My Father was a Lion. REH
----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 4:07 PM Subject: RE: [Futurework] Fw: Reality Internet > When did you go to work for the Chamber of Commerce? > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ray Evans Harrell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 3:59 PM > To: Cordell, Arthur: ECOM; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [Futurework] Fw: Reality Internet > > > Interesting thought. But where do you stop? You could make a good case > for total income distribution by redistributing all wealth within the > graduates of a society. But, aside from the problem of waste of those not > yet ready to handle such a gift, there is also the problem of the loss of > inherited cultural heritage. Families pass down knowledge about specific > industries through their environment. How can you both stimulate growth, > have rescue for short term temporary situations and maintain a generational > continuity in community intellectual property? > > REH > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 9:52 AM > Subject: RE: [Futurework] Fw: Reality Internet > > > > Ed, > > > > You are probably correct. But I fear that well meaning and well > intentioned > > people are enabling this move as they set up food banks and church related > > activities that cushion the shocks. These buffers relieve governments at > > all levels from the reality of the impacts of their actions. > > > > Food banks were a bad idea when instituted and now they have taken on a > life > > of their own. Will they ever be wound down or will they be, like the > > homeless on street corners be a permanent part of our lives. A hand out > > asking "got some change?" "Got some extra food?" > > > > Dignity is lost in small drops. > > > > Hardly a day goes by in Ottawa when one or another charity has a bike > ride, > > marathon, food drive or rock concert to raise funds. Funds which should > > have been there from government tax dollars. > > > > Meanwhile govenment cuts and cuts but finds other ways to "tax" such as > > through lotteries, casinos, etc. Most of this hitting the lower income > > groups hardest. Those who are looking for the "big win" A way to get out > > of the hole in which they find themselves. Most win nothing, of course, > but > > are simply caught in a regressive grab for tax dollars. > > > > I know they can just say no. Don't buy lottery tickets and don't go to > > casinos. But the draw is so great (amplified by flashy TV ads) that it is > > hard to live in poverty and not take a chance, a chance to fundamentlly > > alter the conditions of one's life. > > > > All very dystopian. > > > > arthur > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ed Weick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 9:34 AM > > To: futurework; Harry Pollard > > Subject: Re: [Futurework] Fw: Reality Internet > > > > > > Not really sure of what you are arguing here, Harry. On the one hand, you > > seem to be arguing that work can always be found, and on the other that > the > > economy is so inadequate that there are large numbers of people in > trouble. > > I think one has to understand that the economy responds to influences that > > are independent of government, but that government policy has a large > > bearing on how it will respond. It would seem that, right now, the US > > economy (perhaps the global economy) has taken a rather serious downturn > and > > people are losing their jobs and their livelihood because of this, in many > > cases having to turn to church operated charities. What policies > > governments implement can slow or accelerate this process, though not > likely > > reverse it. What the Bush administration is doing would appear to be > > accelerating it. It is almost as though Bush, through his tax cuts, has > > consciously decided to let the economy sink, abandoning the poor, but > > rewarding the rich. One could speculate that he foresees two US > economies, > > a happy one for the rich but a very difficult one for the poor. We may be > > witnessing the emergence (unmasking?) of a class system with a wealthy > > nobility at the top, and a growing lumpenproletariat at the bottom. Of > > course there will always be peasants and artisan in between trying to move > > up, but deathly concerned about sliding to the bottom, and willing to take > > wage cuts to try to stay somewhere close to where they are. > > > > Take a look at an op-ed piece in today's NYTimes: > > http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/29/opinion/29HERB.html?th > > > > Ed Weick > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Harry Pollard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "Ed Weick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "futurework" > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 1:27 PM > > Subject: Re: [Futurework] Fw: Reality Internet > > > > > > > > > > Ed, > > > > > > People in trouble can be helped by churches and other good people who do > > > that kind of thing - until they get back on their feet. > > > > > > Work can always be found for people who are unable to do very much - > > either > > > because they are not particularly clever, or because they have some kind > > of > > > disability. In all cases there need be no loss of "dignity" because > these > > > things happen (shrug) and a helping hand at the right time does a mess > of > > > good. (I think those last few words are colloquial American rather than > > > anything English.) > > > > > > Except, the modern economy is so inadequate that those in trouble are > not > > a > > > small number eagerly helped, but a huge proportion of every country's > > > population. (People in trouble are not only those in the soup kitchens.) > > > > > > Economic problems cannot necessarily be laid at the feet of economists. > As > > > a group, the economists I have known have been generally been superior > > > people. However, they are working with inadequate tools. At the time > they > > > should be querying the flawed material, they are busy trying to get > their > > > degrees, so the economic ABC's are accepted quickly as they head toward > > the > > > difficult stuff. > > > > > > I've only been friendly with one Nobel economist, and much of what he > > said > > > I didn't understand. But, he was enthusiastic and was good enough to > think > > > (or pretend) I understood. (On the other hand, the economic Nobels I did > > > understand I was mostly confronting.) > > > > > > Yet, none of them, right or left wing (try to imagine right or left wing > > > physics or chemistry) know enough about the economy to ensure that > anyone > > > who wants to work has many choices from which he can pick. > > > > > > It's a problem of distribution. Yet, so inadequate is modern economics, > > > that it cannot provide us with just economic distribution, but must rely > > on > > > political distribution - a practice guaranteed to inspire a web of > > > corruption and inevitable injustice. > > > > > > All because economists were swept through the inadequacies of their > basic > > > theory by the need to get to the complicated stuff. There is no time to > > > discuss what should be the simple question - which you have heard > before. > > > > > > "Why in spite of increase in productive power do wages tend to a minimum > > > which will give but a bare living?" > > > > > > This was asked in 1979. I suppose not even Brad can blame failure to > > answer > > > this on Bush. > > > > > > Harry > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------- > > > > > > Ed wrote: > > > > > > >The following exchange is from another list in which the poor and > working > > > >poor discuss their problems and those who are in a position to try to > > help > > > >them. Many of the problems arise out of the difficulty of accessing > > > >Canadian federal and Ontario programs, and the meanness of those > > > >programs. The messages say, in various forms, that if you are down and > > > >under there isn't much you can do to get up and out. "OW" is "Ontario > > > >Works", a program that makes welfare recipients work for the money they > > > >receive, which may not be bad in concept, but which is often very bad > in > > > >application. > > > > > > > >The official line of the Government of Ontario is that "Ontario Works > is > > > >working. Since 1995, approximately 600,000 people have left the welfare > > > >system, with savings to taxpayers of more than $13-billion." It > doesn't > > > >say whether the people who have left the welfare system have found jobs > > or > > > >have simply fallen out of any system. > > > >Some of you may find the exchange interesting. > > > > > > > >Ed Weick > > > > > > > > > **************************************************** > > > Harry Pollard > > > Henry George School of Social Science of Los Angeles > > > Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 > > > Tel: (818) 352-4141 -- Fax: (818) 353-2242 > > > http://home.attbi.com/~haledward > > > **************************************************** > > > > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- > > ---- > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > > > Version: 6.0.484 / Virus Database: 282 - Release Date: 5/27/2003 > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Futurework mailing list > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework > > _______________________________________________ > > Futurework mailing list > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
