> 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 failed to be free and unrestricted,
when a large part of the population was forced to work for those
who owned the means of production, usually due to
good luck and ruthless ancestors. There was no option; once
you had no land to live off you had to work for an employer or you
did not survive. It's more or less the same ever since.
>
> It doesn't (it cannot) make a few prosperous and a majority poor.
>
> The market is impartial. It doesn't take sides. To blame it is a lazy way
> to avoid the real reasons for the tremendous difference between the very
> rich and the very poor.
>
So the "market" is impartial, however it can solve
all our economic problems, if only all regulation went away.
I detect inconsistency.
But I agree about it being a chaotic process that is unable to solve
human problems, so why should we depend on it for our
survival.
We can collect information now about what people
need without first making things and than find or
desparately create a
market, same time we can use all material and creative capacity
to satisfy real needs, and can afford to create a surplus without
unemployment created by overproduction.
> It would be too much, perhaps to ask you to read Henry George's "Progress
> and Poverty" where he asked 120 years ago 'why, in spite of enormous
> progress in production, is it so hard to make a living?" Then he proceeded
> with magnificent reasoning to come to conclusions - and offer remedies.
>
> Or, you might read his "Protection or Free Trade", where he makes the best
> case for Free Trade ever penned - then shows why the benefits of trade
> don't get to the people at the bottom of society. The same arguments can be
> used to show why the benefits of capital, of machines, of factories,
> innovation, and invention, also fail to benefit the poor.
>
> The more Capital we have, the more trade we have, the more wealth is
> available for all of us. But it doesn't reach everybody, either in the US
> or in the third world.
>
> For heavens sake, ask why?
>
yes, why?
> >We are seeing with globalization of trade a rapid increase in the gap
> >between rich and poor.
>
> We also see El Nino, poor SAT scores, and a Republican Congress
>
I can see possible reasons for all these three, but only a marxist
answer for the problem of the growing gap, and more
insecurity in the middle strata, inspite of the
larger volume of wealth produced.
Eva
> Harry Pollard
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
