Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watcgl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!watnot!watcgl!jchapman
From: jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: egg/chicken chicken/egg chigg/eckin
Message-ID: <2102@watcgl.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 25-Jun-85 11:08:27 EDT
Article-I.D.: watcgl.2102
Posted: Tue Jun 25 11:08:27 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 26-Jun-85 05:24:03 EDT
References: <893@mnetor.UUCP> <5642@utzoo.UUCP> <896@mnetor.UUCP>
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 137

.
.
.
> > hours a day) or women forced to do the same because their social/political
> > system did not allow them any alternative.  Lets also not forget the
> > company towns where workers were kept; where they were forced to buy
> > the necessities of life at inflated prices so that they could never
> > get out of the cycle.
> >
> Nobody is going around defending this behaviour.  We're all aware it
> happened.  Enumerating it isn't really relative to the case.  The whole

 It sure is relevant.  You make comments about them making a choice as
 if they suddenly materialized out of vacuum and just made this rational
 choice (btw making a choice when then alternative is basically
 unnacceptable is hardly a "choice").  Thats just too simple.  How did
 these people get to be so poor in the first place (there was a class
 of people who weren't poor you know)?

> world used to be poor.  Now lots of it isn't.  This is a FACT.  It's
> also a fact that some people, and not everybody, figured out how to
> change the world from poor to richer.  It's also true that the people
> who figured this out, clever as they were, also figured out how to keep
> the biggest chunk of the pie they were creating.  They managed to keep

Gee how did they get so clever? Maybe it was because they had some time
to think (you know, instead of grunging around in mines all day); or
maybe their families had the money to set up the factories; well I
After all if a guy can't do a little 14 hour shift in the mine and
then develop industrial strategy and techniques in his spare time
then he probably just doesn't deserve to succeed does he.  And if he
can't save to set up a factory because he only gets *just enough*
to feed his family for his 14 shifts well it's his fault; he should
work harder and longer, after all there are 24 hours in day.

> most of it and give only as little as possible to those they hired.
> But, they did have to give them something more than they had.  It wouldn't
> have worked otherwise, except through slavery.  Which is not to say there
> wasn't slavery and strongarming.  Those things did exist and are deplored
> by everybody today.  The only thing that isn't an established fact, and thus

I've got news for you Brad, slavery still exists, in fact if not in 
name.  And we can't all deplore it since our companies invest in it
and we buy the products of it.


> subject to debate is, "Was the strongarming the most important factor in
> the success of these people, or was it simply one of the factors?"
> >> ------------------
> >> 
> >> It's my feeling that most
> >> of the American companies made their money right here on this continent,
> >> and that multinationals external profits are far from the majority of
> >> the GNP.
> > Well think about it the next time you buy shoes from Bata (South
> > America & Philipines), or strawberries from South America, or ICs from
> > Taiwan or the Philipines, or lettuce from California or New Mexico
> > (planted and harvested by Mexican wetbacks).  All these things
> > are cheap in large part because of labour that is paid subsistence
> > wages.  I don't *think* it extended into the 20'th century but I've
> > been told that around the time of confederation there was a bounty
> > on Indian scalps in parts of the east coast (we wanted their land
> > you see).
> >
> So you have listed a few companies and industries.  I can literally list
> thousands, almost millions of counterexamples.  Enumerating examples of

  Well actually I doubt you can however that's neither here nor there.
  You asked what group had been exploited in the 20th century and I've
  given you some examples.  It not such a simple problem you see that
  you can give one simple name to those people/groups.  I notice you
  have conveniently left out the large groups I did use like women
  and blacks (definitely more than half the population) and those
  companies which abuse the environment to increase profits or as
  we are seeing in the paper sell to countries with long records of
  human rights violations.  Why ignore these Brad?

> misuse is not important.  Let's see aggregate figures concerning domestic
> production vs. foreign production, and revenues attributable to both.
  OK:
  Women : aprroximately 50% of the population.  Probably close to that
          percentage of the work force.  Average wage: 63% of the average
          male wage.  If we assume women are not inherently inferior
          to men then we save approx. 25% of the labour cost component
          of goods (since we don't give that 50% of the people a 50%
          raise) directly by discriminating and suppressing this
	  particular group of people.
> >
> > ...Many more examples of nasty goings on...
> All these are terrible, and it is the function of the government to
> erradicate them.  But the principle of freedom should still be the
> fundamental principle, and it should only be modified with the greatest
> of care to correct injustices.  The argument that the principle of communism
                                                                     ^^^^^^^^^
 Who is talking about communism??????? Isn't that a little paranoid?
 Does a system where everyone is given equal opportunity (and not
 just lip service to the idea) mean communism?  If a system does not
 take advantage of the poor or the weak or it does economically
 discriminate against one sex then it's a communist system? You remind
 me of a news report I once saw on American tv; they read this
 document to people on the street and asked them what they thought of
 it - most people thought it was communist garbage - it was the US
 declarati of independance (or the constitution, I can't remember now).

> is correct, and freedom should only be added where it can be proven useful
> scares me.
> >
> > When the rich get richer the money has to come from somewhere
> > and that usually means taking it from the poor.  When the
> > powerful gain opportunities it usually means the weak lose them.
> >
> 
> THIS IS THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL MISCONCEPTION.  It shows a total lack of
> understanding of trade, I am very sorry to say.  Free, informed trade is never
> zero-sum.  Not just rarely, NEVER.   Free trade always results in both
> parties being richer than they were before.  

 I think you just don't percieve what I'm saying and perhaps I should
 have been clearer.  It is the relative distribution of wealth, power,
 freedom, etc. etc. ; "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer".
 In many countries there is an ever widening gap between the lower
 economic strata and the upper.  I've been told by friends who spend
 a fair bit of time researching this stuff that the middle class is
 dissappearing insome south american countries leaving only the rich
 and the poor.

> 
> The only way you can lose in free trade is if you
>   a) Make a mistake because of your own stupidity or ignorance.
>   b) Are forced through violence into making a "mistake."
> 
> When the rich get richer the money does NOT have to come from somewhere.
> People create wealth, that's how societies in general get wealthier.
> Did you think that all new wealth came from the government printing
> presses?
> -- 
> Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473