From: w2lee@argo.acs.oakland.edu (Walter Lee)
Subject: Re: the most equitable economic system
Reply-To: w2lee@argo.acs.oakland.edu
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester, MI
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 23:46:05 GMT

In article <37569@uflorida.cis.ufl.edu>, jfh@reef.cis.ufl.edu (James F. Hranicky) writes:
>
>Multinational corporations become so huge for one (or even possibly both)
>of two reasons
>
>1) They serve the consumers the best.
>
>2) They get governmental privleges.
>
>Free market advocates are all for the first, against the second. 
>Capitalsim may be on its last legs, but not for the reasons Marx gave--
>it is slipping away because of governmental policies.

Any sign of free market advocates becoming more aggressively against the
second?

>
>Contrary to popular beliefs, capitalism doesn't necessarliy generate
>cutthroat competition. It quite often will generate bad feelings between
>competitors, but as far as business-consumer relationshipd it generates
>good will. I would say the best way to generate compassion is to reward
>each individual according to ability. This person will gain self-esteem
>and pride from success, and will probably be more willing to help others.

While consumer markets tend to be consumer-friendly, I'm not convinced that
buyer-seller relationships in general are less competitive than seller-seller
relationships.  The haggling over prices between buyers and sellers can be just
as competitive (and the stakes just as high) as competition over customers.

>
>Egalitarianism is doomed from the beginning. Eventually you will have
>some working harder than others while everyone gets rewared equally.
>There will then be a tendency to work less, and consequently there will
>be less to redistribute. Of course, it becomes all the worse when the 
>government forces this on people.
>

Depends on how orthodox you want to be about your egalitarianism.  Speaking for
myself, I don't believe in equality of "rewards" because I don't believe in
reward systems.  (The carrot is the stick by other means).

I am interested in any co-ops, worker owned companies or other projects whose
agenda is to disprove the assertion that the class of people called
"entrepreneurs" are UNIQUELY qualified to accomplish creation of wealth,
service of the common good, or as some assert, ANYTHING.  I'm referring to
non-governmental projects, of course.

>Frank Zappa said it best in his autobiography: (paraphrase) Communism
>won't work because people like THINGS. One of the first words a child
>learns is "MINE".

Was "MINE" Moon Unit Zappa's first word?

>
>The free market, with its underlying principles of non-coercion, private
>property, freedom and responsibility channels this quality best:
>
>You will gain the most for yourself by trading goods and services with
>others. 
>
>Capitalism IS voluntary social cooperation. Capitalism doesn't guarantee
>that everyone will like everyone else though. I don't think its a good
>idea to try and force this on people, either.

Capitalism is voluntary to the extent that participation is not motivated by
raw necessity.  Capitalism is social cooperation to the extent that
capitalists, and the rest of us, have a vested interest in more or less
universal economic survival.

Force is always a bad idea.

>
>The worst thing that capitalism does is breed envy. Some people attain wealth
>faster than others. Many people hate this, but they fail to see that they
>are still better off than they otherwise would be. Sure we have poor people
>here, but aren't there more people living in poverty in China, South
>America, India, the former Soviet Union, etc. If people would only
>think, they would see that the rich in a capitalist society have become
>rich by serving they the consumer best--would anyone deny Sam Walton his
>millions if it meant no Sam's or Wal-Marts?

I'm not familiar with Wal-Mart's, they're new to my area and I haven't been
there yet.  Hopefully they differ in one important respect from comparable (?)
retailers such as K-mart, where easily more than half the merchandise is
imported from China, where as you correctly point out, there are more people
living in poverty.

I would deny Sam Walton or Joe Antonini their millions IF it meant no more
labor practices that exploit "third world" desperation for economic
opportunities.  But I don't think that's the solution.  More helpful would be a
MILITANTLY non-aligned point of view among third world leaders (and
populations) and an economic agenda of "appropriate" technology, with economic
independence (FROM foreign investment) a higher priority than rapid
industrialization and sustainibility a higher priority than prosperity.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Walter Lee    w2lee@argo.acs.oakland.edu

Don't blame me, I didn't vote!