From: lexa@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (lexa matej)
Subject: Re: Press control
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 00:55:46 GMT

KUBASKA@UAKOM.CS writes:

>1,I personaly don't need need Meciar for it. I don't know why you even
>  mix him up with this discussion. The discussion was about "Bill of
>  journalism." For instance I found it unacceptable that one without
>  university education in journalism is allowed to work as journalist.
>  (You are not allowed to build bridges,make surgery,...)

You can build as many bridges on your own land as you like. If you are going
to build for somebody else, like a company that employs you, of course it
is up to them to decide who'll be allowed to do the job. They would be stu-
pid to hire somebody who had never seen a bridge.
Simply, I don't think this is a good example or excuse for control of press.
Control of press by one institution (whatever its name is) might have the same
kind of effect on information dissemination and society as  monopoly in bridge
building would have on bridge market and economy.
If we need multiple control (or competition) why don't we let journalists
take care of that. Each of them for himself, each editor for his newspaper etc?
I'd rather have the choise of reading good and bad stuff than have none.

k>2, I personaly don't need government to give me job because of .....
>   But there are areas in S where one company employs all region and
>   in the case of it's crashdown the government and local county
>   commitees( so that state) would have to interfere.
>3, I personaly need government to regulate prices. The average salary
>   is 5000 KCS-tax per month. The normal price of normal apartment is
>   300 000-800 000 KCS. The house you wouldn't build for less than
>   2 000 000 KCS. Take your calculator and tell me how long is one
>   average citizen supposed to gather the money for this. Don't forget
>   that average citizen has to buy something to eat, something to
>   wear on,pay the rent,.... so that 5000KCS=500KCS at last.
>4, I think that the luck won't help us. The reasonable policy may be
>   of some help.


What would be the purpose of letting the government regulate some of the prices?
Making sure that people can afford at least basic needs, like living, clothing
and food ? O.K. Let there be a group of citizens that is not able to support
themselves for whatever reason (do not have job for instance). If you regulate
prices to make things available for them, somebody else is going to lose money.
Noone is going to give that money out of his pocket, this money will come
directly or indirectly from all of us as taxes.
Isn't it much better to achieve the same goal by offering social benefits to 
the needy ? This way the government (and people) would have precise control over
where their money is being used. And finally, if our economy is not fully
developed, isn't it better to stimulate competition and variability than to
play around with price regulation? I think it is a choise between making the
economy more healthy and more corrupt. I like the first choice.

>   Sorry for stepping out from the subject.

>   respectfuly,

>Marian Kubaska
>Banska Bystrica
>Czech and Slovak Federal Republic
>E-mail: KUBASKA@UAKOM.CS
-- 
Matej Lexa                              At present: lexa@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
Irrigation Research Inst.               Dept. of Plant Biology
Bratislava, CZECHOSLOVAKIA              University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign**************** "There's only one kind of music. Good music." *****************