From: E7L8ALL@TOWSONVX.BITNET (Andrew Allen)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: buffing out the primer... pt.2
Date: 12 Nov 92 19:30:18 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

Bite 2:

In response to an argument that the general preference of society (as
evidenced by the continuance of our bureaucracy) is to have government
provide for infrastructure needs because while society does not like
bureaucracy it does not trust the private sector to do so :

>>The private sector may not be "evil" but it has only one concern, profit.
>>In most cases short term profit.

>       What about Ben & Jerry's?  UL?  NOW?  Companies with zero debt?  Etc.
>Profit is merely a measure of financial health.  Those that focus on short term
>profit (like GM) end up in bad shape eventually.  Those that focus on the long
>term survive.

Certainly there are fiscally responsible corporations; however this does not
imply that they will provide properly for infrastructure if they are not
compelled to. Further, once this function is in the hands of the private
sector, means of recourse are even more limited.


>>>18 million new jobs,
>>
>>Steadily declining real wages, caused by a loss of high wage jobs in the
>>industrial sector...
>
>       Declining real wages are a result of increased global competition.  Did
>anyone here in the US really think the third world was going to lie on it's
>back for another 50 years?

And why did we not compete effectively? Because the money that should have
been spent developing our infrastructure got foolishly spent on gifts to
the wealthy and the largest peacetime spending frenzy ever on defense.


>>As I recall one of the main reasons that unemployment "fell" was that
>>Reagan redesigned the criteria by which a worker was considered
>>unemployed. (I could be wrong on this one but as I remember it, if
>>a worker has passed his benefit period then he is no longer considered
>>unemployed. Considering this and that a significant number of the
>>unemployed do not receive benefits this would result in a large
>>underreporting in unemployment figures.)

>       The changes made in the early 80s would result in a shift of today's
>unemployement rate by 0.5% (one half of one percent).  Or from 7.4% to 7.45%.
>       Including the military is legitimate, and not including people who
>arene't looking for a job is also, IMO.  Unemployment is simply a measure (not
>even a very good one) of the number of people looking for work, as opposed to
>the currently available work pool.

The figure that would really tell the story is an estimate of the number
of work hours that were available during the 80's. (compared to previous
and current figures) I have no idea where to find this figure; maybe we
need a list Statistics Czar. B)


>>In a society where everybody is at a decent level already then making
>>adjustments that affect everyone equally makes sense, but when this is
>>clearly not the case the logic of your argument fails because it is
>>contradicted by reality.

>       How so?  Does the fact that government is currently trapping people in
>the welfare system invalidate tax cuts and spending cuts?  That everyone gained
>in the 1980s invalidate doing it again in the 90s because some gained more?
>       If you are arguing for everyone being paid the same wage, you've lost
>me.

Whoa, I would not argue that everyone should be paid the same wage, on the
other hand, I would argue that we as citizens "own" the resources (both
physical and human) of our country in common and that anyone who makes
money through the exploitation of those resources should pay an appropriate
price for them. I would argue that there is a base level of necessities
that every citizen ought have right to and our taxes, user fees, etc.
paid by economic activities ought fund these things at a minimum.

I have absolutely no problem with people attaining wealth, I have
a problem with their attaining wealth at the cost of others health
and well-being.

While I understand what you mean when you claim that one person is
not rich at the cost of another in this economic system, I believe
you are wrong.

Your suppostion (if I guess correctly, since I have pegged you as
a monetarist, if I'm wrong, I'm terribly sorry for accusing you
of such a thing... B)) is based on the idea that money is not a
finite thing, that it is created by economic activity. This is
only partially true since money growth is controlled, once all
is said and done, by bankers and the Federal Reserve Board which
can pull a few levers and jerk the bankers around, but ultimately
is regulated by the bankers rather than vice versa.

In the long run this group of people determines who will be
rich and poor and how much growth there will be which of course
directly affects employment growth, etc. While theoretically
money growth is infinite, at any given time there is a finite
number of dollars available and these folks decide who will
get them, granted in a general sense, but it sets the conditions
for one person to be wealthy at the expense of another.


> Brett'

-other Andy