Chris, Sorry to take so long to get back to you, Chris.
Hope your mountain holiday went well. Well, I've said my patience is infinite. I have said innumerable times that infrastructure, because it isn't controlled by the price mechanism is obviously a function of government, though I have shown how competition an be used to handle roads, water, and suchlike. So, it must be some other free traders that you refer to. Though what those things have to do with dropping import restrictions at our borders I don't understand. But then, neither do you - even though you write about it. You say (again): " . . . . Harry's beloved Kaiser-Permanente company with its hand-picked selection of healthy customers." Entire unions enter the Kaiser program. If there was "hand-picking" the unions would go elsewhere - something you can't do. It's called freedom to choose. I don't know about Keith, but I don't think I have ever said all state systems are bad. Certainly small countries, which not only escaped fighting Hitler, but also actually profited from the slaughter, are probably in a good position to luxuriate in Nannydom. Harry ******************************************** Henry George School of Social Science of Los Angeles Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 Tel: 818 352-4141 -- Fax: 818 353-2242 http://haledward.home.comcast.net ******************************************** -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christoph Reuss Sent: Monday, November 17, 2003 9:10 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Futurework] E.European Women discover the Joys of Free Trade Returning from 2 weeks of mountain holidays, I see a varied debate has evolved in this thread. I'll add a few general comments. On Thu, 6 Nov 2003, Harry Pollard wrote: > But whenever the joys of government are discussed, they revolve around > police, ambulances, and fire. Oh, yes, and education. What about infrastructure (roads, sewage systems, tap water, landslide protection, hospitals etc.) ? The free traders prefer to keep silent about these things, because talking about them would expose the big disadvantages of their concept. On Tue, 11 Nov 2003, in praise of private health care: > Pete's desire to provide womb-to-the-tomb health services to everyone > is laudable. How can anyone say no? But, if you don't ration services > (as a private care group must) you will run into serious trouble > before too long. It is interesting that Harry and Keith only look at failed state systems to support their wrong implication that ALL state systems must be bad. The Swiss health care system provides high-quality care to the whole population (insurance is mandatory) at insurance rates that are significantly lower than at Harry's beloved Kaiser-Permanente company with its hand-picked selection of healthy customers. On Mon, 3 Nov 2003, on definitions of Free Trade: > 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. If you look at GATS, FTAA etc., it seems that Free Trade does mean these things. You seem to be in denial about a lot of things. > 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. I am well aware that we don't have 100% pure unadulterated free trade, but the question is: Starting from the present state, do the moves *towards* more free trade improve things or worsen things? The evidence shows that they worsen things, so pure free trade would be even worse. > The free market tends to produce better quality goods at lower prices > -- by competition. I provided many examples (e.g. SUVs) to show that excessive competition provides lower-quality goods at higher (externalized) prices. > I personally like people, and peoples, coming together and > cooperating. First you said you like competition and now you like cooperation. What you end up advocating is dog-eat-dog competition that allows only a very limited cooperation at the expense of the commons and of others. However, genuine cooperation is to the benefit of the commons and others. > 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). People who dislike government lay every problem on it, and even write as if all forms of government would be bad just because some are. Bureaucracy IS lame, but you can have that in (big) corporations too. Decentralization and efficiency IS good, but you can have that in government too. Chris ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~ SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword "igve". --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.548 / Virus Database: 341 - Release Date: 12/5/2003 _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
