Vicki: "I would argue that labor priced itself out of the free market. GM can't compete in a global economy - its costs are too high. Which is better, closing plants or going bankrupt?"
There are numerous academic (and other) voices that trace problems at American auto makers not to the high price of American labor, but the ineptitude of American corporate leaders who began to pay themselves amounts that were grossly out of whack (seriously, if anything in America is overpriced, it's CEOs), while producing inferior machines that few wanted. Leaving that aside, however, it seems you're trying to prove my point. You make it sound as if corporate leaders in this country did not have a choice but to move American jobs overseas - the market forced them to do so. Lack of choice is not commonly described as "freedom." You've put yourself in a logical trap: either GM corporate leaders made decisions that forced others to do something they would not otherwise have done (the definition of lack of freedom under the most conservative academic analysis), or GM corporate leaders had no freedom to choose themselves. Either way, one must recognize that the market does have coercive force; the question is whether it is human-directed or not. Given your definite belief in individual agency, I'd think you'd spring for the latter. Vicki again: "It means that you can blame others for your circumstances, or you can seek and create opportunities for yourself. Some people prefer to be victims, others prefer to pursue happiness. Such is freedom." Put another way, you can either pack up your belongings and move out of town at your own expense, finding work where you can, or you can stay and starve. If such a choice was presented by a government, you would be up in arms. Here's the problem with your argument: human beings ALWAYS have choice. I have a choice to write the federal government a letter right now, today, stating that I do not believe they have the moral authority to tax me and that I will not pay income tax ever again. I can then live with the consequences of that choice. If a man puts a gun to my head and says "give me your money," I can say "no," and be shot. Coercion does not imply the removal of all choice, as that is impossible. It implies the reduction of choices to a so-called Hobson's choice: decide between bad and worse. All I'm saying is that the "free" market you adore does this as effectively as government, if more subtly or insidiously and via different means. Vicki: "If I want to be a ballerina, I wouldn't expect you to support me while I 'live as I would like.'" Wow, because I sure would, if you were in a state-run university for dance, or if you were getting a loan from a bank into which I put my money. Either way, I'm making your dream possible. I'd also expect me to support you in terms of providing air clean enough for your hard-working lungs and a police force to keep someone from breaking your dancer-strong legs. Let me know when you have a show and I'll be sure to come down. Vicki: "I don't think people are that stupid. I do think that our government schools fail to teach sound financial principles. Therefore, many people buy, buy, buy what they want, want, want -- whether they can afford it or not." First of all, you seem to contradict yourself: people are not stupid but they buy, buy, buy outside their means. I agree with the subtext of this, which I'd rephrase as follows: people aren't stupid but they do pretty stupid things. Soda, for instance, is stupid. It's expensive and makes you fat and rots your teeth and dehydrates you. And people buy, buy, buy. Do you really think the hundreds of billions spent on advertising by Coke has nothing to do with that? If so, how do you square that belief with your other belief that businesses mostly spend their money in effective, efficient ways? I agree with you wholeheartedly that our schools are not teaching kids financial skills. I, for one, learned nothing about how to take care of myself financially. (Good thing I wound up with a morbid fear of debt from watching my parents' struggle to make ends meet on two pretty good salaries.) I think students also need to take a course on advertising in which television, radio, print and billboard ads would be analyzed and the various techniques used to shape the students' behaviors exposed - and thereby, hopefully, defanged somewhat. I disagree with you that this problem stems directly from government. It's one of those areas that I mentioned in my previous email where capital and government collude. Schools produce good workers and consumers for business on the taxpayer dime, rather than producing good citizens to uphold our society. You'll hear politicians brag about this, i.e. Minnesota has a great business climate because of our well-educated workforce. You'll rarely if ever hear them tout what wonderful citizens we are, except maybe when our turnout is among the highest every two years (and we all pretend that voting in major elections is what being a citizen of a democracy is all about...) Finally, Vicki: "Rather than one-party, I should have said one-ideology represented by three groups: Left, lefter, and leftist. The Greens are the middle group. There are no Rights, righters, and rightists in Minneapolis government. Thus, no debate, no competition. That was my point." First of all, I'd like to know who you think is to the "left" of the Greens. Just curious. Second, (and I think this is the fourth time I've tilted against this particular windmill) PLEASE stop with the ridiculous "road" metaphor. For one thing, the "road" looks very different depending on where one stands. You say there are no "rightists" in this town. I don't know. Barb Johnson, the woman who walked out of a city council meeting in order to block federal mediation, seems pretty "rightist" (while also, interestingly, "wrong"). It's an ineffective way of contrasting the political beliefs of two individuals, much less two or more political parties, or worse, ideologies. Political belief is not one-dimensional. Do Greens favor government action in certain areas? Certainly. Universal health care, for instance. But the party shares with the Republicans (at least ostensibly, for all their talk of states' rights; analysis of their actual behavior in office paints a different picture) a belief in decentralization of power. For further evidence, witness the opposition to the current "free" trade system from both Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan in 2000. Or has Pat become "lefter" than us "leftists"? Hey, maybe if you move far enough to the left, you circle back around to the right! Enough. It's muddy and stupid. Robin Garwood SE Como REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
