At 06:26 PM 04/12/97 -0800, Harry Pollard wrote:
>Tom said:
>
>>First, let me state that
>>I am in favour of the tone of Eva's post. There is a tacit agreement
>>throughout government and academia that the poor will always be with us�
and
>>it comes out of the total acceptance of the concept of "the economy" which
>>is based on the concept of "profit" which by it's very nature implies that
>>some will gain while others lose.
>
>No, it doesn't. If you profit from my excellent goods, and indeed many
>others do also, I will earn a profit from my service to you consumers.
>
>When a trade takes place, both sides are better off (have made a profit) or
>they wouldn't have traded.
>
>What, perhaps, both of you are angry at is 'privilege' income. This is
>income that comes from a licence to occupy a valuable location (given by
>the State). Or, the income that comes from some other privilege, such as
>that given by trade restrictions, both inside the country and at the�
borders.
There is a question of exploitation which you may be missing here.
Exploitation can be defined as the ratio of profits to wage earner incomes.
It is wage earner incomes which of course provides the basis of consumption,
and profits which provide the basis of investments, but when profit cannot
find a home in the form of productive investment... Exploitation and/or
unproductive investments ensue.
>A privilege is a 'private law' (a privi lege). It gives an advantage to one
>at the expense of the other. These private laws are passed by legislatures
>of various kinds. At times, it seems to be their sole job.
A privilege can be based on 'natural' differences of ability and chance, or
based on exploitation.
>Their favorites are of course mainly corporations and unions, who often
>swill at the same trough. The unions are anti-free trade like their
>employers, because that provides higher prices with which the corporations
>get better bottom lines and the unions push up their wages.
I, on the other hand, think that it is the logic of the employers that tends
to dominate considerations about both unions and the state. You don't have
to look very far to see who holds the power.
>The fact that these benefits are at the expense of the whole population is
>of little concern to the fatcats in either organization.
>
>And you are both worried about 'profit'.
>We'll never get done the "underlying job to change this outdated, chaotic,
>uncontrollable anti-human system" (Tom) and we'll never accomplish the
>ultimate reform (Eva) - the ending of poverty - while we fool around with
>this outdated socialist thinking.
What nonsense!
>I'm a radical advocating a completely free market in conditions of social
>justice. I'm the fellow who stands in the middle of the road while the
>corporation behemoths thunder in one direction and the socialist
>juggernauts pound along the other.
There is no such thing as a "completely free" market and for that matter no
such thing as markets without their embeddedness in other social�
institutions.
Cheers,
John
����`����,��,����`����,��,����
�`����,��,����`����,��,����`���
��,
John Hollingsworth (613) 231-2431
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada 2-216 James St. K1R 5M7
����`����,��,����`����,��,����
�`����,��,����`����,��,����`���
��,
At School and Work:
Institute of Political Economy Carleton University
Centre for Labour and Community Research 520-2600 ext. 1843
����`����,��,����`����,��,����
�`����,��,����`����,��,����`���
��,
