Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watmath.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!bstempleton
From: bstempleton@watmath.UUCP (Brad Templeton)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: egg/chicken chicken/egg chigg/eckin
Message-ID: <15418@watmath.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 25-Jun-85 19:40:33 EDT
Article-I.D.: watmath.15418
Posted: Tue Jun 25 19:40:33 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 26-Jun-85 05:34:37 EDT
References: <893@mnetor.UUCP> <5642@utzoo.UUCP> <896@mnetor.UUCP>
Reply-To: bstempleton@watmath.UUCP (Brad Templeton)
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 123
Summary: 

In article <2102@watcgl.UUCP> jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) writes:
>.
>. (to paraphrase) People didn't make a valid choice in the old days,
> they were forced between one type of poverty and another.
>
>> 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.

Not to go on and on, but just what does this mean?  Do you suggest
that all innovators did their work on the backs of the oppressed?  That
all the succesful people started on their way with daddy's money?  That's
not even true TODAY - check Forbes magazine's figures on just how many of
the world's richest are new money, not old money.   The world was in
poverty and somehow it got out of it.  The poor did not spontaneously
organize.  Clever people organized them, and took a big chunk of the pie.
Now you bitch because in hindsight you feel that these people should not
have been given so big a chunk.
>
>> 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.

I am fully aware of it.  Any time somebody else controls, without your
explicit permission, what you can do with your body and the fruits of
your labours, it is slavery.  They have it in South Africa and they have
it in Russia.  We even have it partially here (it's called taxation).
Some day we will be rid of it, I hope.
wi
>
>
>  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?

I do not ignore them, and my apolgies for not responding to each point, but
I feel these net discussions get far too big and should better be done
in person if possible.  I can, but don't answer every point.  Sorry.
>
>> 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.
Well, the debate was on foreign figures, but I will tackle this domestic
issue.   First, your assumption that "women are not inherently inferior to
men"  doesn't quite apply.  A large proportion of the difference between
total male and female earnings is due to the fact that men are still doing the
most important jobs in society.  In the old days, men did them all and women
didn't work, so women earned a penny for every dollar men made.  Does that
mean people were saving 99% of their costs by suppressing women?  Hardly.
We may not like the fact that men still rule the economy, but it makes your
figures meaningless.  In the cases where women are paid less than men for
the same work, then you truly have unfair treatment of women.  But such
unfair misuse of women is hardly the major cause of our economic prosperity.
If anything, misuse of good talent HURTS us rather than helps us.

>> ...I refer to communism as the opposite philosophy to the free-enterprise
>> philosophy...

> 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).
>

I doubt I remind you of such a report.  You unfairly judge my awareness
in these matters.  There is a well known spectrum of economic belief that
ranges from the belief in free enterprise, privately owned on one side to
the belief in state (or common) ownership and/or control of the means of
production on the other.   I was making a comment on that spectrum and
my use of the word communism was entirely appropriate.  Who's being
paranoid?

>> I point out that free trade is a both-sides-win game, not a zero sum game.

> He points out that in some nations the gap between rich and poor is growing.

Indeed, say I.  In many nations the poor are uneducated or foolish, just
as they once were in western society.   In this country, my impression is
that the middle class is growing, and that everybody is getting richer, albiet
some faster than others.

In our own country, we are advanced enough (or soon will be) that we need
not meddle in other poeple's private affairs, or so I dearly hope.  In
other countries they may not be so lucky.  Do you suggest we should take
over those countries and set things right?  Or restrain our own citizens
from doing things in foreign lands?
-- 
	Brad Templeton - Waterloo, Ont. (519) 886-7304