Dear inscrutible Harry,
Once again, I seem to see some criticism of what we call
capitalism (or Reagonomics) or whatever in what you write.
Yet you still seem to keep saying you advocate
"free trade" -- which is what Dubya is all about, isn't he?
I think I've come up with a question which if you
answer it in the spirit of helping remedy my confusion, might
help:
Pick a big corporation, probably any will do, but how about
WalMart? How about Boeing? How about General Motors?
How about Dell? Kraft Foods? Archer, Daniels Midland?
(You are free to choose a "better" one...). Now:
what's right with what this corporation is doing and the environment
it's doing it in, and what's wrong? What would you change?
Let's get really specific: I am a non-supervisory employee of this
corporation, and, the way I see it, I don't have much choice in today's
economy other than to try to keep my job, or, if I get fired or
laid off, to try to find a job with another corporation
("employer"), hopefully at somewhere near the pay and benefits of the
job I lost, but probably at lower pay and fewer benefits. Let's
say I am a computer programmer [and not a
"whiz kid", but a middle-aging "journeyman"
level person]r (or you pick a better job
category for me to have problems earning a decent living in decent
working conditions at).
How would the changes which you would propose change my life? Please
be specific!
And, please, don't get hung up on my questions. I would prefer you
to ask me to clarify and focus my questions for you better to
be able to answer them, rather than get more from you that I
will find confusing.
If you are going to tell me to go into business for myself in today's
economy, that is not an acceptable answer unless you
*operationalize* it in relation to the fact that I currently
have zero entrepreneurial experience or skill (although I
would not be adverse to acquiring them...).... [I just had a thought:
You are going to tell me to open a Mom and Pop Dry Cleaner store
like I am familiar with from Japan, where I would work 364 days
a year in carcenogenic fumes --
they do get New Year's Day off as a country-wide shut-down
day -- and sleep in the back room ande only leave the
premises to go next door to buy
food from the Mom and Pop food store nextdoor.
And you will say that this
is heaven on earth for me, while you
pontificate from a sinecure desk as principal of a
school or something like that, so that the idea of you
changeing places with me shows something is wrong
with my thinking.]
How about it!
What would you do, and what would it do to and for me?
I hope this is a helpful approach.
\brad mccormick
Harry Pollard wrote:
Karen,
Do you think that the old alphabet is still useful in this modern age?
Should we add extra characters to account for the new technology and
global business. (We would have to change that kindergarten tune, of
course.)
We can add new words - but we still use the basic 26.
In the same vein, we must ask have people changed? I would say nothing
is so unchangeable as human nature. The Classical Basic Assumptions were
described a century or two ago. Has a recent human nature change
invalidated them? I would say - not at all.
The Classicists used four terms to name concepts that included
everything (really everything). Are they out-of-date? Hardly. Yet, neos
have added a fifth - the Entrepreneur.
Without doubt, the addition of entrepreneur was an invention of
conservative neo-Classicals. There was this thing "profit" which was
always unearned and/or exorbitant. Profit really had a bad name. Now, we
oldies didn't use profit as an economic term. It is an accounting term
meaning an excess of income over outgo. It has nothing to do with
economics.
Obviously, profit had to be made respectable. So, the neos invented the
entrepreneur. He was the one who got the profit for taking risks, for
managing a business.
Classically, as Labor is mental and physical exertion used in
production, one wonders how the entrepreneur doesn't fit within this
concept.
There is a "problem" with Classical concepts.
The dichotomies that form the basis of societal conflict disappear.
Labor, by definition. includes the nurse, the entrepreneur, the CEO, and
the garbage man. By golly! We are all together in one class.
Makes class conflict a no-no. We can't have that, can we?
Another conflict is between Labor and Capital. To the Classicist,
Capital is the name given to products in the production process. How can
there be a conflict between Labor and Capital? Does it mean people don't
like lathes, or hammers, or blast furnaces.
However, it's the people who own the Capital who are to blame. Labor
needs Capital to provide them jobs
But, hold it! Doesn't Capital need Labor, or the machines will go rusty?
It's fairly obvious that Labor and Capital work together. They are on
the same side, so why are they fighting? Neither can do much without the
other.
The obvious weakness of Labor is important. The persistence of poverty
and continual unemployment is a cancer on the economy. Yet, this was
forecast by Ricardo 200 years ago with his Iron Laws of Rent and Wages.
[snip]
--
Let your light so shine before men,
that they may see your good works.... (Matt 5:16)
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thes 5:21)
<![%THINK;[SGML+APL]]> Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Visit my website ==> http://www.users.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
