It just means that there are two realities Steven. The one that is good for the whole and the future and the one that has to do with the immediacy of eating. I usually think long term and often end up cash poor. If I live long enough it comes round but sometimes it is a twenty year cycle. I know people who elected for the private casino (stock market) as the meaning of their lives and for a long time I had little cash but a lot of art and they had a lot of cash and were consumed with it. Eventually they had no cash and now I still have Verdi, Mozart and Rorem while they have neither. You can't own art you can only do it or be relegated to the constant passive role of appreciator. But over Memorial Day I found myself with only my American Express and no one took American Express and I had a couple of hungry days. Well, when you're hungry you eat at McDonalds even though it makes you sick.
REH ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stephen Straker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 2:21 AM Subject: [Fwd: RE: [Futurework] Local living economies] > Arthur: > It's interesting. Most of these arguments were and are used > against foreign ownership in Canada. With little effect. > Canadians voted with their pocketbooks as do most of those > in the US who reap short term savings at the longer term > cost of loss of community, both literally and > figuratively. > > Karen: > > other points to consider ... as the Institute > for Self-Reliance and The Hometown > > Advantage (Stacy Mitchell) document ... > > SS: > This is excellent stuff. And yet, Arthur is > completly right - people "vote" for these things > whenever they're made available. The only cases of > opposition I know of - such as the town of > Greenfield, Massachusetts - occur *before* the > fact when political leadership takes a stand, such > as a city council refusing a zoning or building > permit. > > It occurs to me that in this as in so many things > there is not a proper ACCOUNTING. The reason > WalMart has low prices is because you're paying > for that propane barbecue everywhere else where > its cost is disguised (as Stacy & co. say, in > property taxes, etc.). > > I'd like to see some creative accounting put out > that shows, say, > - the real "price" of a propane barbecue at > Wlamart > - the real "price" of a litre/gallon of gasoline > > This would be, like, a progressive rebuttal to the > right-wing think tanks - like BC's Fraser > Institute - that have learned to garner publicity > with dishonest crap like TAX FREEDOM DAY (when to > much fanfare on the day they put out a > news-release explaining that "until today > everything you have earned has been taken by the > government; only today do you get to keep your own > earnings ..." I always want to say - OK you > buggers, have your tax freedom on 1 January and > we'll follow you around and BILL you whenever you > cost us money ... rise & shine! - flushing the > toilet - 3�, brushing your teeth - 1�, use of > sidewalk - 4�, traffic light - 1� ... and so on. > My goodness those guys make me mad. > > Has anyone done this proper kind of "social cost" > accounting? > > THEN people would have a better idea of whether > they're saving money or whether the convenience is > worth it when they choose Home Depot. > > Stephen Straker > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Futurework mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
