John, [Keith writes]
Might I suggest with great respect that many of the weaknesses of the 'Seven Point
Action Plan' could be overcome by a reading programme of world economic history.
Keith, [Bill Ward writes] rather than
sweepingly discounting everything you have
written below [as you have done with
John], I would simply like to say that in
trying to discredit him, you might have
been guilty of some generalizations,
yourself. I, personally, have never
failed, to be guilty of such things.
Nevertheless, I feel that I need to
respond in order not to lose the thrust
of some very good ideas which John is
positing that might move us forward as
a civilization from where we are today.
John offered:
>All (?) of the economic relationships that history has seen, up to now, seem to have
>been coercive - force-full - in nature.
Keith responded:
The parenthetical question mark is certainly needed because the rest of the statement
is plainly false -- in a seriously big way, too. There have been several large trading
networks that lasted for long periods without the
faintest coercion being involved. Let me mention just one of these: the Phoenician
trading system which connected most ports of the Mediterranean for almost three
millennia. They had no empire and no army and operated
from peaceful and totally defenceless utonomous city-states such as Sidon and Tyre.
The Phoenecians were primarily Lebanese
and Palestinians so we are talking here
of something much more like a cartel
than what existed between Harapa and
Mohenjedaro in the Indus Valley
Civilization, the Tigres/Euphrates
society and the Egyptian kingships
in the period around 2500 BC. While
the latter trading [system] would be
assumed to be based on mutual interest,
where the system failed as an example
was in the onerous burden the trade
placed on the poor in each of these
countries [the 'value added' piece
that international economists refer
to]. The trade was similar to that
found today between the wealthy of
different countries who are really
marginalized away from the people
of their own countries and are more
like the weathy of other coutries.
For example, the meetings of the
Group of 77 nations was a meeting
of those in the developing world
who benefit individually from the
actions of the WTO and IMF and are
not likely to challenge the general
thrust of those organizations, what
we would call a scam game.
This is akin [pardon the pun] of saying
that the trade among European states in
the 1700s and 1800s was another example
of noncoercive exchange - however, the
trade was carried out among nations who
all had sovereigns who were relatives -
another cartel. Without email, they had
to make policy at weddings and funerals.
I hope you don't think I'm being patronising
[neither is the Miami population re the Elian
issue], John, but please read your history books before you come out with such grand
plans. Your ideas well-intentioned but many of them run counter to what has been tried
and
tested throughout history.
The truth of the matter is that when coercive empires and aggressive nation-states
have arisen in the past, then trade promptly declines and large segments of
populations suffer great poverty.
Best wishes,
Keith
Keith all of the best - but before closing, could I ask you to share just a wee bit of
evidence to support your last couple of paragraphs above.
---
Bill Ward
Research Director
Arthritis Research Institute of America
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Join 18 million Eudora users by signing up for a free Eudora Web-Mail account at
http://www.eudoramail.com
