At 00:37 16/07/01 +0200, Christoph Reuss wrote:
(CR)
>> >What solution do you suggest ?
(KH)
>> 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.
(CR)
>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.
There is no reason why health should not be privatised. The NHS in England
was founded on the naive assumption that if a sufficiently comprehensive
service were provided then illness could be permanently banished and then
the NHS could be gradually cut back to a skeleton organisation. Those who
said that this was rubbish were ignored.
There is a myth these days that the pre-NHS private health services in the
England were in some terrible dark ages in which only the rich were able to
be treated. In fact, three quarters of the population were medically
insured and voluntary hospitals supplied equivalent attention for the
indigent.
The immediate result of nationalisation after WWII was that no more new
hospitals were built and, under the prevailing philosophy mentioned above,
only temporary annexes were built onto existing hospitals. It is only in
recent years that the NHS is now building badly-needed new hospitals.
(CR)
>(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.)
I'm afraid that you also have a naive view of illness. Prostate and other
cancers, as well as a great many other illnesses, are inevitable, even in a
"perfect" environment (whatever that is).
>> (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".
(KH)
>> 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]
(KH)
>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.
Yes, that was an era in which strong nation-states were consolidating but,
No, it was also a highly free-trade era -- a condition to which we are now
only just returning.
(KH)
>> 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" ?
The causes of immigration into England have changed over the decades. 40
years ago, immigration was encouraged by the government because there were
shortages of personnel in the public services (nursing, bus conducting,
etc). Then, stimulated by this, manufacturers started importing low-pay
labour in lieu of becoming more efficient (as in America and Germany). In
the last ten years, however, immigration has been mainly motivated by the
welfare state and its weekly benefits. But there is also a grey economy of
illegal immigrants working in the building trades and farming. Altogether,
there are over a million illegal immigrants in the country. If immigration
restrictions were to be lifted then there's little doubt that many tens of
millions of African, Asian and central European people would pour into the
country because of the welfare state.
Deconstructing the welfare state will have to be done by governments and,
indeed, this is now being started in a faltering way by the American and UK
governments. The rest of the EC is, however, is at present digging itself
into a deeper pit with even more "rights" for workers. This is why
investment is increasingly fleeing Europe and heading for the UK and America.
(CR)
>(Btw, they are late effects of "free trade" too...)
Discussed above
>> (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...
(KH)
>> I'm saying that the mafia are evil influences in society.
(CR)
>Al Capone said: "All I ever did was supply a demand that was pretty popular."
Yes, indeed. The nonsense of the American Prohibitiion era are being
repeated all over again.
(KH)
>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!
Well-organised criminals (in distinction to indiviual offenders) will
always take advantage of nonsensical government laws.
>> (CR)
>> >P.S.: You didn't reply to my questions on "Corporate Democracy"... No
>> > answers left?
(KH)
>> 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.
(CR)
>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.
You are falling back to a simplistic definition of democracy. It is a lot
more subtle than that in modern times.
(CR)
>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>
They would not have returned to the railways so quickly.
(CR)
>> > 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 ?
The trend-setters in modern consumer practice are middle-class people and
they are increasingly willing to pay more for "Fair Trade", organic produce
and the like.
(CR)
>> > 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 ?
The newspapers are a powerful method of exercising pressure on politicians
and business people. Remember, it brought down an American President
(Nixon) and can certainly expose malpractice of a corporation.
(CR)
>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)
Well, I'm trying as rationally as I can. But I don't think I'll succeed.
Keith Hudson
___________________________________________________________________
Keith Hudson, General Editor, Calus <http://www.calus.org>
6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England
Tel: +44 1225 312622; Fax: +44 1225 447727;
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
________________________________________________________________________
