Hi Harry, you old fart (I warned you about calling me honey and codger isn't as sensual as fart!), You wrote: "When people in a community benefit themselves by trading then (as if by an invisible hand) the whole community benefits."
Ray and Chief Dan George have described communities that had more benevolent invisible hands than those of 'free trade'. Actually they seem to me to resemble the early christian communities that formed shortly after the death of Christ. There was no private property and all was SHARED not traded. Trade, from my experience, usually involves trying to get the 'upper hand' Take care, Honey ps are we trading barbs or sharing affections? > Chris, > > I see, you want to make up new meanings for words and phrases. You can > do > that but it merely leads to confusion. But you are good at confusion. > > For at least a couple of centuries, when a country adopts free trade, > it > means they are dropping the barriers to imports. If you are a > conservative > protectionist, you pass tariffs and quotas to prevent goods coming > into the > country. This, so your pals the corporations can remove the nuisance > of > competition. > > (Competition means you must accept lower profits.) > > With regard to exports, probably every country in the world without > exception is desperately trying to export as much as it can. So, your > remark about food "allowed OUT OF the country" is a bit peculiar. > > It's not understandable, but they all want to increase their exports, > yet > reduce their imports (which is silly enough to show they learned > economics > at your school.) > > I'll try again, which indicates my incredible patience and remarkable > fortitude. When I write about free trade, I'm writing about the > absence of > government interference. When anyone else but you writes about the > "invisible hand" it refers to individuals trading without government > restriction. When people in a community benefit themselves by trading > then > (as if by an invisible hand) the whole community benefits. > > Do you see any government involved? > > You want government? Well, every time you rant about something bad, > government is involved. So, you point out the EU governments import > lot's > of feed.Even as they do so, veritable mountains of food build up > within the > Community. (They must have gone to the same school of economics as > you.) > > You suggest that Stealth bombers are not built, maintained, and sent > on > bombing runs by government? Next, you'll be saying the IMF, the WB, > and > the WTO are not constructs of governments. > > Yep! Switzerland and Sweden were neutral, which allowed them to live > on the > fat of the land while others were getting killed and maimed. When I > was 16 > and rolling into the apocryphal safety of a gutter, I never realized > that > the bombs that were aimed at me probably were made with Swedish steel. > I > also never wondered whether the German pilot was wearing a Swiss > watch. In > any event, had things gone the other way, you would no doubt be > wearing a > swastika on your arm. > > I don't blame the Swiss - or the Swedes. They had to survive as best > they > could in highly threatening conditions. Nevertheless, the war was very > profitable to you both. > > If now you are enjoying the fruits of neutrality, I would be the last > to > criticize. If you want to help people who are in trouble, go ahead. > It's > your country. > > Your final remark tells us so much. People aren't asked to vote for, > or > against, Free Trade. Instead, the tariffs and quotas (and other clever > restrictions) are decided in back rooms during conversations between > the > corporations and the politicians. Money changes hands and the cost of > living goes up for all Americans. > > In fact, the EEC was formed to try to reduce restrictions on trade - > and > indeed Switzerland is "liberalizing" her trade to bring it in > conformity > with Europe prior to her closer union with the Community. > > Most sensible people realize it's better to remove restrictions and > allow > trade freely to flow. Standing in the way are the capitalist and > socialist > privileged, who care nothing about the people but care only for > themselves. > > Harry > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > ---- > Christoph wrote: > > >Harry Pollard wrote: > > > Free trade merely means dropping barriers so food for starving > babies is > > > allowed into the country - to use your vernacular. > > > >On the contrary, free trade means dropping barriers so food for > starving > >babies is allowed OUT OF the country, to feed the rich's cattle (e.g. > the > >EU is importing about 30 million tons of feed from developing > countries > >per year). Argentina would have enough food for its babies, but > alas, > >the rich cattle feeders have more money than the babies' parents, so > >out goes the food. In other words: Free trade kills babies. > (sometimes > >also more quickly, when the iron fist of the "invisible hand" drops > bombs > >on them [B-2 stealth bombers are as invisible on radar as the > hand...]) > > > >If, as you always claim, > > "Free traders just want to allow people do what they > want", > >then shouldn't they allow starving 3rd-worlders to eat their own food > ? > >Or did the "they" in your phrase refer to the Free traders ? > > > > > > > It has nothing to do > > > with the IMF, the World Bank, and has little to do in practice > with the > > > WTO. > > > >It has a lot to do with them, as they set the rules, but of course > they > >will deny responsibility. > > > > > > > They are socialist constructs - running the economy with > governmental > > > interference - which I assume is what you want (you are certainly > against > > > freeing the market). > > > >Well, it seems that by your standards, Switzerland is a socialist > country > >(e.g. it is impossible to starve here because if all else fails, your > town > >of residence will pay your food, rent and even health insurance). > Given > >that it's a socialist country, clearly more socialist than e.g. US or > UK, > >I wonder why things are going better here than there. Perhaps the > problem > >is not "governmental interference" as such, but the ways in which the > >"governmental interference" is implemented. Btw, in > direct-democratic > >countries, the term "people's interference" (yeeeks, how > socialistic!) > >is more appropriate. Which leads to the question: If Free Trade > gives > >people what they want, why do the people vote No to Free Trade when > given > >the chance? (like recently in the referendum on electricity > liberalization) > >Perhaps because they realized that the FTers are lying. > > > >Chris > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >Futurework mailing list > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework > > > > > >--- > >Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. > >Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > >Version: 6.0.445 / Virus Database: 250 - Release Date: 1/21/2003 > > ****************************** > 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: 6.0.445 / Virus Database: 250 - Release Date: 1/21/2003 > _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
