From: adesai@leland.Stanford.EDU (Atit Dinkarrai Desai)
Subject: Re: Open letter to the libertarian right
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 92 04:45:45 GMT

In article <7208@tekig7.PEN.TEK.COM> ssoar@tekig5.pen.tek.com (Steven E Soar) writes:

OA>First of all, no economic transaction is today's world is as simple as you
>make it out to be.  My eight year old trading metal cars with a neighbor
>kid is probably as close as you can get. Your supposition that in a free
>trade situation no party can exploit the other is naive at best, and presents
>Libertarians as hopeless idealists.
>
>Take the example of the company town, a common fixture of an earlier (and
>more laissez-faire period).  The company ran the only game in town, and
>they owned the plant, the lodgings, and the store.  The wages and prices
>were fixed such that over a period of time, the best a worker could do was
>slowly go deeper and deeper in debt to the company.  This was, after all,
>a voluntary transaction.  Workers were "free" to leave, except, they had
>to pay off their debts to do so. I submit that this is a perfectly logical
>development of the laissez-faire system which is, in fact, no better that
>slavery.

ad: we have slavery today. It is my belief that those company towns
    used a lot of illegal force to maintain their monopoly and that 
    the workers did not understand their contracts. If they did not
    have meeting of the minds, even today the contract would be invalid.
    But even suppose that every thing was on the up and up. Then, the
    workers still did not have to be slaves even if they were in
    debt. You cannot force a person to specific action, only exact
    monetary penalties or throw them in jail. Even today people sign
    contracts that causes them to go into debt. So?

>Take the example of "free trade" as practiced by the US since WWII. This
>misguided idealogy has had two major results:
>
>1. Wages, working conditions, and environmental standards are steadily
>being pulled down to the lowest common denominator available within the
>free trading universe, not the other way around.  

ad: All this regulated by the government, blame them. It used to be
    that we had great environmental laws. Companies cound not 
    polute when it interfered with other people's livelihood or health.
    Then, the govenment got involved with claims of pulbic good, jobs
    growth, etc. You can read some of the legal history since before the civil
    war to today to see what I mean.


>2. Free trading without an industrial policy allows allows infant
>technologys to be strangled in their cradles, and mature industries to
>be harvested by foreign competitors with an industrial strategy, patient
>capital, and willingness to "dump". This is why the US lost half its
>machine tool industry, 99% of the DRAM industry, 50% of the auto industry,
>and 100% of consumer electronics. Flat panel displays are currently being
>destroyed, and commercial airliners are 2/3 gone (Lockheed and Mcd-d
>bankrupt, and
>Boeing fleeing into the arms of the Japanese.)
>
>Argue theory all you like; these are the concrete results of laissez-faire.

ad: We all know why the U.S. auto industry is losing: they sat on their
    asses and built shitty cars. Hurray for the japanesse: I love my
    Toyota. Also I very happy to be "dumped on", I get products
    very cheap. I believe the U.S. is losing shares all these industries, not
    because of industrial policies of other nations, but because it is
    natural in a free market.

   Although there is degree of government intervention in all western contries,
   the market is still very much alive. The U.S. is losing these indusrties
   because it no longer is the sole producer as it was after WWII. I belive
   that the U.S. produced some outrageous portion of the World G.N.P. after
   WWII(like 60-70%); the other contries were wiped out. Now that they have
   caught up, its natural that they produce their share of the world G.N.P. It    only where markets didn't exist like the USSR that things went to shit.

   Secondly, the other contries don't squander 300 billion a year in defense
   either.Put that back in the civilian economy and seewhat happens.Just think
   of all those bright engineering building tvs and ICs... makes me cry
   sometimes.

   adesai@leland.stanford.edu


Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:455 alt.society.anarchy:278