-
>Thomas Lunde:
>
>>In summing up this lengthy rebuttal, I have had to do some soul searching
>>about my concepts. Basically, I believe people come before profit and
that
>>people are more important than profit.
ed said:
>
>If by this you mean that people should not be economically exploited, and
>that they should be paid the full measure of their worth in productive
>processes, I would fully agree. However, there remains the problem of
>determining what their full worth is.
Thomas:
No, that is not what I meant, what I meant is that for me, in any evaluation
of the merits of a system, I will determine whether I support that system
based on its effects on people. That the system is not greater than people.
We invent laws, money, systems to serve people - all people and too often we
end up defending the system instead of defending the people who are at
negative affect of the system. In using the word "profit" in this
paragragh, I was saying that when the system that puts the rights of some to
make a profit over the misery their activities cause, I come down on the
side of the people affected negatively rather than supporting the rights of
the people using the system in a way that creates that negative by product.
Ed said:
In Economics 101, under "perfectly
>competitive equilibrium", everybody is paid their full worth, and there is
>no possibility of monopoly profit, since monopoly does not exist. However,
>like the much maligned economist's assumption of "rationality", perfectly
>competitive equilibrium is an abstraction. Economists know that it does
not
>exist, but that it is nonetheless useful in furthering economic analysis.
Thomas:
If economists know this and continue to defend the system by glossing over a
distortion, then how can they claim objectivity and scientific rigor. On
the one hand they collect statistics, develop models, create mathematics to
show relationships, all based on a faulty premise - this is scientific
fraud.
Ed said:
>In the real world, there are all kinds of market distortions and
>monopolistic elements which make a logically valid pegging of "full worth"
>pretty nigh impossible.
>
>So other means must be found to avoid the economic exploitation of labour.
>One is collective bargaining - power against power. Another is
>arbitration - let a higher authority decide.
Thomas:
The other is to become what they want to become - scientists and follow
truth no matter where it leads.
The latter was recently used
>to determine whether women were being paid fairly in the Canadian public
>service. The matter went before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, which
>ruled that women were not being paid fairly in comparison with men doing
>equivalent work. The result: the Government of Canada is faced with
>billions of dollars in back pay and higher wage levels from women from here
>on.
Thomas:
But that story is not over with, as you well know and the government feels
that it needs another Court decision before it releases funds. One can only
conclude from watching this charade, that the government has other agenda's
than justice. From an economic and political standpoint, it would make good
sense to pay that money out, not only would it fall into the demand side of
the economy, producing more jobs, but it would also garner them a great
amount of political good will.
Respectfuly,
Thomas Lunde
>
>Ed Weick
>
>
