Hi Harry et al,
At 10:05 AM 1/15/2002 Tuesday , you wrote:
>
> Dennis,
>
> Any word means whatever you want it to mean.
>
Then what is the point of having a discussion?
>
> I use Justice to describe the rules and laws that a society uses to govern
> its behaviors. I would say a society is just when the laws apply equally to
> everyone. There are some other things that make a good law, such as need for
> it and the fact that it is sensible. But the crucial thing that makes a
> society just is the equality of everyone under the law.
>
How can we have your kind of justice when people's needs are often
different? Men's needs are different than women's. Adults have
different needs from children. College grads have different needs than
the uneducated. The sick have different needs from the well. Religious
fundamentalists appear to have different needs than the less committed.
Equality under the law is probably the best we can hope for but I'm
not sure that that is justice.
>
> When you mention the bad things done by the rich, you are not
> referring to their wealth - but to their behavior. You don't have to be rich
> to bribe politicians. Anyone can do it. I have often been surprised at how
> little will buy a politician.
The poor are not going to give $100,000 to politicians like the wealthy
do. And groups giving money are just not the same as individuals.
>
> I suppose the most buying is done by the corporations, the trades unions, and
> special interest groups like the AMA and the Real Estate Lobby.
I oppose the concept of "buying access". That is where equality should
start. Let's try to create a system where any group can present their
positions for review. This does happen in the US when proposals go
out for public comment. Less clear, however, is whether anybody actually
reads the comments.
The problem occurs when government bodies get involved in very complex
issues like regulating commerce and promoting education. There is so
much pressure from those seeking narrow interests that legislators
often don't get the time to really understand the various positions
presented to them. I don't have an answer for that except that leaving
the decisionmaking to private interests who have no accountability
to the public seems counter productive and anti-democratic.
>
> Then, of course, the drug companies have one lobbyist for every two
> congressmen, so they can help our representatives to come to the right
> decisions.
>
> However, I don't blame the buyers. I prefer to indict the bought.
I prefer to indite the buyers. The bought can be defeated at the
polls, but not the buyers. Our system encourages folks willing
to be bought because the 'good' folks don't want to be a part
of a corrupt system.
>
>>
>> The downfall of Argentina was not caused by some rich folks buying
>> up all the bacon. It may have been caused by them buying the
>> municiple water works and raising the rates 400%. It may have
>> been caused by the rich, who control the IMF, from "encouraging" the
>> Argentine government to cut social programs.
>
>
> But, think a little and perhaps read again a little. Then, you'll recall what
> I said about Argentina. The country was going down the tubes. Would you like
> to live in a country with a 5000% inflation rate?
>
See above.
>
> The IMF tried to do something about this - something to save the country from
> disaster, but it failed. I have never supported the IMF. I think it becomes a
> sink-hole for other people money.
>
I don't believe the IMF is motivated to do right by the people of
Argentina. The are motivated by those who supply the money.
>
> However enthusiastic they may have been originally, I'm sure that the
> enthusiasm is long gone as they face the reality that when corrupt
> governments go wrong, you can't patch it into health. They appear to have
> stopped treating each country as a separate entity and appear to have adopted
> - as one person put it - "one size fits all".
>
> Remember - it's so easy to forget - that the IMF is called in when the
> country is already perilously close to going down the tubes. Their
> prescription is pretty obvious - rather like you going to a firm that
> specializes in "debt-management". They tell you to cut back on your expenses
> - stop eating out, sell your car, get rid of your Beverly Hills doctor, spend
> no more than you earn, and so on. If you do all these things, they'll help
> you with a loan. They will "consolidate your debt" - a great phrase if I've
> if I've ever heard one.
And if a few thousand folks starve to death, that's OK. We won't call it
murder, just downsizing.
>
> So, Argentina has to stop inflating the currency at 5,000% - she has to stop
> bankrupting the social security system - she has to stop protecting the
> profits of greedy corporations with import controls and tariffs - all in all,
> if she cuts back on her expenses and does things right, the IMF will
> "consolidate her debt".
>
> Then, of course, as you put it " . . . given leadership willing to make
> government work in the public interest, we can have a more egalitarian
> society."
>
> So, what did the Argentine people get?
>
> Steve Kurtz sent us a very good piece by Albert Manguel. Here's a quote.
>
> "The money lent to Argentina, several times, by the International Monetary
> Fund (that modern incarnation of the sin of usury) was pocketed by the same
> well-known ruffians: ministers, businessmen, industrialists, congressmen,
> bankers, senators. Their names are familiar to every Argentine. The IMF's
> refusal to lend more was based on the safe premise that it would simply be
> stolen again (thieves know one another's habits all too well)."
>
> So, the IMF is (a) blamed for lending money, then (b) blamed for not lending
> the money.
>
> I suppose we can leave the "businessmen" and "industrialists" out of
> Manguel's bit. They are probably put in to show solidarity with the left.
> Anything they get of the IMF's largesse comes through the political pipeline
> from the leaders "willing to make government work in the public interest".
>
What you are pointing out is that the whole IMF operation is disfunctional.
It doesn't do what it purports to do, solve major economic problems. It
should be replaced with an organization whose purpose is to solve
national economic problems, not to make the rich richer.
There is little evidence that anyone knows how to make viable, vibrant
economic systems that benefit whole populations. By that I mean that
raise the standards for the lowest on the economic ladder, not just the
average. The IMF seems to think it does, with all its rules, but I
don't believe they do.
>
> Actually, Dennis, when I read that statement of yours, my immediate reaction
> was "and if pigs has wings they could fly". Politicians attain the good life
> pretty quickly these days. It's a life they soon don't want to give up, and
> to keep it they fall naturally into the "system".
>
If they do, it is because we let them. We don't have to, though, so maybe
we shouldn't. Term limits are being tried, with some success. Other
mechanisms might work as well. This is a challenge that good people need
to work long on. Giving up doesn't solve the problem.
>
> I suggest you stop looking for leaders who inevitably will fail you and start
> leading yourself.
I don't see how leading myself will help. Can you elaborate?
There are several good legislators from here in Northern California.
They have not failed me. Perhaps those in Tujunga in Southern
California are not so well intentioned. It may be time to replace
them.
Dennis Paull
Half Moon Bay, CA 94019
>
> Harry
> __________________________________________
>
>>
>> Dennis wrote:
>>
>> I'm not so sure what a "just" society really means.
>>
>> But I am sure that the rich buy more than bathrooms, pools and bacon
>> with their wealth. They also buy politicians and social and economic
>> control over their poorer fellow citizens. And that, I feel, is wrong.
>>
>> The downfall of Argentina was not caused by some rich folks buying
>> up all the bacon. It may have been caused by them buying the
>> municiple water works and raising the rates 400%. It may have
>> been caused by the rich, who control the IMF, from "encouraging" the
>> Argentine government to cut social programs.
>>
>> The argument that governments never get it right and are always
>> screwing their citizens is just not true. That many governments
>> nowadays seem to be implementing a lot of unhealthy programs
>> is related to the fact that politicians are being bought by those
>> with concentrated wealth, Ken Lay for example.
>>
>> Instead of throwing out democratic governments we should be
>> throwing out those politicians whose motives are not in line
>> with the public's welfare. I do believe that, given leadership
>> willing to make government work in the public interest, we
>> can have a more egalitarian society. No, everyone won't
>> necessarily be happy, but our present cynicism may become
>> much reduced.
>>
>> Dennis Paull
>> Half Moon Bay, CA
>>
>>
>
>
> ******************************
> Harry Pollard
> Henry George School of LA
> Box 655
> Tujunga CA 91042
> Tel: (818) 352-4141
> Fax: (818) 353-2242
> *******************************
