Hi Ray, At 13:57 28/11/01 -0500, you wrote: >KH >. If it >> has weight enough, even a complex argument can be presented briefly and >> simply. > >REH >A shard from another era and discipline that seems true but in reality when >applied is toxic to the whole. It goes along with "if you only tell the >truth you won't need a lawyer."
What I was writing about are people, such as Prof McMurty, who suffer from what is I think is called "proxima vu" (the opposite of "deja vu") -- which means that the truth is just around the corner. They make out a case, which is not a case but only an emotional splurge and, when challenged, say the evidence is well known or is found elsewhere. Unfortunately, they don't present it directly. (I'm not persuaded that any more evidence will be found in McMurty's forthcoming book, but we'll have to see.) I actually agree with Prof McMurty's feelings that important things are decided, and economic catastrophes occur, without independent observers being able to have a say. But when he goes on to anathematise evil corporations then he's off-beam. Corporations, by and large, supply the mass of the public with what they want, and consist of people who, by and large, share the same values as the public. Like any member of the public, however, corporate executives can be tempted by greed and will take any opportunity that's presented to them. If they can persuade corrupt politicians to give them favours, then they'll do so. The real enemy is privacy of information. The people who should really take the blame are politicians and governments who, in principle, are supposed to represent the public interest, but who give privileges to private or "sub-public" interests. These interests can be individuals, or corporations or associations such as farmers. The last, for example, are probably the greatest offenders at present, preventing the economic development of third world countries. The US, EC and Japan have enormous tariffs against food imports from developing countries when these are about the only goods they can offer at the present time. (Actually, direct investment by corporations into developing countries is about the only way that many developing countries can pick themselves up in a significant way. The problem is that about 80% of all direct investment, and trade, takes place between developed countries. But if tariffs against food and other basic products such as textiles were lifted then there'd be more consumer demand in third world countries and greater corporate investment in those countries would surely follow.) Keith ___________________________________________________________________ Keith Hudson, Bath, England; e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___________________________________________________________________
