Hi Ross, Your point about too much work interfering with the quality of life is well taken. I think the whole issue of profits and power and money and 'making it' revolves around the idea that we value ourselves in terms of what we have; in terms of our possessions and accomplishments.
A thought I've been playing with is that capitalism might work as one economic tool in a system that is based, in general, on other values. Values that value humans for themselves. Such a system would not deny the importance of material comforts and convenience but would subsume their importance to other things; it would also recognize that basic material necessities must be met in order for other developments to occur. As I say, I'm just playing around with that and would welcome anyone else's thoughts on some possible strategies that would be involved. For example, how would our educational and socialization strategies change if we were to let children know that they were loved and considered precious even when they don't 'perform' the way we want them to. This is not to say that we should allow anti-social or self-destructive behavior. How might we do that? Selma ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ross James Swanston" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Harry Pollard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2002 4:58 AM Subject: Re: Privatizing the Public: Whose agenda? At What Cost? > At 10:13 AM 4/17/02 -0700, you wrote: > > > Selma, > > "It is a mystery to me, given what is constantly being revealed about the > attempts of various corporations to strangle competition, how anyone can > argue that laissez-faire can work for the public good". > > I think that the problem is that in the attempts of various corporations > to strangle competition and create monopolies with the ultimate goal of > unchallenged profits, we move into an ever faster world because we > shouldn't just single out corporations to blame - everybody is doing the > same thing. > > You are quite right Selma. Unfettered competition or laissez-faire cannot > possibly work for the common good. I would define laissez-faire not so > much as the absence of competition, as Harry Pollard seems to imply, but > more to mean too much competition. > > To quote one or two of the facts to support that assertion. A litle while > ago, Karoshi, or working yourself to death was thought to be a uniquely > Japanese phenomenon, but now the Americans have taken over that distinction > as Matthew Reiss explains in a recent article. Under relentless pressure > to be better than everybody else because of the consequences of too much > competition, Americans are now world leaders in overwork which of course > takes its toll on family life and reduces the general quality of life. As > Matthew Reiss shows, Americans now work an average of 1979 hours a year, > about three and a half weeks more than the Japanese, six and a half weeks > more than the British and about twelve and a half weeks more than the Germans. > > Now how anyone can argue that all this can work for the benefit of all is a > complete mystery to me. Sure, it is all a matter of trade-offs. What sort > of world do we want? Do we want profits or do we want quality of life? We > cannot have both because there is a conflict of values so for my money and > since I put quality of life above material gain I am prepared to sacrifice > certain things to gain what I see as a better world. > > Well that's all for now > > Ross > > >
