
opened an apparel maquiladora on the outskirts of Tijuana (I have spent a
fair amount of time in the plant). Workers (mostly because the labor
market is so tight in the border region) are earning 2-3 times the minimum
wage, have a decent work environment, access to free on-site child care,
and labor-management relations are quite good. Turnover is about 2%.

Cut, make, and trim work (sewing) is tough, but the GSI employees leave
work to better living environments, more money in their pockets, and don't
have to pull their school-age kids out of school to sustain the family.

These folks are unionized under the CTM (the government "puppet" union).
The AFL-CIO has attempted to work with independent unions to reorganize
the factory. The workers are livid. They want no part of it.
Although I would like to see GSI workers earn 10 times (rather than 2-3)
the prevailing wage, I can't help but question US labor tactics in
relation to developing countries' workplaces.

This bothers me, given that I have been pro-union all my working life.
Am I being overly-critical?


"A man who works with his hands is a laborer;
a man who works with his hands and his brain is a craftsman;
but a man who works with his hands and his brain and his heart
is an artist" Louis Nizer (1902-1994)



*
Judi A. Kessler
Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies
University of California, San Diego
9500 Gilman Drive, Dept. 0510
La Jolla, CA 92093-0510 USA
(858) 534-4147 or (858) 534-4503
*

On Fri, 3 Dec 1999, Andrew Straw wrote:

> I must admit that I am often torn between supporting those who want freer
> trade and those who are interested in protecting workers in core countries
> like the US.
>
> On the one hand, laborers in the US have fought for decades to attain fair
> wages and reasonable benefits for the hard work they do.  Making trade
> freer gives management a huge leverage and bargaining tool: either take
> our offer or we will do a serious cost/benefit about whether we should
> move to Juarez/Singapore/Thailand, etc.  Of course this is a threat to the
> livelihood of core-country laborers and their unions.  I think of it as
> macro-level union busting.
>
> On the other hand, providing good jobs in other countries is not such a
> bad thing either.  How many workers in SW Indiana complained when Toyota
> built a factory there?  People were lining up to work there because jobs
> are scarse in such rural areas.  The same happens when an American company
> moves to a rural part of another country: they line up for those jobs
> because for them, they ARE good jobs.  If the jobs paid a relatively awful
> wage in that country, there would not be such a demand to become an
> employee.
>
> In my opinion, after listening to the many distinguished voices on this
> list, we are in a period of turbulence which will last for some
> time--perhaps another 20 years?  After which time, the dust will have
> cleared, and most jobs will have workers who are paid the rate that
> benefits stockholders the most.  Whether or not that result is a living
> wage capable to sustaining a quality standard of living has yet to be
> determined.
>
> I don't see protests in Seattle as changing this verdict in the least.
> It was happening before the WTO, and will continue whether that
> organization is abolished or not.  As someone who does care about workers
> both in core and peripheral countries, I think the best thing is to use
> what little nation-state power there remains to increase the diversity of
> precisely the stockholding ownership that drives this system.
>
> Make more people owners.  Active owners.  Both in core AND in peripheral
> countries.
>
> Any other answers?  Concerns?
>
> Andrew U. D. Straw
> Fredericksburg, VA
>

Re: torn

["Cordell, Arthur: #ECOM - COMÉ"]

I would like to add that if the developed nations give up aspects of
development (schooling, universal health care, potable water, etc) then
these trade offs should be made explicit. What are we giving up, why, who
gains and who loses, etc.

 My fear is that the trade offs will be made behind closed doors and then we
will all wonder what happened to the middle class.  A two tier society is
easy to reach, maintaining a broad middle class (one of the stabilizing
aspects of development) is I think more difficult to maintain.
 --
From: Cordell, Arthur: DPP
To: Judi Kessler; Andrew Straw
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: torn
Date: Saturday, December 04, 1999 1:56PM

I guess the question is ---In a globalized world there will be harmonization
(of wages, working conditions, environment, etc.), do we want to try to
achieve upward harmonization or do we allow a drift to lower standards.
There will be harmonization:  At what level.  I (as you can gather) would
like to have the world harmonize upward to what we call development and as
much as possible not reach harmonization by having the presently developed
give up the hard won gains of development.  I think this is what much of the
WTO dispute was about.

arthur cordell

 --
From: Judi Kessler
To: Andrew Straw
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: torn
Date: Friday, December 03, 1999 9:16PM

I share some of the same sentiments. And I am conflicted...

Huffy is closing the last of its US factories in Farmington, MO. Folks
(with years of experience in blue-collar manufacturing jobs) are
scrambling for service sector employment. Their training and employment
history disqualifies them from all but the low-wage positions.
At the same time, Los Angeles-based Garment Services Int'l recently
opened an apparel maquiladora on the outskirts of Tijuana (I have spent a
fair amount of time in the plant). Workers (mostly because the labor
market is so tight in the border region) are earning 2-3 times the minimum
wage, have a decent work environment, access to free on-site child care,
and labor-management relations are quite good. Turnover is about 2%.

Cut, make, and trim work (sewing) is tough, but the GSI employees leave
work to better living environments, more money in their pockets, and don't
have to pull their school-age kids out of school to sustain the family.

These folks are unionized under the CTM (the government "puppet" union).
The AFL-CIO has attempted to work with independent unions to reorganize
the factory. The workers are livid. They want no part of it.
Although I would like to see GSI workers earn 10 times (rather than 2-3)
the prevailing wage, I can't help but question US labor tactics in
relation to developing countries' workplaces.

This bothers me, given that I have been pro-union all my working life.
Am I being overly-critical?


"A man who works with his hands is a laborer;
a man who works with his hands and his brain is a craftsman;
but a man who works with his hands and his brain and his heart
is an artist" Louis Nizer (1902-1994)



*
Judi A. Kessler
Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies
University of California, San Diego
9500 Gilman Drive, Dept. 0510
La Jolla, CA 92093-0510 USA
(858) 534-4147 or (858) 534-4503
*

On Fri, 3 Dec 1999, Andrew Straw wrote:

> I must admit that I am often torn between supporting those who want freer
> trade and those who are interested in protecting workers in core countries
> like the US.
>
> On the one hand, laborers in the US have fought for decades to attain fair
> wages and reasonable benefits for the hard work they do.  Making trade
> freer gives management a huge leverage and bargaining tool: either take
> our offer or we will do a serious cost/benefit about whether we should
> move to Juarez/Singapore/Thailand, etc.  Of course this is a threat to the
> livelihood of core-country laborers and their unions.  I think of it as
> macro-level union busting.
>
> On the other hand, providing good jobs in other countries is not such a
> bad thing either.  How many workers in SW Indiana complained when Toyota
> built a factory there?  People were lining up to work there because jobs
> are scarse in such rural areas.  The same happens when an American company
> moves to a rural part of another country: they line up for those jobs
> because for them, they ARE good jobs.  If the jobs paid a relatively awful
> wage in that country, there would not be such a demand to become an
> employee.
>
> In my opinion, after listening to the many distinguished voices on this
> list, we are in a period of turbulence which will last for some
> time--perhaps another 20 years?  After which time, the dust will have
> cleared, and most jobs will have workers who are paid the rate that
> benefits stockh

Re: torn

[john courtneidge]

--
>From: Andrew Straw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: torn
>Date: Fri, Dec 3, 1999, 7:03 pm
>

>Any other answers?  Concerns?

***

Yes -

What's the need for all this trade (as if i didn't know !! )

Most/much trade involves trash - processed foods, guns, gas, drugs, the
grunge of capitalism - all to impoverish people, destroy families, exploit
animals, destroy democracy, trash the planet, (shut out god ?)

So . . . less trade, rather than more.

More giving, rather than more taking.

("All you need is love ?? !! )

Hugs

j

*

ps thanks, andrew for asking !

*

Re: torn

[Bob McDaniel]

For comments on Lange see:  http://econc10.bu.edu/copy_of_econsys/Theory/Lange.htm

His work, of course, predates the development of linear programming and its more
complex successors, and computers. It strikes me that the work of Douglas Wilson
and its focus on the optimal allocation of people to jobs, spouses and friends (if
I understand him correctly!) also parallels Lange's thinking,


Such thinking as the above probably is not dissimilar in principle to that
envisioning process control by humanoid computers.

I guess it all goes back to Frankenstein and Golems!

Bob

Timework Web wrote:

> On Fri, 3 Dec 1999, Bob McDaniel wrote:
>
> > It occurred to me then that perhaps only in a centrally planned economy could
> > one ensure the results of perfect competition or free enterprise!
>
> The same thought occurred to Oskar Lange in the 1930s.
>
> Tom Walker
> TimeWork Web
> http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/worksite.htm

--
http://publish.uwo.ca/~mcdaniel/

Re: torn

[Ed Weick]

I was struck by a few lines in a recent posting to a list I'm on, lines
reflecting loathing, disgust and accusation, and perhaps even a dose of
arcane knowledge:

>What's the need for all this trade (as if i didn't know !! >Most/much trade
involves trash - processed foods, guns, gas, drugs, the >grunge of
capitalism - all to impoverish people, destroy families, exploit >animals,
destroy democracy, trash the planet, (shut out god ?)

This had me wondering whether the sorry state of the world could indeed be
attributed to a particular source — the owners of capital.  It would seem
that two words, "capital" and "capitalism", have become synonyms for all of
the evils of the world. Everything has become the "grunge of capitalism".
The writer of those lines is not alone in his view.  Many of the bulletins
coming out of Seattle during the past week suggest that many share it.

Is capital and its owners, the capitalists, really responsible for the sorry
state of the world?  It would seem to me that even where there is little
capital —  in the remote outbacks of the world (or the "periphery", as some
would call it) —  people do nasty things to each other.  But then perhaps
capital plays a role.  What role might it have played in the killings of
Rwanda, or Sierra Leon, or Kosovo, or Afghanistan or any of the other places
in which people have engaged in mass slaughter?  What role is it playing
currently in the destruction of the Chechyns?  It may have supplied the
guns, bullets, bombs and machetes, but would it have supplied the
intolerance and animosity that compelled people to do what they did?

Capital was almost certainly present in the slaughter of six million Jews
during World War II.  You could not have done that without capital or
capitalists to provide it.  But capital also played another role there.  It
provided a credible reason for genocide.  Jews were, after all, the owners
of large volumes of capital, especially finance capital, and they were using
it to attempt to dominate the world, much like the capitalists of today.
The "Protocols of Zion" said so.  It was only right and proper that the
world was rid of Jews because a life under their domination would have been
intolerable, except of course to themselves.

It is possible that far more than conflict and genocide can be laid at
capital's doorstep.  It must surely be playing a role in the falling water
tables of densely populated third world countries, the pollution from
automobiles in densely populated cities, the destruction of once remote
rainforests, and the growing desertification of parts of Africa.  Population
growth and the fact that growing numbers of people need water, want
transportation to increasingly distant places of work, and want to continue
to live even if it means scraping out a subsistence living in the desert or
the jungle have little to do with it.

Capital does of course play a role.  It provides the water pumps that drain
the water tables, the cars and buses that provide the transportation, and
the hoes and other equipment needed for subsistence agriculture.  And,
indeed, in some parts of the world, it has displaced subsistence agriculture
with large cattle ranches and coffee plantations so that people in the rich
world can have their coffee and take their kids to Macdonalds.  But, surely,
if rich world people were aware of this they would stop drinking coffee and
stop eating hamburgers.  Wouldn't they?

The nefarious nature of capital has me wondering how we might bring it under
control.  Rioting, dressing up as sea turtles, carrying placards, or even
just jumping up and down waving one's arms in the air may give people a buzz
but may not be too helpful in the long run.  Asserting our rights as members
of a civil society is always bothersome because it raises the rather nasty
question of how civil we really are, a question which many of us might not
want to examine too closely.  Setting some rules around the behaviour of
capital, especially its international behaviour, now also seems to have been
roundly rejected.  This may leave us with little more than a good old
fashioned scapegoating and witch-hunting.  The necessary ideology and
fervour may already be there: capitalists are evil and must be hunted down.
And if you can't go after the big boys, you can surely smash the windows of
the guy that runs the coffee franchise down the street.  Doing that may be
better than putting on a brown shirt, dragging him into the street and
giving him a beating, but it's only a difference of degree.

Ed Weick

Re: torn

[Timework Web]

It isn't capital that is the source of the problem, it is the political
resistance of capitalists to resolving the contradictions of capitalism
that is the source of the problem. What is intolerable to me is that the
more we acquire the means of actually solving some of the big problems the
more strenuously do the vested interest gate-keepers refuse to employ
them for humane ends. Why? Because it would interfere with THEIR
individual sovereignty. What has evolved over the 20th century should no
longer properly be called capitalism, because it isn't so much the
ownership of productive capital that confers power but the highly
capitalized manipulation of images, public opinion and political
influence. I call it Postumism because C.W. Post, the cereal tycoon,
pioneered the scale of deceptive advertising and political bullying on
which modern political economy stands.

http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/postum.txt

On Sun, 5 Dec 1999, Ed Weick wrote:

> Is capital and its owners, the capitalists, really responsible for the sorry
> state of the world?  

Tom Walker
TimeWork Web
http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/worksite.htm

Re: torn

["Cordell, Arthur: #ECOM - COMÉ"]

Who was it that said, 'a capitalist will sell you the rope that you later
use to hang him' ?

I thought it was Engels, but can't find the source.

The quote, though, shows the problem.  One of greed and lack of long term
attention to enlightened self interest.

I guess Lord Acton also said it, but in a different way, 'power corrupts,
absolute power corrupts absolutely.'

The key is balance.

arthur
 --
From: Timework Web
To: Ed Weick
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: torn
Date: Sunday, December 05, 1999 10:10AM


It isn't capital that is the source of the problem, it is the political
resistance of capitalists to resolving the contradictions of capitalism
that is the source of the problem. What is intolerable to me is that the
more we acquire the means of actually solving some of the big problems the
more strenuously do the vested interest gate-keepers refuse to employ
them for humane ends. Why? Because it would interfere with THEIR
individual sovereignty. What has evolved over the 20th century should no
longer properly be called capitalism, because it isn't so much the
ownership of productive capital that confers power but the highly
capitalized manipulation of images, public opinion and political
influence. I call it Postumism because C.W. Post, the cereal tycoon,
pioneered the scale of deceptive advertising and political bullying on
which modern political economy stands.

http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/postum.txt

On Sun, 5 Dec 1999, Ed Weick wrote:

> Is capital and its owners, the capitalists, really responsible for the
sorry
> state of the world?

Tom Walker
TimeWork Web
http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/worksite.htm

Re: torn

[Colin Stark]

At 07:10 AM 12/5/1999 -0800, Tom Walker wrote:
>
>It isn't capital that is the source of the problem, it is the political
>resistance of capitalists to resolving the contradictions of capitalism
>that is the source of the problem. What is intolerable to me is that the
>more we acquire the means of actually solving some of the big problems the
>more strenuously do the vested interest gate-keepers refuse to employ
>them for humane ends. Why? Because it would interfere with THEIR
>individual sovereignty. 

snip
***
Dear Tom

I agree with what you say totally

I believe that one possible way to get a lever on the problem is through
Direct Democracy -- i.e. make our governments ACCOUNTABLE to the CITIZENS.
Citizens will then be able to bring forward legislation through the
referendum process that will control those capitalists, or Postumists as
you re-label them
This process is quite well advanced in the US -- except at the Federal
level, which is VERY  powerful (and while it is well-advanced at the STATE
level, I have strong reservations about the mechanisms, which allow money
to have a strong influence on the outcome of the vote)


I realize as I write this that this sounds like a long way around to get to
a solution. 
But in three years of working in this area, I have yet to stumble over ANY
OTHER solution that has a better chance of success.
So until I do so, I will keep my brain from atrophy by pursuing Direct
Democracy.

Please, anyone out there, let me know if you have a better idea!

Colin Stark
Vice-President
Canadians for Direct Democracy
Vancouver, B.C. 
http://www.npsnet.com/cdd/

**

>
>http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/postum.txt
>
>On Sun, 5 Dec 1999, Ed Weick wrote:
>
>> Is capital and its owners, the capitalists, really responsible for the
sorry
>> state of the world?  
>
>Tom Walker
>TimeWork Web
>http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/worksite.htm
>

Re: torn

[Stan Bernstein]

Could be wrong but I believe it was Lenin, and the quote was more like "A
capitalist will sell you on Tuesday the rope with which you plan
to hang him on Friday." Probably inexact, however, nevertheless...

All best wishes/SB
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

On Sun, 5 Dec 1999, [iso-8859-1] "Cordell, Arthur: #ECOM - COMÉ" wrote:

> Who was it that said, 'a capitalist will sell you the rope that you later
> use to hang him' ?
> 
> I thought it was Engels, but can't find the source.
> 
> The quote, though, shows the problem.  One of greed and lack of long term
> attention to enlightened self interest.
> 
> I guess Lord Acton also said it, but in a different way, 'power corrupts,
> absolute power corrupts absolutely.'
> 
> The key is balance.
> 
> arthur
>  --
> From: Timework Web
> To: Ed Weick
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: torn
> Date: Sunday, December 05, 1999 10:10AM
> 
> 
> It isn't capital that is the source of the problem, it is the political
> resistance of capitalists to resolving the contradictions of capitalism
> that is the source of the problem. What is intolerable to me is that the
> more we acquire the means of actually solving some of the big problems the
> more strenuously do the vested interest gate-keepers refuse to employ
> them for humane ends. Why? Because it would interfere with THEIR
> individual sovereignty. What has evolved over the 20th century should no
> longer properly be called capitalism, because it isn't so much the
> ownership of productive capital that confers power but the highly
> capitalized manipulation of images, public opinion and political
> influence. I call it Postumism because C.W. Post, the cereal tycoon,
> pioneered the scale of deceptive advertising and political bullying on
> which modern political economy stands.
> 
> http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/postum.txt
> 
> On Sun, 5 Dec 1999, Ed Weick wrote:
> 
> > Is capital and its owners, the capitalists, really responsible for the
> sorry
> > state of the world?
> 
> Tom Walker
> TimeWork Web
> http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/worksite.htm
> 

Re: torn

[Victor Milne]

I thought it was Lenin who made the comment about capitalists selling the
rope for their own hangings. However, this is just a vague recollection, and
I don't have anything at home to look it up in.

Victor Milne

- Original Message -
From: Cordell, Arthur: #ECOM - COMÉ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Ed Weick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Timework Web <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: December 05, 1999 11:43 AM
Subject: Re: torn


> Who was it that said, 'a capitalist will sell you the rope that you later
> use to hang him' ?
>
> I thought it was Engels, but can't find the source.
>
> The quote, though, shows the problem.  One of greed and lack of long term
> attention to enlightened self interest.
>
> I guess Lord Acton also said it, but in a different way, 'power corrupts,
> absolute power corrupts absolutely.'
>
> The key is balance.
>
> arthur
>  --
> From: Timework Web
> To: Ed Weick
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: torn
> Date: Sunday, December 05, 1999 10:10AM
>
>
> It isn't capital that is the source of the problem, it is the political
> resistance of capitalists to resolving the contradictions of capitalism
> that is the source of the problem. What is intolerable to me is that the
> more we acquire the means of actually solving some of the big problems the
> more strenuously do the vested interest gate-keepers refuse to employ
> them for humane ends. Why? Because it would interfere with THEIR
> individual sovereignty. What has evolved over the 20th century should no
> longer properly be called capitalism, because it isn't so much the
> ownership of productive capital that confers power but the highly
> capitalized manipulation of images, public opinion and political
> influence. I call it Postumism because C.W. Post, the cereal tycoon,
> pioneered the scale of deceptive advertising and political bullying on
> which modern political economy stands.
>
> http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/postum.txt
>
> On Sun, 5 Dec 1999, Ed Weick wrote:
>
> > Is capital and its owners, the capitalists, really responsible for the
> sorry
> > state of the world?
>
> Tom Walker
> TimeWork Web
> http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/worksite.htm
>

Re: torn

[Timework Web]

I was just reading "They never said it" on thursday. The quote is
_attributed_ to Lenin but there is no evidence he ever said anything of
the kind. It almost seems as though most of the really famous quotes are
either misquotes or total fabrications.

On Sun, 5 Dec 1999, Stan Bernstein wrote:

> Could be wrong but I believe it was Lenin, and the quote was more like "A
> capitalist will sell you on Tuesday the rope with which you plan
> to hang him on Friday." Probably inexact, however, nevertheless...
> 
> All best wishes/SB
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> On Sun, 5 Dec 1999, [iso-8859-1] "Cordell, Arthur: #ECOM - COMÉ" wrote:
> 
> > Who was it that said, 'a capitalist will sell you the rope that you later
> > use to hang him' ?
> > 
> > I thought it was Engels, but can't find the source.
> > 
> > The quote, though, shows the problem.  One of greed and lack of long term
> > attention to enlightened self interest.
> > 
> > I guess Lord Acton also said it, but in a different way, 'power corrupts,
> > absolute power corrupts absolutely.'
> > 
> > The key is balance.
> > 
> > arthur
> >  --
> > From: Timework Web
> > To: Ed Weick
> > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: torn
> > Date: Sunday, December 05, 1999 10:10AM
> > 
> > 
> > It isn't capital that is the source of the problem, it is the political
> > resistance of capitalists to resolving the contradictions of capitalism
> > that is the source of the problem. What is intolerable to me is that the
> > more we acquire the means of actually solving some of the big problems the
> > more strenuously do the vested interest gate-keepers refuse to employ
> > them for humane ends. Why? Because it would interfere with THEIR
> > individual sovereignty. What has evolved over the 20th century should no
> > longer properly be called capitalism, because it isn't so much the
> > ownership of productive capital that confers power but the highly
> > capitalized manipulation of images, public opinion and political
> > influence. I call it Postumism because C.W. Post, the cereal tycoon,
> > pioneered the scale of deceptive advertising and political bullying on
> > which modern political economy stands.
> > 
> > http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/postum.txt
> > 
> > On Sun, 5 Dec 1999, Ed Weick wrote:
> > 
> > > Is capital and its owners, the capitalists, really responsible for the
> > sorry
> > > state of the world?
> > 
> > Tom Walker
> > TimeWork Web
> > http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/worksite.htm
> > 
> 
> 

Tom Walker
TimeWork Web
http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/worksite.htm

re: Torn

[deborah middleton]

Arthur Cordell Wrote:

>In a globalized world there will be harmonization
>(of wages, working conditions, environment, etc.), do we want to try to
>achieve upward harmonization or do we allow a drift to lower standards.
>There will be harmonization:  At what level.  I (as you can gather) would
>like to have the world harmonize upward to what we call development and
>as much as possible not reach harmonization by having the presently
>developed give up the hard won gains of development.



How do we define higher or lower standards of development? Does upwards
harmonization equal access to a consumer society that is inherently
unsustainable? Is a simpler life style of lesser quality?  

The present rate of resource consumption that supports developed
countries is totally unsustainable from an environmental perspective. (see
Our Ecological Footprint).  It is not sustainable to raise the whole world
to our Canadian standard of living. 

I find it is an interesting paradox to support the move of work, access to
income and development of markets to less developed countries such as
those in Central and South America and at the same time see the loss of
jobs in Canada occur. It is fortunate for some and unfortunate for others.

Our definitions of lifestyle and quality of life needs to be redefined.

Deborah Middleton

MES Faculty of Environmental Studies
York University

re: Torn

["Cordell, Arthur: #ECOM - COMÉ"]

Cordell responds to Middleton responding to Cordell.

As a central player in the Conserver Society concept developed by the
Science Council (20 years ago  where I was a Science Advisor at the time) of
course I agree with your comments.

But going with infant mortality, caloric intake, access to universal
educaiton, health care , public libraries, etc I think it is these
indicators that are worth harmonising up to.

Bringing standards of living down to (choose your country) will not solve
issues related to sustainable development.  Bringing misery to the
'developed' countries will not bring the desired outcome.  We need to have a
host of changes across a broad front including energy, consumersim, well,
you know what I mean.  I don't think that displacing Canadian workers and
importing goods or services from areas of the world that employ children
and/or prison labour in work and environmental conditions that are just
miserable really solves their problem, the issues of development and while
it allows Canadian consumers to buy goods at low prices, it is leading--
slowly but surely-- to an outcome characterized by the creation of a
Canadian made  two tier society , etc. etc.

Arthur Cordell


D. Middleton responds to Cordell  (below)

How do we define higher or lower standards of development? Does upwards
harmonization equal access to a consumer society that is inherently
unsustainable? Is a simpler life style of lesser quality?

The present rate of resource consumption that supports developed
countries is totally unsustainable from an environmental perspective. (see
Our Ecological Footprint).  It is not sustainable to raise the whole world
to our Canadian standard of living.

I find it is an interesting paradox to support the move of work, access to
income and development of markets to less developed countries such as
those in Central and South America and at the same time see the loss of
jobs in Canada occur. It is fortunate for some and unfortunate for others.

Our definitions of lifestyle and quality of life needs to be redefined.

Deborah Middleton

MES Faculty of Environmental Studies
York University

Arthur Cordell Wrote:

>In a globalized world there will be harmonization
>(of wages, working conditions, environment, etc.), do we want to try to
>achieve upward harmonization or do we allow a drift to lower standards.
>There will be harmonization:  At what level.  I (as you can gather) would
>like to have the world harmonize upward to what we call development and
>as much as possible not reach harmonization by having the presently
>developed give up the hard won gains of development.

Re: Torn

[john courtneidge]

First, thanks.
--
>From: "Brad McCormick, Ed.D." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], "[EMAIL PROTECTED]":#ECOM - COMÉ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: Torn
>Date: Mon, Dec 6, 1999, 11:34 am
>

> Is a simpler life style (snip) of lesser quality?



Second:



Dear f-w friends

Simplicity lies on a scale somewhere between poverty and effluence :


Poverty - - - - - Simplicity - - - - - Effluence


But ! Simplicity is a cusp that's unachieveable in a market economy, since,
in such a madhouse, activity results either in (ever escalating) profit
accumulation, or in (ever escalating) impoverishment.

(This could be graphed, were e-mails there yet!)

The solution is to invert the 'values' that lead to this cusp and, so,
create the cusp as the default condition - to move, in other words, to an
economics (an 'oikonimos') based on giving out, rather than accumulating in
of, both, material 'goods' and spiritual 'bads.'

Central to this oikonimos is our use of money.

higs

(and hugs)

j

* 

Re: Torn

[Bob McDaniel]

john courtneidge wrote:

>
>
> Simplicity lies on a scale somewhere between poverty and effluence :
>
> Poverty - - - - - Simplicity - - - - - Effluence

Effluence = Flatulence and other bodily excretions ?

Are you implying excessive waste perhaps associated with overindulgence (not always
limited to the affluent)?

>
>
> But ! Simplicity is a cusp that's unachieveable in a market economy, since,
> in such a madhouse, activity results either in (ever escalating) profit
> accumulation, or in (ever escalating) impoverishment.
>
> (This could be graphed, were e-mails there yet!)
>

Why not use an attachment? Or place the graph on a website and give the URL as a
reference in your email?

>
>
>
> *

Bob


--
http://publish.uwo.ca/~mcdaniel/

Re: Torn

[Michael Spencer]

>  Is a simpler life style (snip) of lesser quality?
   
>> Central to this oikonimos is our use of money.
>> [full quote below]

Let me see if I have this right:  Because of the structure lent to the
system by the presence and use of money, each act of an individual is
is commoditized and becomes a transaction that either enriches or
impoverishes him.  So for the individual, the system has two
agressive attractors at the extrema of the financial scale.

Is that right?

In the overall capitalist system, the one in which individuals are the
components, there seems to be an attractor to a region of phase space
where a few individuals (of which many are corporations) have vast
financial assets and most have approximately nil.  It has been said
that this is the natural course of capitalism.

Has anyone proposed a phase space model of capitalist economy that
that represents money in a way that that would let us test the effect
of removing money or removing one or more of the purely financial
components on the distribution of wealth?  

Brian Arthur's work on positive feedback in the economy is now going
on 10 years old.  Has he or anyone else pushed this approach further,
beyond the narrow cases that he describes?  (I regret that I'm not
keeping up -- it's been 4 years since I've been able to spend a whole
day in a first class bookstore.)

- Mike

-- 
Michael Spencer  Nova Scotia, Canada
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
URL: http://www.mit.edu:8001/people/mspencer/home.html
---


"john courtneidge" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> But ! Simplicity is a cusp that's unachieveable in a market economy, since,
> in such a madhouse, activity results either in (ever escalating) profit
> accumulation, or in (ever escalating) impoverishment.
> 
> (This could be graphed, were e-mails there yet!)
> 
> The solution is to invert the 'values' that lead to this cusp and, so,
> create the cusp as the default condition - to move, in other words, to an
> economics (an 'oikonimos') based on giving out, rather than accumulating in
> of, both, material 'goods' and spiritual 'bads.'
> 
> Central to this oikonimos is our use of money.

Re: Torn

[john courtneidge]

Dear f/w friends

Many thanks to Michael and others off-list.

I insert some comments in the below.
--
>From: Michael Spencer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: Torn
>Date: Tue, Dec 7, 1999, 3:08 am
>

>
>>  Is a simpler life style (snip) of lesser quality?
>   
>>> Central to this oikonimos is our use of money.
>>> [full quote below]
>
>Let me see if I have this right:  Because of the structure lent to the
>system by the presence and use of money, each act of an individual is
>is commoditized and becomes a transaction that either enriches or
>impoverishes him.  So for the individual, the system has two
>agressive attractors at the extrema of the financial scale.
>
>Is that right?

j: Yes, i think that that might be so. Certainly, in terms of outcomes,
people are being sifted into two groups - in one, 450 or so people, own as
much as 3billion.
 
>
>In the overall capitalist system, the one in which individuals are the
>components, there seems to be an attractor to a region of phase space
>where a few individuals (of which many are corporations) have vast
>financial assets and most have approximately nil.  It has been said
>that this is the natural course of capitalism.

j: And thus, so, we see.

>
>Has anyone proposed a phase space model of capitalist economy that
>that represents money in a way that that would let us test the effect
>of removing money or removing one or more of the purely financial
>components on the distribution of wealth?

j; I'd love to see it !
  
>
>Brian Arthur's work on positive feedback in the economy is now going
>on 10 years old.  Has he or anyone else pushed this approach further,
>beyond the narrow cases that he describes?  (I regret that I'm not
>keeping up -- it's been 4 years since I've been able to spend a whole
>day in a first class bookstore.)

j: Sadly a component part of capitalism's outputsfor lots (ie most ! )
of us !


>
>- Mike
>
>-- 
>Michael Spencer  Nova Scotia, Canada

j; Hugs to all - down home, and elsewhere !

*

>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>URL: http://www.mit.edu:8001/people/mspencer/home.html
>---
>
>
>"john courtneidge" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> But ! Simplicity is a cusp that's unachieveable in a market economy, since,
>> in such a madhouse, activity results either in (ever escalating) profit
>> accumulation, or in (ever escalating) impoverishment.
>> 
>> (This could be graphed, were e-mails there yet!)
>> 
>> The solution is to invert the 'values' that lead to this cusp and, so,
>> create the cusp as the default condition - to move, in other words, to an
>> economics (an 'oikonimos') based on giving out, rather than accumulating in
>> of, both, material 'goods' and spiritual 'bads.'
>> 
>> Central to this oikonimos is our use of money.
>

FW: Re: torn

[Keith Hudson]

To comment on just one sentence in Andrew's contribution:

>In my opinion, after listening to the many distinguished voices on this
>list, we are in a period of turbulence which will last for some
>time--perhaps another 20 years?

Yes, I agree, but I think the turbulence will last for much longer than 20
years--probably at least another two or three generations. It won't really
stop until the whole world has arrived at similar standards of living.

I follow with my summary of a recent article from The Independent by Hamish
McRae. This condensation will be one of many short articles that will
appear in a new type of Web site that will start life in the next few weeks.

<<<<<
3. FIVE NIGGLES ABOUT FREE TRADE

Keith Hudson

On balance, and over the longer term, free trade is immensely beneficial
but, over the short to medium term, there are understandable worries and
these must be paid attention to

-

The violence of protestors at the meeting of the World Trade Organisation
(WTO) at Seattle means that the WTO is not seen as an obviously benign
organisation by some of the young. 

In order to avoid the crippling protective measures and competitive
devaluations of many national governments in the 1920s and 1930s, which
caused so much unemployment and economic suffering, three new international
bodies were planned at Bretton Woods in 1944, even before World War II had
come to an end. These were the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund
and the WTO. The first two were established quickly but the last never got
off the ground at the time because nation-state governments continued to
quarrel among themselves. An interim body was founded—the General Agreement
on Tariffs and Trade (GATT)—and this was able to stagger along and achieve
some reforms until WTO was finally launched in 1995.

However, there are are at least five real concerns which should not be
ignored. They are:

1. A freeing up of trade of any particular good will cause temporary
unemployment at a particular time and place before the workers concerned
find new employment;

2. Increased free trade adds to the pressure on world resources, and if
every country were to try and live at the present standard of living of
North Americans and in their present style, then this would be impossible;

3. Some countries have such a lack of resources, and such low standards of
education and technological know-how that they cannot get even a modest
share of increased trade in the foreseeable future;

4. Increasing global trade also involves increasing capital and investment
flows but these, given the nature of modern financial systems, can be
rapidly withdrawn from particular sectors or countries at the first sign of
trouble causing unexpected unemployment;

5. The world economy is becoming increasingly dependent on information and
this, at present, is unequally available to people in different parts of
the world, effectively isolating many people from any immediate share of
increased trade. 


Summarised from "Five reasons to worry about free trade" by Hamish McRae
(The Independent, 2 December 1999)
>>>>>
 
Many types of reforms are implied in the above article, but competitive
protectionism by one country after another is not one of them. If the
youthful protestors at Seattle had their way they would certainly bring
about a repetition of the 1920/30s in which tens of millions of people
would suffer  -- that is, additional to those who are already suffering
(for quite different reasons than trade) -- and only hurt multinational
corporations marginally. (One or two of them might fold up, of course, but
then multinationals are being formed and are dying all the time -- it's
their natural state of existence.)

Keith Hudson  



At 13:03 03/12/99 -0500, you wrote:
>I must admit that I am often torn between supporting those who want freer
>trade and those who are interested in protecting workers in core countries
>like the US.
>
>On the one hand, laborers in the US have fought for decades to attain fair
>wages and reasonable benefits for the hard work they do.  Making trade
>freer gives management a huge leverage and bargaining tool: either take
>our offer or we will do a serious cost/benefit about whether we should
>move to Juarez/Singapore/Thailand, etc.  Of course this is a threat to the
>livelihood of core-country laborers and their unions.  I think of it as
>macro-level union busting.
>
>On the other hand, providing good jobs in other countries is not such a
>bad thing either.  How many workers in SW Indiana complained when Toyota
>built a factory there?  People were lining up to work there because jobs
>are scarse in such rural areas.  The same happens when an American company
>moves to a rural part of another country: they line up for those jobs
>because for them, they ARE good jobs.  If the jobs paid a relatively awful
>wag

Re: FW: Re: torn

[Dennis Paull]

Hi all,

I think it very important to separate the economic issues from the political
ones. In my mind, the major down side of the WTO is the abrogation of
government powers to specifically non-democratic, greed oriented
international bodies with no recourse to any counterbalancing judicial
body.

Those who are willing to give up control by the masses for short term
gain are truly a threat to democracy world-wide.

Granted there are important economic issues too such as have been mentioned.
But we can work these out in ways that benefit large populations. But when
we regress back to robber barons and monarchic non-accountability, we are
truly risking much of the benefits that the western world has obtained over
the last century.

Dennis Paull
Silicon Valley, CA

At 11:54 PM 12/3/1999 , you wrote:
>To comment on just one sentence in Andrew's contribution:
>
>>In my opinion, after listening to the many distinguished voices on this
>>list, we are in a period of turbulence which will last for some
>>time--perhaps another 20 years?
>
>Yes, I agree, but I think the turbulence will last for much longer than 20
>years--probably at least another two or three generations. It won't really
>stop until the whole world has arrived at similar standards of living.
>
>I follow with my summary of a recent article from The Independent by Hamish
>McRae. This condensation will be one of many short articles that will
>appear in a new type of Web site that will start life in the next few weeks.
>
><<<<<
>3. FIVE NIGGLES ABOUT FREE TRADE
>
>Keith Hudson
>
>On balance, and over the longer term, free trade is immensely beneficial
>but, over the short to medium term, there are understandable worries and
>these must be paid attention to
>
>-
>
>The violence of protestors at the meeting of the World Trade Organisation
>(WTO) at Seattle means that the WTO is not seen as an obviously benign
>organisation by some of the young. 
>
>In order to avoid the crippling protective measures and competitive
>devaluations of many national governments in the 1920s and 1930s, which
>caused so much unemployment and economic suffering, three new international
>bodies were planned at Bretton Woods in 1944, even before World War II had
>come to an end. These were the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund
>and the WTO. The first two were established quickly but the last never got
>off the ground at the time because nation-state governments continued to
>quarrel among themselves. An interim body was founded—the General Agreement
>on Tariffs and Trade (GATT)—and this was able to stagger along and achieve
>some reforms until WTO was finally launched in 1995.
>
>However, there are are at least five real concerns which should not be
>ignored. They are:
>
>1. A freeing up of trade of any particular good will cause temporary
>unemployment at a particular time and place before the workers concerned
>find new employment;
>
>2. Increased free trade adds to the pressure on world resources, and if
>every country were to try and live at the present standard of living of
>North Americans and in their present style, then this would be impossible;
>
>3. Some countries have such a lack of resources, and such low standards of
>education and technological know-how that they cannot get even a modest
>share of increased trade in the foreseeable future;
>
>4. Increasing global trade also involves increasing capital and investment
>flows but these, given the nature of modern financial systems, can be
>rapidly withdrawn from particular sectors or countries at the first sign of
>trouble causing unexpected unemployment;
>
>5. The world economy is becoming increasingly dependent on information and
>this, at present, is unequally available to people in different parts of
>the world, effectively isolating many people from any immediate share of
>increased trade. 
>
>
>Summarised from "Five reasons to worry about free trade" by Hamish McRae
>(The Independent, 2 December 1999)
>>>>>>
> 
>Many types of reforms are implied in the above article, but competitive
>protectionism by one country after another is not one of them. If the
>youthful protestors at Seattle had their way they would certainly bring
>about a repetition of the 1920/30s in which tens of millions of people
>would suffer  -- that is, additional to those who are already suffering
>(for quite different reasons than trade) -- and only hurt multinational
>corporations marginally. (One or two of them might fold up, of course, but
>then multinationals are being formed and are dying all the time -- it's
>their natural state of existence.)
>
>Keith Hudson  
>
>
>
>At 13:03 03/12/99 -0500, you wrote:
&

Re: FW: Re: torn

[Ray E. Harrell]

that will start life in the next few weeks.
> >
> ><<<<<
> >3. FIVE NIGGLES ABOUT FREE TRADE
> >
> >Keith Hudson
> >
> >On balance, and over the longer term, free trade is immensely beneficial
> >but, over the short to medium term, there are understandable worries and
> >these must be paid attention to
> >
> >-
> >
> >The violence of protestors at the meeting of the World Trade Organisation
> >(WTO) at Seattle means that the WTO is not seen as an obviously benign
> >organisation by some of the young.
> >
> >In order to avoid the crippling protective measures and competitive
> >devaluations of many national governments in the 1920s and 1930s, which
> >caused so much unemployment and economic suffering, three new international
> >bodies were planned at Bretton Woods in 1944, even before World War II had
> >come to an end. These were the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund
> >and the WTO. The first two were established quickly but the last never got
> >off the ground at the time because nation-state governments continued to
> >quarrel among themselves. An interim body was founded—the General Agreement
> >on Tariffs and Trade (GATT)—and this was able to stagger along and achieve
> >some reforms until WTO was finally launched in 1995.
> >
> >However, there are are at least five real concerns which should not be
> >ignored. They are:
> >
> >1. A freeing up of trade of any particular good will cause temporary
> >unemployment at a particular time and place before the workers concerned
> >find new employment;
> >
> >2. Increased free trade adds to the pressure on world resources, and if
> >every country were to try and live at the present standard of living of
> >North Americans and in their present style, then this would be impossible;
> >
> >3. Some countries have such a lack of resources, and such low standards of
> >education and technological know-how that they cannot get even a modest
> >share of increased trade in the foreseeable future;
> >
> >4. Increasing global trade also involves increasing capital and investment
> >flows but these, given the nature of modern financial systems, can be
> >rapidly withdrawn from particular sectors or countries at the first sign of
> >trouble causing unexpected unemployment;
> >
> >5. The world economy is becoming increasingly dependent on information and
> >this, at present, is unequally available to people in different parts of
> >the world, effectively isolating many people from any immediate share of
> >increased trade.
> >
> >
> >Summarised from "Five reasons to worry about free trade" by Hamish McRae
> >(The Independent, 2 December 1999)
> >>>>>>
> >
> >Many types of reforms are implied in the above article, but competitive
> >protectionism by one country after another is not one of them. If the
> >youthful protestors at Seattle had their way they would certainly bring
> >about a repetition of the 1920/30s in which tens of millions of people
> >would suffer  -- that is, additional to those who are already suffering
> >(for quite different reasons than trade) -- and only hurt multinational
> >corporations marginally. (One or two of them might fold up, of course, but
> >then multinationals are being formed and are dying all the time -- it's
> >their natural state of existence.)
> >
> >Keith Hudson
> >
> >
> >
> >At 13:03 03/12/99 -0500, you wrote:
> >>I must admit that I am often torn between supporting those who want freer
> >>trade and those who are interested in protecting workers in core countries
> >>like the US.
> >>
> >>On the one hand, laborers in the US have fought for decades to attain fair
> >>wages and reasonable benefits for the hard work they do.  Making trade
> >>freer gives management a huge leverage and bargaining tool: either take
> >>our offer or we will do a serious cost/benefit about whether we should
> >>move to Juarez/Singapore/Thailand, etc.  Of course this is a threat to the
> >>livelihood of core-country laborers and their unions.  I think of it as
> >>macro-level union busting.
> >>
> >>On the other hand, providing good jobs in other countries is not such a
> >>bad thing either.  How many workers in SW Indiana complained when Toyota
> >>built a factory there?  People were lining up to work there because jobs
> >>are scarse in such rural areas.  The same happens when an American company
> >>moves to

Re: FW: Re: torn

[Ray E. Harrell]

http://www.eff.org/pub/Publications/Esther_Dyson/ip_on_the_net.article

Mark R Measday wrote:

> (from the futurework list)
>
> Mr Harrell,
>
> Do you have the relevant URL?
>
> "Ray E. Harrell" wrote:on that
>
> > URL that I posted earlier, makes a point about value that is very much
> > in keeping with the mentality of TV and the defense industries.  Because
> > we cannot truly fund creativity, it makes more sense to give it away and
> > to fund the truly banal activities that everyone believes they need, like
> > advertising for example or $500 toilet seats on military aircraft.

torn [Cordell/Middleton/Cordell

[Ed Goertzen]

Snipped
Cordell responds to Middleton responding to Cordell.

When we consider that the monetary system forces both overproduction and
overconsumption, and that the "safety valve" is war to get rid of all the
excess capacity. We could do with a lot less production and consumption and
still have the standard of living (average) we now enjoy. At the same time
improving as much of the standard of living the developing nations can absorb.

Ed G
 =


As a central player in the Conserver Society concept developed by the
Science Council (20 years ago  where I was a Science Advisor at the time) of
course I agree with your comments.

But going with infant mortality, caloric intake, access to universal
educaiton, health care , public libraries, etc I think it is these
indicators that are worth harmonising up to.

Bringing standards of living down to (choose your country) will not solve
issues related to sustainable development.  Bringing misery to the
'developed' countries will not bring the desired outcome.  We need to have a
host of changes across a broad front including energy, consumersim, well,
you know what I mean.  I don't think that displacing Canadian workers and
importing goods or services from areas of the world that employ children
and/or prison labour in work and environmental conditions that are just
miserable really solves their problem, the issues of development and while
it allows Canadian consumers to buy goods at low prices, it is leading--
slowly but surely-- to an outcome characterized by the creation of a
Canadian made  two tier society , etc. etc.

Arthur Cordell


D. Middleton responds to Cordell  (below)

How do we define higher or lower standards of development? Does upwards
harmonization equal access to a consumer society that is inherently
unsustainable? Is a simpler life style of lesser quality?

The present rate of resource consumption that supports developed
countries is totally unsustainable from an environmental perspective. (see
Our Ecological Footprint).  It is not sustainable to raise the whole world
to our Canadian standard of living.

I find it is an interesting paradox to support the move of work, access to
income and development of markets to less developed countries such as
those in Central and South America and at the same time see the loss of
jobs in Canada occur. It is fortunate for some and unfortunate for others.

Our definitions of lifestyle and quality of life needs to be redefined.

Deborah Middleton

MES Faculty of Environmental Studies
York University

Arthur Cordell Wrote:

>In a globalized world there will be harmonization
>(of wages, working conditions, environment, etc.), do we want to try to
>achieve upward harmonization or do we allow a drift to lower standards.
>There will be harmonization:  At what level.  I (as you can gather) would
>like to have the world harmonize upward to what we call development and
>as much as possible not reach harmonization by having the presently
>developed give up the hard won gains of development.

Re: torn Reply to Andrew

[Ed Goertzen]

X-Envelope-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 13:03:46 -0500 (EST)
Andrew Straw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Wrote

"I must admit that I am often torn between supporting those who want freer
trade and those who are interested in protecting workers in core countries
like the US.
===Andrew's original follows my reply
Ed Said:

Unfortunately there are many who, like the wealthy doctor, are treating the
symptoms instead of the disease.

50 yearts ago as I was desperately trying to figure out how things worked
the media regularly published three statistics.  One was the balance of
trade. The other was the money supply and the third was the international
balance of payments. 
Tracking the interplay between these three is absolutely neccessary to the
comprehension of the problem and the identification of international  power
players for purposes of making a prognosis of economic health of our own
and other nations.

The balance of trade is still being published regularly. For me it is an
indicator of how well Canada, Canadian companies, Canadian skills and
Canadian resources are serving the interests of the international financial
community. That is the bankers and their front men/women who operate in the
economic jetstream to keep the international weather from getting too far
out of control.

The money supply statistics are no longer published. (except by COMER in
the the economic reform newsletter) The money supply, which consists of
both government issued legal tender and private bank issued credit. The
ratio was in the 60's about $1.00 legal tender to $10.00 of bank issued
credit. The money supply volume is no longer published because in my view
the government is ashamed (1) to admit that they don't know and/or the
ratio is now about $1 to $400. That means if everyone went to the bank to
take their money out they would get $1.00 for every $400.00 they thought
they had on deposit. A good case for using the mattress.

The Balance of Payments is an indicator of how a nation is performing vis a
vis other nations. 
Canada is a hewer of wood and a drawer of water because it must hew its
wood and draw its water (remember the trade numbers?) to satisfy its
international financial obligations. The samer applies to all other
"resource rich" countries

A short math quiz.
I'm a foreign country. I see that Canada has many resources and a people
that are skilled, trainable and not too bright. I issue credit (create
money) on the collateral value of Canada's resources, both indigenous and
indigent, and lend it to the few smart ones in Canada who I can trust to do
my bidding because I pay them well.

Canadian's use the money I lend them to engage in economic activity (that's
jobs, jobs., jobs) extracting their resources and doing some low tech
manufacturing. The goods are sent to me in my foreign country to sell to my
fellow countrymen. 

There are a couple conditions. 

The money I lent Canada is repayable at 10% interest. I have put in place
trade barriers that prevent Canada from exporting any more than the value
of 9% of the interest they owe me. 
How long does it take to pay off the balance? The answer is, it cannot be
done.

It gets worse. Remember the other 1%? That has been accumulating. As soon
as Canadians pay enough taxes to subsidize their companies to invent new
technology, I take the accumulated 1% and buy the companies. I transfer the
ownership of the technology to my country and rent it back to the dumb
Canadians by charging them royalties, licenses, management fees etc. that
serve to reduce their productivity. Then I tell them they have to work
harder extracting their resources, pay more taxes to subsidize more
inventions if they want to compete with other countries or improve their
standard of living, pay for their social services etc.

Is anybody out there getting the picture?

We as canadians do have a choice. We can "pull a Castro "and refuse to
allow the international financial community to dictate to us or we can
"play ball" by obeying the dictates of a monetary system that is raping all
the resources of the earth. 

There is an intrinsic anomaly in the worlds money systems that acts as
"John Galt's Motor " It drives economic activity. Not because the godds are
needed. but because the money system operates on the elemental principal of
"gow or die."

Wars have been fought ever since Hamurabi sent his troops out to the
villages that became prosperouse and refused to pay tribute. (i.e. send
their goods to Babylon) The crops and houses were burned and the women
raped. (to break down the moral order that grows where there is abundance)
The next 50 years there was a promise of "good times" that would "trickle
down", there was peace, tribute flowed to Babylob (the richest nation in
the world) and people worked hard to impove their circumstances. The order
imposing money

Re: torn: Response for Brad

[Ed Goertzen]

Date: Fri, 03 Dec 1999 18:44:06 -0500
"Brad McCormick, Ed.D." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Wrote

Real democracy is peer participation in all the important areas of one's
life.  Representative democracy is an oxymoron, in which the only
democracy is the democracy of the representatives (like in Athens:
there women and slaves didn't count as part of the polis; here
"the people" don't count as part of the WTO: workers, students, 
welfare recipients, housewives, just about everybody, except 
persons "x" where "x" is a valid substitution instance in the
formula "CxO").

The following quote is clarifying.

"The ancient Greek writers Herodotus, Plato, Aristotle, and others
theorized a great deal about the nature and function of government. They
concluded that there were three possible types: rule by one, rule by the
few, and rule by the many. Each of these had its corruptions. Rule by a
virtuous king was a monarchy, but rule by an evil king was tyranny
(commonly called dictatorship today). Rule by a few virtuous citizens was
aristocracy (rule by the best). But if the few were evil, it was called
simply an oligarchy (rule by the few). If the mass of the population
governed and they were virtuous, it was called a timocracy. (The Greek
timios means "worthy.") But if the many were not virtuous, it was called a
democracy. The Greeks generally had a very low opinion of democracy,
equating it with mob rule". Excerpted from Compton’s Interactive
Encyclopedia Copyright © 1993, 1994 Compton’s NewMedia, Inc.

The Greek definition of "worthy" was a depiction of the "propertied class".
There is no reason that the definition cannot be modernised to include all
those who are concerned and interested in the administration of public
affairs. It might exclude those who are of the opinion that democracy is
something to be voted fror, rather than something in which to participate.

Peace and Goodwill
Ed G

re: torn: Reply to Ed Wieck

[Ed Goertzen]

From: "Ed Weick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Subject: Re: torn
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 1999 08:06:05 -0500

Part of Ed's post begs a reply.

To obtain clarity, can we agree that capital as a stored value is a good
thing. That Capitalizm, the monetary manipulation (percursor to individual
appropriation of excessive capital value) is the essence of the problem?

The incorrect definition of the problem begs an incorrect solution or
response. Please add to or modify my definition of the problem!

Ed Weick Wrote:
Snipped

Is capital and its owners, the capitalists, really responsible for the sorry
state of the world?  It would seem to me that even where there is little
capital —  in the remote outbacks of the world (or the "periphery", as some
would call it) —  people do nasty things to each other.  But then perhaps
capital plays a role.  What role might it have played in the killings of
Rwanda, or Sierra Leon, or Kosovo, or Afghanistan or any of the other places
in which people have engaged in mass slaughter?  What role is it playing
currently in the destruction of the Chechyns?  It may have supplied the
guns, bullets, bombs and machetes, but would it have supplied the
intolerance and animosity that compelled people to do what they did?

Ed G. said: The role of "capitalists" those who use the monetary system to
manipulate people is most certainly at the root of the problems. 

Ed W. said:
Capital was almost certainly present in the slaughter of six million Jews
during World War II.  You could not have done that without capital or
capitalists to provide it.  But capital also played another role there.  It
provided a credible reason for genocide.  Jews were, after all, the owners
of large volumes of capital, especially finance capital, and they were using
it to attempt to dominate the world, much like the capitalists of today.
The "Protocols of Zion" said so.  It was only right and proper that the
world was rid of Jews because a life under their domination would have been
intolerable, except of course to themselves.

Ed G said:
We enter some dangerous ground here. The danger is that we not make the
same mistake as Hitler. In the same sense that "one swallow does not a
summer make", the categorization of Jewish people is not only wrong but
unfair. The 6M who died in the holocaust were not all wealthy capitalists.
The holocaust started by targeting the communists. A fair number of
outspoken communists were Jewish. Some readers will recall the book "The
God That Failed" By Kunstler? For many Jewish people communism was the
answer to problem. It still is as evidenced by a variant form of communizm
in Isreal's local government.
If Jewish people are to be labeled as "rich capitalists", how to explain
the outstanding social work advicated and accomplished by members of that
faith? Not only in Canada but other countries as well.

We need to keep the focus, not on sects groups religions etc. but on the
problem. If and such group does have inordinate powers, that can be dealt
with by the "eqitable" legislation that outlaws or circumscribes powers
and/or possessions that exceed the what the public considers to be in the
public interest.


Ed W. said:
It is possible that far more than conflict and genocide can be laid at
capital's doorstep.  

Ed G said: I insist on differentiating between capital and capitalizm or
capitalist. Capital is a "social good". Capitalism is the monetary
domination of the goods and their inequitable distribution and a capitalist
is one who engages in that activity.

Snipped

Regards
Ed G
==
Peace and goodwill

Ed Goertzen,
Oshawa, ON, CA
L1G 2S2,
905-576-6699
+ 
Timocracy: A form of governance known in ancient Greece that means
"government by the worthy". While at that time 'worthy' meant property
owning, there is no reason not to define it as "those who want to
participate in the none partisan formation of, and administration of public
affairs in addition to electing represenatives." To be followed by firm
advice to their elected representatives and reporting back to electors. 
For further information contact Ed Goertzen at >>[EMAIL PROTECTED]<<
+

Re: torn: Reply to Ed Wieck

[Ed Weick]

Ed,

The posting you comment on seems to have been misunderstood by a lot of
people.  It was intended as irony and as a demonstration of how laying the
blame for a wide range of woes and human failings on a single group or class
can lead to absurd and dangerous conclusions.  My point is that the world
was in a sorry state long before there was an identifiable capitalist class.
My reference to the Jews was intended to illustrate that, if you can trump
up enough charges and make them sound credible, you can get away with just
about anything.  Historically, many charges were trumped up against the
Jews.  In ancient times, they killed Christ.  In medieval times they
desecrated the host and participated in blood libels, and worst of all,
poisoned wells and thereby brought on the plague.  The 19th century
witnessed things like the Dreyfuss affair, and in the 20th we had the
trumped up Protocols of Zion.  The fact that some Jews, including Trotsky
and some other leading Bolsheviks, were communists did not help them either.
As Goldhagen demonstrates, convincingly in my opinion, so many nefarious
labels had been pinned on the Jews by the 1930s that they became easy
victims.  Translate that into some of the things posted on the internet
recently and you could have a crusade against anyone you label a capitalist,
including the guy who operates a Macdonalds or Starbucks franchise in
Seattle.  I'm not saying that the Seattle protests were such a crusade, but
some of the so-called protesters could easily have become one.

So, to summarize, my quarrel is not with Jews or capitalists or any other
group, but with pinning labels on people and unjustifiably blaming them for
things they may not have had much to do with.  Crusaders did not kill Jews
and other infidels because the crusaders were capitalists.  They killed them
because within medieval society they had been conditioned to do so.  It
assured them of a path to heaven.  Right now, Russians are not killing
Chechyns because of capital.  They are doing so out of animosity going way
back into czarist times, because they're afraid that if the Chechyns go,
much of the Caucuses could follow and perhaps also because they want to
demonstrate to the world that they are still a military power (a very sorry
way of doing it!!).  To justify what they are doing they've pinned a
convenient label on the Chechyns, that of "terrorists".

Hope this clarifies what I was trying to say.

Ed Weick

Re: torn: Reply to Ed Wieck

[Bruce Leier]

Come on Ed,

Jews = Capitalists?  I am well able to
differentiate between "capital" and  "capitalism".
It does not sound as if you can.  It is not
capital that causes people to suffer.  But
capitalism does punish people and tells them they
should like it.  And capitalists do profit from
that suffering.  Some capitalists I know are
"good" people but they still do bad things to
other people  -- it's what capitalists do.  Do you
support the bad that they do?  Do you support the
McD owner because (s)he does not give his/her
employees health care?  Because he/she does not
pay a living wage? Because (s)he tries to sell us
us crap and calls it food?  Because (s)he sells us
beef filled with hormones?  I could go on.  This
is "good" behavior?  These are good choices?  I
don't think so!

Bruce Leier
- Original Message -
From: "Ed Weick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Ed
Goertzen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 1999 5:15 PM
Subject: Re: torn: Reply to Ed Wieck


> Ed,
>
> The posting you comment on seems to have been
misunderstood by a lot of
> people.  It was intended as irony and as a
demonstration of how laying the
> blame for a wide range of woes and human
failings on a single group or class
> can lead to absurd and dangerous conclusions.
My point is that the world
> was in a sorry state long before there was an
identifiable capitalist class.
> My reference to the Jews was intended to
illustrate that, if you can trump
> up enough charges and make them sound credible,
you can get away with just
> about anything.  Historically, many charges were
trumped up against the
> Jews.  In ancient times, they killed Christ.  In
medieval times they
> desecrated the host and participated in blood
libels, and worst of all,
> poisoned wells and thereby brought on the
plague.  The 19th century
> witnessed things like the Dreyfuss affair, and
in the 20th we had the
> trumped up Protocols of Zion.  The fact that
some Jews, including Trotsky
> and some other leading Bolsheviks, were
communists did not help them either.
> As Goldhagen demonstrates, convincingly in my
opinion, so many nefarious
> labels had been pinned on the Jews by the 1930s
that they became easy
> victims.  Translate that into some of the things
posted on the internet
> recently and you could have a crusade against
anyone you label a capitalist,
> including the guy who operates a Macdonalds or
Starbucks franchise in
> Seattle.  I'm not saying that the Seattle
protests were such a crusade, but
> some of the so-called protesters could easily
have become one.
>
> So, to summarize, my quarrel is not with Jews or
capitalists or any other
> group, but with pinning labels on people and
unjustifiably blaming them for
> things they may not have had much to do with.
Crusaders did not kill Jews
> and other infidels because the crusaders were
capitalists.  They killed them
> because within medieval society they had been
conditioned to do so.  It
> assured them of a path to heaven.  Right now,
Russians are not killing
> Chechyns because of capital.  They are doing so
out of animosity going way
> back into czarist times, because they're afraid
that if the Chechyns go,
> much of the Caucuses could follow and perhaps
also because they want to
> demonstrate to the world that they are still a
military power (a very sorry
> way of doing it!!).  To justify what they are
doing they've pinned a
> convenient label on the Chechyns, that of
"terrorists".
>
> Hope this clarifies what I was trying to say.
>
> Ed Weick
>
>
>
>
>

Re: torn: Reply to Ed Wieck

[Ed Weick]

>Come on Ed,
>
>Jews = Capitalists?  I am well able to
>differentiate between "capital" and  "capitalism".
>It does not sound as if you can.  It is not
>capital that causes people to suffer.  But
>capitalism does punish people and tells them they
>should like it.  And capitalists do profit from
>that suffering.  Some capitalists I know are
>"good" people but they still do bad things to
>other people  -- it's what capitalists do.  Do you
>support the bad that they do?  Do you support the
>McD owner because (s)he does not give his/her
>employees health care?

No.

>Because he/she does not
>pay a living wage?

No.

>Because (s)he tries to sell us
>us crap and calls it food?

I must admit that when I was out of the country recently, I did patronize
Macdonalds because it was the best food I could get.  I blush with shame
when I think about it.  I suppose I could have gone across the street to
Burger King, but I just couldn't suppress that Big Mac Attack.

>Because (s)he sells us
>beef filled with hormones?

So does my local supermarket.  Sigh.  The world is indeed not pure!

>I could go on.  This
>is "good" behavior?  These are good choices?  I
>don't think so!
>
>Bruce Leier


You are right.  This isn't good behaviour.  But then what are you proposing
to do?  Strike a blow against capitalism by marching on your nearest
Macdonalds and smashing it up?  That would be a little vigilante, don't you
think?  There are alternatives, like working through the government and
non-government institutions we already have (avoiding the Health Protection
Branch of Health Canada which does not seem to be doing very much), or
working to set up new ones, and addressing the issues.  I would suggest that
one of those issues isn't whether or not Macdonalds is capitalist, but
whether it sells bad food, uses bad employement practices etc. -- i.e., go
after the issues and not after the labels.  And I would also suggest that
you shouldn't expect a huge wave of public support.  Many people like their
Big Macs and a lot of kids appreciate having their McJobs.

Ed Weick

Re: torn: Reply to Ed Wieck

[Ed Weick]

>Ed,
>
>Couldn't disagree more.  Capitalism is the issue.
>Reform only strengthens the beast.  I'm not going
>to trash the local McDs, but I'm also not going to
>condemn the tactic.  What is this about going
>after a label?  I and many of us are opposing the
>acts and the system -that you do not want to name-
>not the label.
>
>Bruce Leier


You are right.  I don't want to name the system, because I'm not really sure
of what I should call it.  And I feel some personal discomfort around giving
it a name, especially one I might not like, because I am part of it.  All of
us are.  Someone, perhaps the late Robert Theobald, argued that changing the
system would involve changing ourselves rather fundamentally, perhaps
ethically and spiritually, and I would question how ready we are to do that.

I would grant you that we serve capitalism, but it also serves us.  It has
been responsible for the very high standard of living we have in the rich
world.  As imperialism, it has also at least in part been responsible for
the very poor standard of living found in many other countries.  What this
has led me to wonder is how willing we are to do without the many benefits
that we enjoy because of capitalism.  To get rid of it and build a more
equitable world, we might have to give up an awful lot.  Let's ask
ourselves, what would we really be willing to do without?  Could we give
things up without becoming rather different people than we are?  Would we
want to do that?

Ed Weick

Re: torn: Reply to Ed Wieck

[Bruce Leier]

Responses in the original

- Original Message -
From: "Ed Weick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Bruce Leier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Ed Goertzen"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 1999 6:50 PM
Subject: Re: torn: Reply to Ed Wieck



> You are right.  I don't want to name the system,
because I'm not really sure
> of what I should call it.  And I feel some
personal discomfort around giving
> it a name, especially one I might not like,
because I am part of it.
{{Ed,  you can never overcome anything you can't.
Naming is the 1st step in enlightenment.  It is
not something to be afraid of.}}

> All of us are.

{{Are you always in favor of that which you
participate in?}}
  Someone, perhaps the late Robert Theobald,
argued that changing the
> system would involve changing ourselves rather
fundamentally, perhaps
> ethically and spiritually, and I would question
how ready we are to do that.

{{I, and I don't think I am alone, am ready to and
already have changed.  Theobald did.  Maybe you
can, too.}}
>
> I would grant you that we serve capitalism, but
it also serves us.  It has
> been responsible for the very high standard of
living we have in the rich
> world.
{{It all depends on how you define "high standard
of living".  What I define as a high standard of
living is not needing a car, being able to get the
food and other things I need within walking
distance and from people whom I know and trust.  A
high standard of living means I get a say in all
decisions that affect. me.  A high standard of
living means that no one is exploited in the
production of anything that I use.  Capitalism
continues to lower my standard of living.}}

>  As imperialism, it has also at least in part
been responsible for
> the very poor standard of living found in many
other countries.  What this
> has led me to wonder is how willing we are to do
without the many benefits
> that we enjoy because of capitalism.

{{You imply that without capitalism there would be
no progress or inventions.  That would indeed be a
very silly belief.  Although it is what the
mainstream media would have us believe.}}

>>  To get rid of it and build a more
> equitable world, we might have to give up an
awful lot.  Let's ask
> ourselves, what would we really be willing to do
without?  Could we give
> things up without becoming rather different
people than we are?  Would we
> want to do that?
{{What is unique to capitalism could be done
without.}}

> Ed Weick
>
>

Re: torn: Reply to Ed Wieck

["Cordell, Arthur: #ECOM - COMÉ"]

It seems that the Czechs in 1968 tried to bring in Socialism with a human
face.  How about Capitalism with a human face?

arthur cordell
 --
From: Ed Weick
To: Bruce Leier; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Ed Goertzen
Subject: Re: torn: Reply to Ed Wieck
Date: Wednesday, December 08, 1999 7:50PM

>Ed,
>
>Couldn't disagree more.  Capitalism is the issue.
>Reform only strengthens the beast.  I'm not going
>to trash the local McDs, but I'm also not going to
>condemn the tactic.  What is this about going
>after a label?  I and many of us are opposing the
>acts and the system -that you do not want to name-
>not the label.
>
>Bruce Leier


You are right.  I don't want to name the system, because I'm not really sure
of what I should call it.  And I feel some personal discomfort around giving
it a name, especially one I might not like, because I am part of it.  All of
us are.  Someone, perhaps the late Robert Theobald, argued that changing the
system would involve changing ourselves rather fundamentally, perhaps
ethically and spiritually, and I would question how ready we are to do that.

I would grant you that we serve capitalism, but it also serves us.  It has
been responsible for the very high standard of living we have in the rich
world.  As imperialism, it has also at least in part been responsible for
the very poor standard of living found in many other countries.  What this
has led me to wonder is how willing we are to do without the many benefits
that we enjoy because of capitalism.  To get rid of it and build a more
equitable world, we might have to give up an awful lot.  Let's ask
ourselves, what would we really be willing to do without?  Could we give
things up without becoming rather different people than we are?  Would we
want to do that?

Ed Weick

Re: torn: Reply to Ed Wieck

[john courtneidge]

--
>From: "Cordell, Arthur: #ECOM - COMÉ"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


>It seems that the Czechs in 1968 tried to bring in Socialism with a human
>face.  How about Capitalism with a human face?
>
>arthur cordell
> --


Not possible !

Hugs

j

Re: torn: Reply to Ed Wieck

[Ed Weick]

>From: "Cordell, Arthur: #ECOM - COMÉ"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


>>It seems that the Czechs in 1968 tried to bring in Socialism with a human
>>face.  How about Capitalism with a human face?
>>
>>arthur cordell
>> --


>Not possible !

>Hugs

>j



Perhaps just "Humanity with a human face"?  More hugs.

Ed

Re: Timocracy, Democracy etc. (was "torn: Response for Brad")

[Christoph Reuss]

Ed Goertzen quoted Compton's Interactive Encyclopedia (which keyword?):
> "...If the mass of the population
> governed and they were virtuous, it was called a timocracy. (The Greek
> timios means "worthy.") But if the many were not virtuous, it was called a
> democracy. The Greeks generally had a very low opinion of democracy,
> equating it with mob rule".

Democracy as it is practiced today should rather be called "Mediacracy"
(oops, almost said "Mediocracy"..) -- the rule of the media:  Even in a
'direct' democracy, the voters' decisions are based on information they
receive from the media, so in effect, the media are ruling by 'biasing'(*)
this information.  And who 'owns' the large media...?  (-->Oligarchy)

Chris



(*) Whether this happens only due to (ad) bribery or mere silliness,
depends on the individual writers...  remember the old poem:
"There's no cause to bribe or twist
 that splendid chap the journalist.
 But given what they'll do unbribed,
 there's no occasion to."

Re: Five Nightmares about Free Trade... (was Re: torn)

[Christoph Reuss]

On Sat, 04 Dec 1999, Keith Hudson wrote:
> On balance, and over the longer term, free trade is immensely beneficial
> but, over the short to medium term, there are understandable worries

Sounds like those miracle-healers who tell patients "you must get worse
before you can get better" when the patients complain about the snake-oil's
effects.  (A more political analogy would be Hitler's Ermaechtigungsgesetze
with which he grabbed absolute power "over the short to medium term, only
until things get better"... of course things got worse but until people
noticed he was too powerful to be removed... same thing with the WTO?)


> Summarised from "Five reasons to worry about free trade" by Hamish McRae
> (The Independent, 2 December 1999):

> The violence of protestors at the meeting of the World Trade Organisation
> (WTO) at Seattle means that the WTO is not seen as an obviously benign
> organisation by some of the young.

I guess this should read something like:

  The violence of teargas/rubberbullet police in full riot gear against
  unarmed peaceful protestors at the WTO meeting in Seattle means that
  democracy and constitutional rights are not seen as obviously necessary
  by some of the WTO elderly.


> However, there are are at least five real concerns which should not be
> ignored. They are:

Even the "real concerns" are biased:


> 1. A freeing up of trade of any particular good will cause temporary
> unemployment at a particular time and place before the workers concerned
> find new employment;

Where and for what wage should they find new employment ?


> 2. Increased free trade adds to the pressure on world resources, and if
> every country were to try and live at the present standard of living of
> North Americans and in their present style, then this would be impossible;

Since when does "Free" Trade *increase* the 3rd world's standard of living ?
(on average)


> 3. Some countries have such a lack of resources, and such low standards of
> education and technological know-how that they cannot get even a modest
> share of increased trade in the foreseeable future;

Their lack of resources was/is usually created/increased by "Free" Trade
in the first place.  Btw, even with little (monetary) resources, a pretty
decent regional trade is possible (see native societies).  Trade doesn't
have to be done for its own sake, does it?  Or perhaps it does, if the
real purpose is exploitation from outside...


> 4. Increasing global trade also involves increasing capital and investment
> flows but these, given the nature of modern financial systems, can be
> rapidly withdrawn from particular sectors or countries at the first sign of
> trouble causing unexpected unemployment;

Why should this be only temporary ?


> 5. The world economy is becoming increasingly dependent on information and
> this, at present, is unequally available to people in different parts of
> the world, effectively isolating many people from any immediate share of
> increased trade.

Yeah, the average Indian farmer is most keen on participating in eBay
auctions and online-gambling with Wall Street futures.



Keith continued:
> Many types of reforms are implied in the above article, but competitive
> protectionism by one country after another is not one of them.

Throwing away environmental and social regulations is not one of them either.


> If the
> youthful protestors at Seattle had their way they would certainly bring
> about a repetition of the 1920/30s in which tens of millions of people
> would suffer  -- that is, additional to those who are already suffering
> (for quite different reasons than trade) -- and only hurt multinational
> corporations marginally.

If the economic bullies at Seattle had their way they would certainly bring
about an unprecedented deregulation in which hundreds of millions of people
would suffer -- that is, additional to those who are already suffering
(for quite different reasons than trade) -- and only benefit a marginal
minority of multinational corporations.


> (One or two of them might fold up, of course, but
> then multinationals are being formed and are dying all the time -- it's
> their natural state of existence.)

Their usual way of "dying" is to merge with others to an even larger
corporation.  The only things that are dying in the process is jobs.
(And the odd co-workers when laid-off employees run amok...)

Greetings,
Chris




"THE POLICE ARE NOT HERE TO CREATE DISORDER.  THEY'RE HERE TO PRESERVE
DISORDER." -- Former Chicago mayor Daley during the infamous 1968 convention

The two essential features of the capitalist system (Was Re: torn: Reply to Ed Wieck)

[john courtneidge]

--
>From: Ed Goertzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: re: torn: Reply to Ed Wieck
>Date: Mon, Dec 6, 1999, 7:35 pm
>

>From: "Ed Weick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Subject: Re: torn
>Date: Sun, 5 Dec 1999 08:06:05 -0500
>
>Part of Ed's post begs a reply.
>
>To obtain clarity, can we agree that capital as a stored value is a good
>thing. That Capitalizm, the monetary manipulation (percursor to individual
>appropriation of excessive capital value) is the essence of the problem?
>
>The incorrect definition of the problem begs an incorrect solution or
>response. Please add to or modify my definition of the problem!
>


Dear F/w friends

Here's a snip from  my posted essays (of Nov 25) that helps (me at least ! )

Hugs

j
>snip from earlier essays>>>>>>>


Dictionary definitions of capitalism highlight two essential features of the
capitalist system: that the factors necessary for the production of those
commodities necessary for human life are in private ownership and that these
factors are used for private benefit (or 'profit').

( ** Note the stress on two aspects:

 - ownership and where the benefits from use end up ***)

This definition - focussing as it does on ownership of and profit from the
resources necessary for production - suggests, therefore, the following
Table:


EconomicOwnership ofBenefits flow
System:the means of to: 
production: 
 
   
 CapitalismPrivatePrivate
   
 

 CommunismPublicPublic
   
   

Co-operativePrivatePublic
 Socialism
 
TotalitarianismPublic Private
   

Clearly definition of some terms is necessary:

 * Private ownership can encompass ownership by individuals or groups of
kin or otherwise (åthe family firm¼ and multinational, share-holder owned
joint stock companies are examples of such „private¾ ownership under
capitalism, while, under co-operative socialism, various forms of
co-operative - worker-cooperatives, consumer-cooperatives,
stakeholder-cooperatives and so on - form the pattern of wealth-creating
units, with the distinct objective of creating wealth for the Common-weal,
rather than primarily for the individual).

 * Public benefits, too, needs analysis: „who gets how much - and of what¾
is the essence of politics, and so considerations of income maxima and
minima continue to be central, but since, as Churchill, in one of his most
lucid moments, observed "Ninety percent of politics is economics," our focus
here must remain sharply upon economics.

**

This led to the Plan of Action !

***

More hugs

j

*