Chris, I congratulate you on your magnificent self-deception.
You twist and turn meaning, redefine concepts indiscriminately, cannot hold a thought for longer than a sentence. I shall send a note to the protectionist US logging companies whose tariffs have put 10,000 BC loggers out of work and raised wood prices to millions of Americans that you are with them all the way. I shall remind the US sugar beet companies that you support their sugar quotas that raise prices by 2-3 times to Americans. I'll explain to many third world countries that are refused the right to earn their living by American and European protectionists that Chris knows what is good for them and supports their penury but may give them alms. I think I'll join the other people on this list who have given up trying to have a sensible discussion with you. Harry ******************************* Henry George School of Social Science of Los Angeles Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 818 352-4141 ******************************* > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:futurework- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christoph Reuss > Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2005 2:18 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [Futurework] Re: Free Trade (was Re: Avian Flu report > / introducingFree Trade at Gunpoint (how else?=) > > Harry Pollard wrote: > > I'll try again. Free trade means that a country removes the > > tariffs, quotas, and dumping laws that prevent goods > > entering the country. > > > > That's all. > > In practice, that's not all. Free trade also means the "opening" > (as in "open season") of a country to transnational corporations, > to destroy local smaller companies and to exploit local resources > at the expense of locals. > > > > You seem to have great difficulty understanding such a > > simple and reasonable idea. > > You seem to have great difficulty understanding the implications > and collateral damages of such a simplistic and unreasonable > idea. > > > > Such things as health regulations aren't touched. Why should > > they be? > > They are touched, by privatizing and "opening" the healthcare > sector. > One effect recently seen in an "opened" country was that a wave > of > doctors was flowing in from abroad, leading to a ban on new > medical > practices (even for local young doctors!) and a general increase in > health insurance fees for everyone. > > > > Tariffs, quotas, and dumping laws exist to protect the > > people you quite rightly call "coercers". Removing them > > takes away some of their power to coerce. > > A classical half-truth. > > > > Not all of it - major coercive powers still exist. All free > > trade does is to increase the size of the cake. > > For some (mainly those abroad), but it decreases the size of the > cake for > many more. > > > > How this > > larger cake is distributed is another matter. It is better > > to take things one at a time. > > No, it is better to see the whole picture and recognize that overall, > things get worse. > > > > Being against this larger cake is a Luddite idea - just as > > they essentially tried to limit production by breaking > > machines so do protectionists try to limit production with > > their "bought and paid for" legislation. > > Luddism is a conflict among producers. Free trade is a predator > concept. > > > > The neo-cons, whom you dislike, are with you on this. They > > want managed trade as fervently as their socialist friends. > > (They may not be friends, but their views on managed trade > > is the same.) > > The neo-cons want to maximize externalization of costs, the > rat-race to the bottom, and that the biggest bully wins, > like you do. I want the opposite. > > > > We Liberals have fighting against the Conservatives and > > Socialists for well over a century and always socialists and > > conservatives have adopted the same policy - though with > > different names. > > _3_ different names for predator-class concepts. > > > > We have been fighting for Liberty and Justice for All. > > Sounds like Ronald Reagan. > > --- > > > I don't understand your statement: > > > > " what you call real free trade would end up just the same > > -- with the biggest bully coercing everyone else at their > > peril . . . " > > > > How is that possible? > > In the absence of rules, the biggest bully wins. Rules are > necessary to protect the small ones. If the rules are made > by bullies, that's also bad, but not a reason to abolish rules > in general. The rules have to be defined by the commons. > > Chris > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains > the keyword > "igve". > > > _______________________________________________ > Futurework mailing list > [email protected] > http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
