Re: MD the metaphysics of free-enterprise

From: Dan Glover (daneglover@hotmail.com)
Date: Sat Jul 10 2004 - 19:55:22 BST

  • Next message: Dan Glover: "Re: MD the metaphysics of free-enterprise"

    Hello everyone

    >From: "Arlo J. Bensinger" < >
    >Reply-To:
    >To:
    >Subject: Re: MD the metaphysics of free-enterprise
    >Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2004 09:16:37 -0400 (EDT)
    >
    >Dan,
    >
    > > Rather than complaining that others aren't reading your posts, perhaps
    >you
    > > should spend a little more time digesting the posts yourself. The story
    >of
    > > Buckminster Fuller wasn't meant to evoke sorrow or pity for the man
    >because
    > > he didn't make money. The point I meant to make is that no business can
    > > survive without earning a profit. I don't care if it's United Airlines
    >or
    > > Mom and Pops Donut Hut. That is what business is about!
    > >
    >
    >Certainly. But the story (and I've reread it this morning several times)
    >was
    >laid out in very clear pattern (1) he wanted to do good, (2) he started a
    >business to do good, (3) said business failed, then (4) jumping off a
    >bridge.
    >
    >I know very well the pain and misery that comes with the collapse of one's
    >labor. I know intimately the agonizing psyhological effects of loss of
    >employment, especially employment that one has dedicated one's life to.
    >
    >I made only two points in repsonse, (1) he (or anyone else) should be proud
    >of
    >the good they have done, regardless of the "money" attached, and (2) if a
    >loss
    >of his labor drove Fuller to a bridge, how many Tijuanese laborers, and
    >laborers in my hometown and across America, are standing on that very
    >bridge
    >today?

    Hi Arlo

    Thank you for taking your time to explain your position. My point is more
    along the lines of the road to hell is paved with good intentions. While a
    Christian might, I'm not sure a Buddhist would agree with you that doing
    good is something to be proud of. It's just the natural order of things.
    Addtionally, money is not what drove Mr. Fuller to comtemplate suicide. It
    was the loss of his dreams.

    >
    >Finally, about "profit to survive". I wonder if Coke could survive, earn a
    >smaller profit for the executives to be sure, but pay better wages to its
    >labor
    >force? Certainly it could, but the "profit" is always grossly unevenly
    >distributed (multimillions for the executives, cents an hour to the labor).
    >Some would have me believe that the ONLY two options are (1) the gross
    >inequity
    >or (2) Communist Russia. I see other alternatives. Do you?

    I think one alternative could be called middle class living. Mexico is the
    10th largest economy in the world. As it grows even larger, eventually the
    factories doing business there will be forced to raise wages and something
    like the middle class that we have here in the US will emerge. If you study
    history at all, you know this is what has happened time and time again, even
    here in the US.

    Yet human nature seems to dictate that there will always be inequality. Some
    want more than others. A Buddhist would say they are trapped in the temporal
    materialism that seems to run rampant these days.

    I happened to read an article about a fellow http://www.golfmongolia.com/
    who's golfing across Mongolia. He mentions how poor the people are there and
    yet how happy. So perhaps the problem with Coke doing business in Mexico
    isn't a matter of just money. Perhaps there are other factors to consider.
    I'm just not familiar enough with the situation there to make a qualified
    judgement.

    >
    >Arlo
    >
    >PS: I've not had any indication, Dan, that you were not "reading my posts".
    >It
    >was not a lament at disagreemenet (which you and I may have), it was at
    >repeating statements that clearly indicated that the dialogue was not
    >progressing (which you and I do not have). In short, disagreement and
    >honest
    >misunderstanding are not at issue, they are natural and even desirable,
    >having
    >someone say that I think "earning money is not good", or that I must want
    >"coersion of honest traders", etc even though I very loudly articulated
    >otherwise is what I was lamenting.

    I know you weren't indicating that I wasn't reading your posts. It just
    seemed to me that you and others aren't treating another member of the forum
    with the respect he deserves. I'm not sure what progress you hope to make
    but good luck and thank you for sharing your thoughts.

    Dan

    _________________________________________________________________
    Check out the latest news, polls and tools in the MSN 2004 Election Guide!
    http://special.msn.com/msn/election2004.armx

    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 -

    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 : Sun Jul 11 2004 - 04:31:52 BST