Keith Hudson wrote:
> >What solution do you suggest ?
>
> The same solution as that proposed by Frank Field, the previous Welfare
> Reform Minister I quoted, who was sacked for saying it in 1988, and the
> same solution that Tony Blair (the Prime Minister who sacked him) is now
> having to adopt -- decentralisation and deconstruction of masssive
> bureaucracies.
That's very good, but IIRC, you also suggest privatization. The latter
is counter-productive, as it maximizes short-term profits instead of
long-term public health.
(Btw, in the "Welfare State" thread, you said that "we simply don't have
enough doctors". I say: We don't need more doctors, we need less illness!
The paradigm has to change from just_tinkering_with_symptoms to
addressing_and_removing_the_causes ! The people who "treat" you with
radiation don't know or care about the causes of your prostate cancer.)
> (KH)
> >> *To divert, I'll mention that two of the most poignant problems of modern
> >> times -- child prostitution** and wife battering -- each involving scores
> >> of thousands of individuals at any one time
> (CR)
> >These are ultimately effects of the "free trade" policy that you have been
> >advocating on this list for years. Now that the sh-t hits the fan, you
> >complain about the Social Services' "inability".
>
> The previous era of free trade in labour in the mid-1800s onwards until WWI
> when 50 million of Europe's poor and oppressed emigrated to America,
> Australia, Canada and so on was an altogether stimulating economic
> development, particularly to America. Note, however, that these immigrants
> had no welfare benefits when they arrived so that immigrants had to work
> hard as soon as they set foot in their new lands.
[diversions clipped]
That era was pretty "protectionistic", with strong nation-states. The point
remains that you're caught in a contradiction -- you want "free trade" but
complain about its negative effects as if they were unrelated to the cause.
> If we had no welfare state I would unhesitatingly say that free trade in
> labour would be beneficial. As it is, it makes several million indigenous
> people overly dependent on the welfare state and also at the same time
> fuels social strife in the poor areas of our cities. In England in the last
> few months we are now beginning to experience riots and burnings in the
> streets that are characteristic of Northern Ireland.
So you blame these riots on the "welfare state" ?
(Btw, they are late effects of "free trade" too...)
> (KH)
> >> **And enlarging this subject just a little further, and on which more
> >> reliable figures are available, out of an estimated 500,000+ prostitutes in
> >> the country there are about 70,000 who are totally enslaved by mafia gangs
> >> which illegally import girls from poverty-struck central European countries
> >> on a variety of pretexts and then trap them permanently by threatening to
> >> kill members of their families back home. Yet again, this is another area
> >> which government policy and the police totally ignore, even though the
> >> location of these sorts of brothels are fully known.
> (CR)
> >Now you suddenly call for trade barriers. Tss tss...
>
> I'm saying that the mafia are evil influences in society.
Al Capone said: "All I ever did was supply a demand that was pretty popular."
His modern "colleagues" would surely agree -- those Russians etc. saw this
business opportunity offered by "free trade" and grabbed it. Ethics and
scruples?? Nah, that's not what Free Trade is about!
> (CR)
> >P.S.: You didn't reply to my questions on "Corporate Democracy"... No
> > answers left?
>
> I must have overlooked these, but I have nothing new to say on this matter.
> There will always be crooks in business but, generally, corporations are
> becoming increasingly transparent to shareholders, pensioners, the media,
> regulators, etc, etc. For want of a better term, that's democracy.
You must have missed the point that democracy means that those who are
_affected_ of decisions, have a say in these decisions (and in *electing*
those who directly make decisions that affect them). But in corporations,
that's a *different* crowd (even if you assume that there is democracy among
shareholders, pensioners, media etc., which is also very doubtful):
Non-customers and employees are affected of corporate decisions, but have
no say in them; and OTOH, those who have a say, are least affected of
their (negative) consequences. That's not democracy at all.
To repeat the questions you have overlooked:
> > Regarding public pressure: what sanctions would the public
> > have had if the [Railtrack] CEO had insisted on his bonus &options ?
> > To change to a foreign railway company? <G>
> > And in most cases of corporate
> > misbehavior (external costs, environmental and social), the customers
> > even have a vested INTEREST in the misbehavior, as it makes the products
> > cheaper for them ! There, the NON-customers would have to put pressure
> > on the corporation, but how should they do this ?
> > Could you enlighten us on exactly HOW "the corporation is investigated,
> > exposed and pressured" and what the mechanism of democratic accountability
> > is? Can you vote a CEO out of office ?
I'd be surprised if you can answer these questions satisfactorily, since
even neoliberals like Wittmann admit that neoliberalism and democracy don't
mix... (I can also see that in daily practice here in Switzerland)
Chris
