From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Thu Jul 08 2004 - 17:09:36 BST
Arlo,
> Thanks for your answer. Quick follow-up... You say "there's nothing static
> about the current economic system other than government interference with
> laws and regulations". Are you in favor of in opposition to the laws and
> regulations child-labor, workplace conditions or environmental regulations
> (for example)?
Your categories are much too broad to call for "regulations." Define
"child." Define "workplace conditions." Define "environment." These
elephantine terms are like "motherhood" and "apple pie." Who could be
against them?
> I've spoken with many "capitalists" over the years who argue
> that marketplace self-regulation would create "good" (I'll leave this
> undefined) workplace conditions and interactions between the corporations
> and local communities. And yet, historically, the horrific conditions of
> early industrial production were not stopped by corporate altruism or
> self-regulation. Indeed, the opposite has shown to be true.
No country was more regulated that Soviet Russia, yet it's record of
industrial "horrific conditions" was truly "horrific" compared to the U.S.
Go to any over-regulated Eastern bloc country if you want to see real
"horrific conditions."
> Consider the long-reported out-migration of jobs to overseas markets,
> where
> corporations depend on poor economic conditions to manufacture their goods
> for slave wages.
As I've said before, slaves don't earn wages. Everything they earn is
taken away from them by force. I guess you mean "low wages." But as
pointed out, "low" is a relative term.
> For a concrete example, let me back of the MOQ and remind
> you of the tons and tons of industrial lead waste that was dumped across
> the border near Tijuana, dumped deliberately and without regard because
> environmental regulations in this country prohibited such wanton disposal.
> The groundwater in and around Tijuana is undrinkable. Are the American
> corporations responsible doing anything to clean this up?
I would need a lot more facts about this specific case before rendering a
judgment.
> Show me where
> removing the regulations (in this instance) would have produced the
> altruistic market you seem to describe?
I never claimed the free market is altruistic. Quite the opposite. A free
market is based on selfish interests negotiated among traders. The end
result is "betterment" for all compared socialistic systems of government
interference.
> Consider too, that Coke operates a
> manufacturing plant in Tijuana so it can avoid paying decent living wages
> to its hires. I can practically guarantee you that were Mexico to mandate a
> living wages regulation, Coke would move to another impoverished area so it
> could continue to pay slave wages, to children as well as adults.
Again, "decent wages" is a relative term. What's "indecent" for you and me
may mean a better life for someone else. Moreover, as far as I know Coke
hasn't imprisoned or hanged anyone who disagrees with its corporate
policies.
> Or, for a
> more American example, should what happened at Enron (the price gauging,
> not even necessarily the corporate theft of millions of worker's pensions)
> be against the law or legal? After all, it is a static regulation that
> makes these actions illegal.
No. It is the common law against dishonesty in dealings that makes such
actions illegal. This ancient law has merely been codified by regulations.
> Are you telling me that removing these
> regulations would suddenly make corporations act with regard for its
> workers?
Again, your phrase "act with regard to its workers" carries a lot of
unspecified meaning.
> In short, give me any historically-backed reason why I should believe that
> purely unregulated markets would not immediately revert to conditions
> similar to those following the industrial revolution?
Your premise seems to be that without government interference the country
would immediately revert to the 19th century, ignoring all technological
improvements since then. A dubious premise IMO.
> And, if government
> interference is inherently bad, show me any one instance of a corporation
> turning down a government handout and saying the money should be returned
> to the people?
This we can agree on. Corporations shouldn't receive "help" from
governments. As for "returning money to the people," that's what tax cuts
are all about.
> Now, ideally I suppose I'd like to believe that people would not commit
> such attrocities as the dumping of tons of poisonous lead into known
> groundwater. But, I believe, so long as "money" (read capital or wealth) is
> the primary and completely unassailable impetus in the economy, that
> certain regulations are required.
What would you suggest as a substitute for "money" as the impetus in the
economy?
> And, importantly, I do not feel these
> regulations kill DQ. I do not believe that providing access to basic
> healthcare for the citizenry kills "free enterprise" in the marketplace.
In U.S. all citizens (as well illegal immigrants) have access to basic
healthcare.
> To
> sum, I am all for free-enterprise in the marketplace, I just do not believe
> that means that everything should be reduced to a marketplace.
We agree. National defense is an exception along with the police and the
judicial system.
> One final comment. You say "Second, employe-owned companies are
> corporations where employees own the majority of the stock and get to pick
> the board of directors. Being human, they will vote their self-interests,
> often to the detriment of the company's ability to compete and/or stay in
> business." You illustrate this by the idea of "voting themselves raises". I
> think employees of employee-owned companies have just as much interest in
> the company staying viable as corporate owners.
Perhaps as much interest, but usually not as much motivation or know-how
as corporate leaders.
> But you are right, it is
> about money. Employees of employee-owned companies will likely not vote to
> pay themselves several cents an hour to they can compete with corporations
> who do pay cents to the hour to its employees. If all companies had to pay
> decent living wages to all its employees, wages based on the area where
> that product was consumed not produced, I think employee-owned companies
> would suddenly be very competitive.
Is that an international regulation you would like to impose on
businesses? You must be in favor of turning national sovereignty over to
the United Nations. Have you read about the rampant corruption that has
infected that organization? Talk about pollution. :-)
Platt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jul 08 2004 - 17:33:03 BST