Chris, I pointed out that Burma and the USSR survived because of the black market, which produced most of their food. Both countries turned a blind eye to the black market because they had to. There would have been starving people rioting in the streets. The socialist collective farms simply couldn't produce food even though they had plenty of regulations.
You called these extreme examples because you do what most socialists and communists do. They compare the actuality of capitalism with the ideal of socialism. You have to compare ideals, or compare the realities. So, I gave you realities. Didn't like it , eh? The first exchange in the earlier post was your: "The good alternative is a working system that is not free trade, but regulated with social and environmental regulations." Followed by: "an unregulated market will destroy the environment and society (because the lemmings go for the cheapest = most destructive products and services)" I pointed out that this statement revealed the arrogance of the collectivist in all his nakedness. I suppose that in the collectivist society you love so much, you will find some socially conscious lemmings whose job it will be to criticize and punish the less socially conscious lemmings. So, who defines socially conscious? I suppose your socially conscious lemmings do. In a free market, people choose the highest quality goods they can get for the cheapest price. It's called competition. Producers compete by serving the consumers better. Consumers reward them by buying their goods. "Cut throat competition" is great for the consumer who is every one of us. So, among the poor sales results from retail stores in the US, one retailer stands out by making a healthy profit. This is Walmart, which I believe has overtaken Microsoft as the largest business in the States. It does this by supplying good quality products at lower prices. It has introduced cute touches, such as using older people to welcome customers as they come in to the store. I have hardly ever shopped at Walmart. I prefer cheaper prices than they offer. But, what can you expect from we free trade lemmings? But, if you want people to behave the way you want them to and are prepared to force them to, that's all right. I prefer to adopt a much simpler philosophy "Do as you like, but harm no-one." So, let's end this bit by asking you what do you mean by "socially conscious". Then you said you will: "provide some practical examples to illustrate the badness of free trade." Here they are: "(1) Manufacturer M1 produces shoes in a socially and environmentally responsible way, while manufacturer M2 produces similar shoes with a lot of pollution (in production and transports) and low slave-wages and unsafe workplaces." "M2's shoes are obviously much cheaper, so under free trade, M2 soon drives M1 out of business. So responsible behavior is being punished instead of rewarded." ---------------------------------------------------------------- On the contrary, people prefer the good guy's shoes, so they buy from M1. On the other hand, they might get the cheaper and better shoes, considering that they are normal. ---------------------------------------------------------------- "(2) Farmers F1 in developed country C1 grow corn. So do farmers F2 in developing country C2. Due to lower price and wage levels in C2, F2's corn is much cheaper on the world market. With free trade (absence of "trade barriers"), F2 drive F1 out of business, with negative consequences for both C1 and C2: In C1, unemployment increases and the landscape suffers (not being cared for by farmers anymore); also, foreign dependency increases (C1 is unable to feed itself in case of war). In C2, hunger increases because the domestic corn now feeds C1's cattle instead of C2's people." You don't seem to understand how an economy progresses. Essentially, those who cannot supply what the consumer wants go broke - or they change their businesses to something the consumer wants. Your thinking seems to follow the line of the somewhat ancient idea of "a lump of labor". Maybe, not so ancient. There is only so much labor and we have to find work for them. It's nonsense, but there you are. A century or two ago in the US, practically everyone produced food and other agricultural products. Now, perhaps 3% of the population handles it. Which of course means that 97% of the population is unemployed. Well, we know they are not. Fewer people farmed and more made cars - which you may think is socially unconscious. But, people wanted them - so they got them - which is the whole point of a free society. So, F1, who probably wouldn't be growing corn if the government didn't bribe him to, supposedly cannot grow corn as good and cheaply as F2. Actually, it is difficult for the undeveloped world to compete with the US across a range of products. Their relative lack of mechanization has to compete with the line of combine harvesters disappearing over the horizon. (It goes without saying that countries like Britain face the same "problem".) So they use - what might you call it - proper protection. Yet, Britain's ascendency began with freeing the British people from the high food price of protected corn, and perhaps it began its descent with the 1932 Ottawa Agreements which slapped humongous tariffs on the Brits. (No, not on the foreigners. Tariffs hurt the people of the country "Foreign dependency" is the bete noire of the "America First" types and corporate Britain's "Buy British!" So, you are firmly among the right wing types. The old dictum of the free traders was: "If goods don't cross the frontiers, armies will." The hallmark of a nation bent on war is self-sufficiency. When the economies of nations are firmly entwined with each other, the chances of peace improve. No certainties - but at least the chances that there will be peace are likely to increase. Your number (3): '(3) Non-socialist country C has a great public transit system. Due to free trade, the system gets privatized, so many train and bus lines are shut down because they're not "profitable".' What has free trade to do with a potty idea like privatization of public transit systems? Free trade is simple the exchange of goods. Once again you attack the wrong thing. You continue (3): "As a result, air pollution, traffic accidents/deaths, urban sprawl, unemployment, foreign dependency (of oil), and immobility of those without cars greatly increase. All these costs more than compensate the public savings from not subsidizing public transit anymore. The only ones who benefit are the car&oil industry and a few rich shareholders of the now privatized public transit." Wow! All this from "privatizing public transit". Perhaps you shouldn't do it. You finished: "You may notice that in all 3 examples, the benefit of free trade is only to a few "fatcats", while the public and the environment loses. This flies in the face of your claim that "the people" want & benefit from free trade." In your first example, we appeared to get good quality cheap shoes - all 280 million of us. That doesn't seem bad. Then in your second example, someone who isn't supplying us with good and cheap enough food.goes out of business. That seems a pretty good thing to me. Apparently again 280 million of us eat cheaper and better. In your third example, you change the subject to privatization of a public transit system, something you don't like. Well I don't like it either. However, your catalog of horrible events indicates you haven't a clue as to what causes them. I happen to know, and it has nothing to do with privatizing public transit. Oh, you should learn how a "FatCat" goes about gathering his ill-gotten gains, before you bring him unnecessarily into the discussion. Harry ****************************** Harry Pollard Henry George School of LA Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel: (818) 352-4141 Fax: (818) 353-2242 *******************************
--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.381 / Virus Database: 214 - Release Date: 8/2/2002
