At 11:14 PM 2/8/98 -0800, Harry Pollard wrote:
>I've said similar things before and almost invariably
>receive a reply that says that free trade has been ended and
>therefore free trade is a baddie.
I agree and think that everyone, except a small number of 'ultra-localist'
environmentalists, know
I thought that was a excellent and clear response, Eva. The consideration
of markets as the only legitimate or 'normal' form of economic regulation
ignores factors that cannot be so easily generalized across all commodities
in a capitalist system. For instance, it ignores the welfare question
in
> Free trade is simply unrestricted exchange of goods between people. In
> other words it is the continuance of cooperation between people that has
> existed since the beginning and which has taken us from tribal insularity
> to a broad vision of the whole world.
>
At some time this cooperation
Harry Pollard wrote,
>It would be too much, perhaps to ask you to read Henry George's "Progress
>and Poverty" where he asked 120 years ago 'why, in spite of enormous
>progress in production, is it so hard to make a living?" Then he proceeded
>with magnificent reasoning to come to conclusions - an
David wrote:
>
>>KEITH: Well said. The "modern" debate about free trade, globalisation and
so forth
>>is merely today's equivalent of the debate about usury that went on for a
>>thousand years in the Middle Ages (and before that in Greek and Chinese
>>times). Every time free trade resumes and pro
David Burnam (much of the original material cut):
>How does this tie into free trade? I think free, autonomous populations are
>anathema to global, monopoly capitalism. The rhetoric of democracy is used
>only to reinforce the ideology of individualism. It rarely is invoked
>against right wing dic
At 05:41 PM 2/4/98 -0500, Ed Weick wrote:
>
>I'm not quite sure of what to make of this, but it strikes me as being a
>supreme example of assigning a single cause to a multi-faceted problem.
>Many populations have benefitted from increased trade. Others have not -
>for example, Sub-Saharan Africa
David Burnam:
>The problem with free trade is not prosperity, although some few are
>becoming enormously prosperous, but in fact impoverishment of the majority,
>and of the planet itself. The GNP is a poor measure of prosperity, for while
>billionaires are being created in unprecedented numbers,
Keith Hudson wrote:
>Well said. The "modern" debate about free trade, globalisation and so forth
>is merely today's equivalent of the debate about usury that went on for a
>thousand years in the Middle Ages (and before that in Greek and Chinese
>times). Every time free trade resumes and prosperi
