You blamed Tom for something I wrote.
Of course at the end of your post you are describing the free market the way it should be - with choice available to you.
The problem with wage earners is that choice is usually closed to them. So, our job is to find out why.
Or we can accept the consequences and try to make it easier for them. Give them food stamps, free medical, free child care, help with their housing costs and all the other things they need - except justice.
Harry
________________________________
Brad wrote:
Thomas Lunde wrote:
>
> Just remember that everyone prefers to cut costs - including you,
>
[snip]
As for myself, I find that the only time I am
much interested in cutting costs is when I do not
have enough money to live decently. Push me up
against the wall, and I'll try to push the
wall if I can't push you, but, always, I
find it offensive not just to be pushed, but also
to be placed in a situation in which me pushing
is a desideratum.
Of course I do not want to throw money away, but
I do not dicker about the price if I can afford it and
it is not a rip-off and
if the qualities and the quality I seek are in the product.
I think it is pretty much the same with
negotiating the price for a purchase as for
negotiating a raise at work: If you don't get it
without asking and you can go some place else,
just leave, since even if they grant you
what you ask for, it probably won't be what
you want.
Don't buy junk.
Get a Carpet Cat.
(--Carpet Cat floor sweeper ad slogan)
\brad mccormick
> There is an alternative. Raise wages! For the working
> person, it is only take home pay that counts. If the wages
> stay the same and costs keep increasing, then the net effect
> is the loss of income and lifestyle. Business has tried to
> promise the working person by implying that if we allow them
> free competitive reign they will lower prices so we can have
> more goods - and there has been a lot of truth in that
> assumption - in many cases lower costs have made a working
> man's paycheck buy more. But costs cannot be cut
> indefinetly, there is a place where cost cutting leads to
> lower quality and more planned obeslence which means that
> savings from quality and durability are lost. It would be
> better to build a car that was easy to repair and upgrade
> and had a life span of 20 or 30 years, rather than 10.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Thomas Lunde
******************************
Harry Pollard
Henry George School of LA
Box 655
Tujunga CA 91042
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tel: (818) 352-4141
Fax: (818) 353-2242
*******************************
