From: Arlo Bensinger (ajb102@psu.edu)
Date: Thu Jul 08 2004 - 22:37:31 BST
Platt,
Some responses to your questions:
>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?
OK. Stay with the lead example. Should there be regulations in place that
prohibit disposing lead waste in areas where it can be shown to effect the
groundwater? In the case of Tijuana, once this lead is disposed, and it
causes serious problems, should the companies be forced to clean it up?
This happened, by the way, not in some archaic pre-technological past, but
in the very recent post-technological development era you mention as being
above the sins of the past.
> > 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."
And how do you take my argument to favor over-regulation? This is another
example of a false dichotomy, all we can have is *no* regulations or the
extreme opposite.
> > 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.
Oh come on. Are you telling me that paying several cents an hour to an
impoverished workforce, who as a result of this and other exploitative
actions can never hope to transcend poverty is merely "low" in a relative
sense? You have enough common sense to know when people are being paid
fairly and equitablely. Take a look at these people, my friend, and if you
can justify their wages as merely "low" in a relative sense, then I think
you prove my criticism of the current dialogue in this country.
>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.
"Betterment for all"? How are the Tijuanese laborers "bettered"? By simply
being kept alive? And how are the families in my town and many others who
lost their livelihoods so that wealthy capitalists could earn "just a
little more" "bettered"? How are the millions of workers whose main life
activity (labor) is so alienated from their being that they "don't care"
(to use Pirsig's words)? Are they "bettered" because of all the wonderful
consumer choices they have when they go shopping? Perhpas we disagree
fundamentally on what "betterment" means.
> > 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.
It is not a "relative term". You and everyone else knows damn well when the
line is crossed. Forgive my anger here, but justifying several cents to the
hour as "relative", when anyone with eyes can see the conditions these
people live under is maddening. Go spend a few days in Tijuana and tell me
their wages are only "relatively" low. Sheeesh.
> > 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.
Too bad there is no common, ancient law about treating others with fairness.
> > 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.
Why? Are you suggesting that somehow capitalism became more moral since
then? All one has to do, again, is look at the factory conditions and slave
labor in Tijuana (which by the way, I am reusing to keep this discussion
concrete, if you'd like I can use other examples) to see there is little
difference between there and early industrial Britain. If companies move to
places like Tijuana, so that they can operate like such, why should I
believe that if allowed they would operate any differently here?
And as for "technological improvements", I think Pirsig pointed out that
technology bereft of Quality is vacuous. And I don't see much has changed
from his descriptions of labor then until now.
> > 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.
>
Good. I propose then the next round of tax cuts come from eliminating
corporate handouts.
> > 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?
Quality, of course.
> > 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.
Surely you jest. I can count eight people alone that I am close with that
have no medical coverage that worry endlessly about getting sick because
they can't afford doctor visits. One has a serious cavity and can't go to
a dentist. Another I know is wearing six year old prescription glasses
because she has no vision insurance. If you think the average person can
afford this out-of-pocket you are wrong. And these are all full-time
employed people. I don't know what world you live in Platt, but be grateful
you don't live down here with us.
> > 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.
As should be the medical and educational systems.
> > 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.
Well, thank god there are better people in the world than lazy, dumb employees.
> > 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
No, Platt, it is not a regulation I wish imposed. It is a condition I think
would emerge if the dialogue could shift from "earning money" to "doing
good".
I want to end the "if it is done in the name of pursuing wealth, we can't
criticize it" blockade to reasonable dialogue. I want to promote ideas that
could re-connect the laborer with the product, perhaps through realistic
profit-sharing or local production/consumption. I want to overcome the
capitalism/socialism false dichotomy that is so adamantly argued, that only
modern capitalism can promote free-markets.
Arlo
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 - 22:42:58 BST