Been there, done that. How's the violin coming? REH
----- Original Message ----- From: "Harry Pollard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Ray Evans Harrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Ed Weick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Keith Hudson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 9:00 PM Subject: Re: [Futurework] Camouflage -- again! ( was: Remaking America) > Ray, > > I would certainly recommend sleeping in the snow for a while. > > Harry > > ----------------------------- > > Ray wrote: > > >Picking up on what Brad said about reality really being in the head. > >Following John Warfield and C.S. Pierce and many others who finally got it, > >it occurs to me that the concept of tariff has nothing to do with the > >theories but instead is simply a wall. We use walls for everything. > >The point is what works as a wall and what doesn't. Now if I was to use > >the local use of the ideal in the development of a wall then I would have to > >say that as few walls as possible are the best way to go. > > > >For example, if your body doesn't use walls then you learn to live in the > >world with the elements and gain a vigor that is missing from the civilized > >society. If you get up each morning and go to the water for a cold bath no > >matter what the weather then you will not be cold in the winter or too hot > >in the summer and thus not need to use up all of that energy for heat and > >cool. If you don't have too many walls then you will feel the effects of > >air and water pollution and not be as prone to pollute them. If you only > >eat plants that are grown in the environment where you live (in season) then > >you will be much more in tune with the systems of your body which was built > >around such things. If you sleep under the stars then you will learn to > >retain your heat efficiently. If you sleep on the ground the same will be > >true. If you fast regularly and do cleansing rituals you will do the sa me > >for the inside as well. (flush and contraction) If you use as few walls as > >is possible then you will be able to wear only what you need and you will be > >more comfortable without all of those constraining clothes (body walls). > > > >Maybe we should call all of these tariffs. Or maybe we should just use as > >few walls as possible. Or maybe the ideal is no walls at all. No cars > >(transport tariffs), no houses (sleeping tariffs), no clothes (body > >tariffs), no families (social tariffs), no marriages (sexual tariffs) etc. > >Then we could all live in perfect harmony with nature like they used to. > >Oh goodness, do I sound like Rousseau? Was it Henry George Rousseau? > >Or were all of those Laisse Faire free market folks railing against market > >walls really closet Noble Savages? Then why are they against free love? > >And why aren't they Green in the environment? Maybe all of those > >professions actually act like people and work against each other to try to > >take over the center of power in order to build their own walls? Why? > >It ain't natural. Ask anyone. > > > >Gee! Lets just do away with all of those privileges from all of those > >walls. How do you feel about that Keith and Harry? Feel like sleeping > >outside in the snow for a while? It will be good for you and all of > >those other homos economicus's. Was that what Pol Pot was trying to do? > >Except he had everyone else live his dream with him in charge. Like the > >manor house, everyone should have a chance to live in their ideal dream for > >a while and see how they like it. Maybe the Noble Savage is the way to > >go, or maybe not. I'm 62, I know how I feel about that. I'm not romantic > >anymore. But I did have a beef sandwich today. Hope it wasn't from > >Canada. > > > >REH > > > > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Harry Pollard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To: "Ed Weick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Keith Hudson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 3:22 PM > >Subject: Re: [Futurework] Camouflage -- again! ( was: Remaking America) > > > > > > > Ed, > > > > > > I'm not picking on you. Just that both of your posts invited comment. > > > > > > The lesson is that "People seek to satisfy their desires with the least > > > exertion." > > > > > > Your professor had it wrong. Erecting a tariff wall is not a "beggar my > > > neighbor". It's a beggar ourselves policy. > > > > > > When you or I work, we try to get as much back as we can for as little > >work > > > as possible. (Translation - as high a wage as possible for as few hours as > > > possible.) > > > > > > So, it makes sense that the more imports (wages) we can get for as few > > > exports (exertion) as possible should be our sensible objective. So, every > > > country in the world should be trying to import as much as possible, while > > > exporting as little as possible. > > > > > > Yet, we are persuaded the opposite. > > > > > > The things we produce, exchange, and receive as wages are material goods. > > > Introducing money seems completely to confuse common sense. As we get > > > "money" for exports but have to pay "money" for imports, it seems proper > >to > > > get lots of money from exports, while thriftily spending less on imports. > > > > > > Yet there isn't a member of this list who works for money. > > > > > > We work for bacon and eggs, shirts and shoes, and SUVs. Our wages are the > > > goods we get to keep us alive and make our existence tolerable. Money is > >no > > > more than a convenience to make trade more convenient. > > > > > > So, when trading, the object for both sides is to get more value from the > > > transaction - which means more goods. > > > > > > I'd be happy to help Japan with its export problem by taking all the goods > > > they want to send me. I promise not to send them anything back so I won't > > > increase their imports. > > > > > > They can send them to me directly to the beach where I'll be lying on a > > > large towel being shaded from the hot sun by a geisha, while another > >gently > > > fans me. > > > > > > I'm also willing to help Japan's unemployment problem by taking two ladies > > > off their unemployment lines. Japan would, of course, pay their expenses, > > > which would still further increase their export figures. > > > > > > I'm basically just a good person. > > > > > > I am ridiculing modern economics, but it lays itself open to ridicule. I > > > remember many years ago, noticing a peculiar thing in global statistics. > > > Total world merchandise imports were 5-10% larger than total world > > > merchandise exports. > > > > > > How can that be? If $1,000 dollars worth of goods are exported, how can > > > $1,100 arrive as imports at their arrival port? Do they pick up fish on > >the > > > way, or something? > > > > > > I'm not even sure they any longer use CIF (cargo, insurance, freight). > >They > > > may be using FOB (free on board) for everything. I'm out of touch. > > > > > > Anyway, the import statistics included the cost of getting goods there > > > (CIF). So, if two countries exported identical amounts to each other, each > > > would have a trade deficit with each other. It doesn't seem possible that > > > such a childish statistical error would be made but it was. > > > > > > One country acted differently - Canada. > > > > > > Canada's figures measured imports at the port of export, rather than at > > > their own port. Well that's sensible, so this reduced import figure > > > balanced their trade didn't it? > > > > > > Well, not quite. Canada didn't measure its exports at the port, but back > > > where things were produced in Alberta, or Saskatchewan. So, the cost (for > > > example) of transporting the grain from the prairies to the port wasn't > > > counted, thereby reducing the export figure. > > > > > > This allowed them to produce a deficit to view with alarm. > > > > > > "Those whom the Gods would destroy, they first make mad." > > > > > > Harry > > > ------------------------------------------- > > > > > > Ed wrote: > > > > > > >You may have a point, Keith. Tariffs are no longer in, so other means > > > >have to be used to reduce imports, boost exports, and get Americans to > >buy > > > >American. One of my long-ago economics profs called the competitive > > > >tariff raising games of the 1930s "beggar my neighbour > > > >policies". Increasingly making it more difficult for foreign producers > >to > > > >access the US market may be that kind of thing. > > > > > > > >As an aside, humerous but potentially dangerous, the prof had a habit of > > > >pounding the desk when he was making a point. One day, as he was > >pounding > > > >away at his most furious, a large section of the plaster on the ceiling > > > >came loose (because or workers on the roof) and rained down on the > > > >class. After that, he stopped pounding and started waving his arms in > >the > > > >air with equal ferocity. > > > > > > > >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
