Brad has unearthed something here. There is tendency to protect capital. To protect industry. To protect market values. Protection of workers falls into the realm of unemployment insurance, retraining schemes. But there is no trust on the part of the workers that if the firm in which they work fails that they will have some sort of secure income.
Maybe the logic is: If the galley slaves know they will be OK at the end they might not row as hard.
Yes, this is a possibility. People may not play war games as seriously as real war. But, again, I advance behind my armored division here - The Economist OpEd piece.
But I think there is anoher possibility besides the "make believe" trap Arthur mentions: This is the opposite: If you figure out you have little chance of getting anywhere, then you may give up. Workers may not work as hard for companies that spit them out as "temps" (even if they are on the payroll and not on the payroll of "Prime Cuts" or whatever the staffing company's name is....
There are no sure-fire solutions. But there are lots of pretty-sure ways to f-ck up.
If the galley slaves know that at the end they will not be OK, they might nor row as hard.
The Harry solution, would be for each galley slave to be his own independent contractor, and make as much as he can by woring as hard as he can. But rowing is a corporate production, and also we know about "the commons" (where optimization of my situation leads to overall decline of the situation)....
I have no idea who Wesley Clark is or what he stands for, but I'd vote for him because he is apparently a good and at least somewhat sagacious soldier. America could do worse than be run by a soldier with his haed screwed on straight (not, please, please, not Ollie North!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) at this time.
\brad mccormick
arthur
-----Original Message----- From: Brad McCormick, Ed.D. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, September 13, 2003 6:29 PM To: Ed Weick Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Christoph Reuss Subject: Re: [Futurework] Free Trade kills :: Why not :economy games" like "war games" instead of economy like war?
Ed Weick wrote:
Brad, you seem to proposing that the market should be viewed as part of society, responsible to society, and not the other way around. What a radical thought!
[snip]
I don't think I've just drivelled out another obvious "romantic" platitude, although I didn't give my reference:
...[T]he principle should be "Protect the worker, not the industry."
"Tariffs on steel: George Bush, protectionist: The president's decision to place high tariffs on imports of steel is disgraceful", The Economist, 9-15Mar2002 (page ref. lost).
This article is behind the pay-for barricade on the Economist website -- It will take someone who saves the print editions or has a subscription to get at the article.
But I believe the idea was that every country should provide its workers a social safety net, and *then* remove tariffs and let uneconomical industries fail if foreign competition beat them.
[Of course, this doesn't answer the question what to do about a counry that is a universal loser like the U.S. may have a predilection for tending to become -- I'm thinking here about things like "Detroit" which produces cars nobody except an American or somebody with "American envy" -- would buy.]
I hope this helps...
\brad mccormick
--
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
