Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site mnetor.UUCP Path: utzoo!utcsri!utcs!mnetor!fred From: fred@mnetor.UUCP Newsgroups: can.politics Subject: Re: Nationalization/Crown Corps. Message-ID: <1141@mnetor.UUCP> Date: Wed, 3-Jul-85 16:33:25 EDT Article-I.D.: mnetor.1141 Posted: Wed Jul 3 16:33:25 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 3-Jul-85 17:25:50 EDT References: <1121@ubc-cs.UUCP> <1110@mnetor.UUCP> <720@utcs.UUCP> <1114@mnetor.UUCP> <183@watmum.UUCP> <1131@mnetor.UUCP> <729@utcs.UUCP> Reply-To: fred@mnetor.UUCP (Fred Williams) Distribution: can Organization: Computer X (CANADA) Ltd., Toronto, Ontario, Canada Lines: 46 Summary: In article <729@utcs.UUCP> clarke@utcs.UUCP (Jim Clarke) writes: >Umm, well maybe that's something wrong with free enterprise. It seems to >produce profits nicely, but it doesn't care much about anything else. > It doesn't *have* to care because "supply & demand" is a natural law. Everything else falls into place. True, there is a noise factor that may leave the occasional person feeling poorly done by, but most of these cases can be shown to be the person's own fault. People have to be prepared to make their own luck, and accept the consequences of their actions. The world does not owe us a living! Yes, There have been bail-outs of private corporations, and in the case of Chrysler, (in the US), it proved to be the right decision. Generally, however, I am against bail-outs because it only supports the status quo in a company that has already proven itself to be a looser. As far as the loss of jobs, this will no doubt take place in the short term. Long term consequences will be better if the corporation in question is left to die because if the market for the product still exists, someone will fill that market. Another company will form and hire the people laid off. The workers may form a cooperative and fill the market themselves. What I'm saying is, -A free economy takes care of itself naturally, and it is hard to improve on mother nature. Examples of individual companies being supported when they are not able to efficiently serve their market are numerous; - Canadair -DeHavilland But individual examples are not worth much when analyzing the system of government, or the approaches used by various governments. If we compare the total results, the standards of living achieved, we get a good measure of the efficiency of those systems and approaches. Frankly I think we're a lot better off than the communist countries. Survival of the fittest is another natural law and it applies to business without loss of validity. Supporting a company that would otherwise die is an attempt to defeat this law. The result is that we have a lot of sick & lame companies behaving as leaches on the economy of the nation. Bailing them out draws them under government control and this is very attractive to the "empire builders" in the civil service "priesthood". They are the ones who benefit on the backs of all the rest of us who pay taxes. Cheers, Fred Williams