Ray, No.
Too much cussing and violence. Harry -----Original Message----- From: Ray Evans Harrell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 1:39 PM To: Harry Pollard; 'Christoph Reuss'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Futurework] E.European Women discover the Joys of Free Trade Gee Harry, have you ever read the Phenenology of Fire? REH ----- Original Message ----- From: "Harry Pollard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Christoph Reuss'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 2:22 PM Subject: RE: [Futurework] E.European Women discover the Joys of Free Trade > Chris, > > We have fallen into the trap of word definition. Any word can mean > anything you want it to and people often use the same words to mean > different things. Then they cannot possibly find agreement. > > I've told you what I mean by free trade again and again. It is simply > the dropping of tariffs and quotas and antidumping legislation that > now stop goods coming into the country. > Internally, a free market removes restrictions on the passing of goods > and services between people. > > It is the essence of freedom. > > It doesn't mean you remove such things as health regulation or the > banning of dangerous substances. It doesn't mean the ending of > pollution restrictions and suchlike. It also doesn't mean the coercion > and force that are present in such things as the trade in > prostitution. > > The free market tends to produce better quality goods at lower prices > -- by competition. > > People who dislike the market lay every problem on it. It seems that > every nasty thing that happens across the world is labeled free trade. > It's rather like Orwell's "1984" (peace is war). > > I personally like people, and peoples, coming together and > cooperating. The first expression of this is the trading of goods and > services which, as Keith has noted, has happened since the dawn of > history. > > There are other considerations. The old free trade dictum said "if > goods don't cross the frontiers, armies will". That makes sense to me. > Interdependence is an important factor in maintaining the peace. > > A warning note is sounded when a nation decides to become > self-sufficient. > > The Third World antipathy stirred up by the WTO is not because they > are advocating free trade, but because free trade has not been > generated. The major contenders in the global market -- Europe and the > US -- have maintained their tariff structure and coupled it with > enormous subsidies to agriculture and other industry. The Third World > has been prevented from earning a living. No wonder they are annoyed. > > The Third World is not blameless. Governments are riddled with > corruption. Money that comes to them from the developed nations > doesn't often seem to reach the people it is designed to help. My > favorite, as I've said, is the $60 million that Nigeria "lost". > They simply have no idea what happened to it. > > I'm not against government, but I have a jaundiced view of governments > as they have developed. This extends to international government > organizations such as the IMF, the World Bank, and the WTO. I had some > hopes for the WTO as its intention, which was to break down barriers, > seem good to me. However, as I've mentioned, the big boys won't play > and that makes a mockery of any good intentions. > > The international government organizations seem to follow the "least > exertion" principle and adopt a 'one size fits all' > program. Instead of analyzing the problem of a particular country, > they try to make it conform to their standard plan. The result is > sometimes disaster. In their defense, we should note that the IMF is > usually not called in until the country is already a basket case -- > the result of the ineptitude of their government. > > What I would like you to do is to stop labeling any disaster a result > of free trade. We don't have free trade. We have very unfree trade, > for the fingers of government poke into every aspect of our lives. > Trade is now distorted and murdered by governments. > > So, let's talk about the same subject. Either the monumental > government interference in our lives, or the freeing of people to do > their own thing in harmony and with profit to everybody concerned. > > Harry > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > -------- > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christoph > Reuss > Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 4:45 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [Futurework] E.European Women discover the Joys of Free > Trade > > About what "free trade" means: > > I wrote: > > The free trade/market is characterized by the lack of (or > bypassing > > of) regulations (from gov't) and of ethical considerations, and > by > > treating humans as commodities. All these criteria are met in > the > > trade described in the forwarded article, so it does have a lot > to do > > with free trade/market. (Note that it's a trade _with_, not > > _by_prostitutes.) > > Harry replied: > > Free trade is simply the breaking down the barriers between > people -- > > and between peoples. The restrictions that stop people from > > cooperating are removed for everybody's benefit. > > The two definitions above are not incompatible, except for the last > part ("for everybody's benefit"), which is in contradiction to the > example. > There are countless other examples (externalization of costs) where > removal of trade restrictions is harmful to many, such as the tunnel > fire example which you still didn't care to reply to. > Another example is that bans on hazardous substances (e.g. food > colorants) must be lifted by countries that previously had these bans, > because the FTers (WTO) consider the bans "trade barriers". > This is harmful to anyone except a few shareholders of the substances' > manufacturers and the pharma industry that benefits of the resulting > cancers etc. > > > > Free trade means dropping tariffs, quotas, anti-dumping > measures, and > > the rest. It allows people freely to exchange their goods and > services > > for the benefit of all. > > It has nothing to do with the coercion of human beings, so your > > > suggestions are nonsense > > It has a lot to do with coercion, such as being forced out of business > just because polluters and exploiters (wage dumpers) produce cheaper > stuff. > > > > Protection is the opposite of free trade. It is the granting of > > > privileges to certain groups of people, or corporations, or > political > > cronies. Protection allows them to get rich at the expense of > the > > consumer, which is everyone of us. > > Free trade allows polluters and exploiters to get rich at the expense > of the planet's inhabitants and workers, which is everyone of us. > > > > I cannot understand your support of privilege, but apparently > that is > > what you do. > > If clean air/water/etc. and decent wages are a privilege, then I > support privilege. If making $10,000+ profits by selling crappy > unsafe cars (SUVs) --instead of $1000 profits with good cars-- is a > privilege, then _you_ support privilege, or so you did recently on > this list in the SUV thread... > > Chris _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
