Re: Re: Comments on this please... OT

[Guest guest]

Dr. Mike,

Just because we disagree does not mean I don't have a basic familiarity with

economic theory.

What we live in is not remotely a free market; I understand that. A free

market would not have corporations. A corporation is a fundamental violation

of the free market. Free marekt means you are repsponsible for your actions;

corporation's point is to limit liability.

But what you are talking about is utopia. The minute a gov't subsidy is

accepted you can kiss free market good bye. BUT, find the wealthy free

marketer that won't accept one. Sure they exist, but markets are not states

of " self-respect, " they are economic institutions. Institutions are mindless

frameworks within which mindful humans operate. Your idea of a " real " free

market depends on maximizing " self-respect " and assumes everyone is

environmentally conscious. This is exactly the same as those that say " The

Soveit Union wasn't REAL socialism... " and therefore avoid answering to how

their ideologies have played out practically in the world.

Chris

In a message dated 3/23/03 8:14:14 PM Eastern Standard Time,

mmarasco@... writes:

>

> correct me if I'm misinterpreting your statements here but if

> you are attempting to associate a true free market economy with

> corporate profit mongers who could care less about environmental

> concerns you don't know the first thing about free market economics.

> You just know about the baloney propaganda from the far far left

> that has become accepted ideology in our culture.

>

> In a true free market economy the actual ability to continue to do

> business, be productive and turn a profit is essential to the

> existence of the free market. If a theoretical company in a

> theoretical free market damages the environment to the degree that

> they damage themselves, their neighbors or their customers (the

> latter two eqalling damage to themselves) they damage their ability

> to function as a productive and profitable entity. The notion that

> free market is equivalent to PROFITS at ALL costs is pure and

> absolute drivel and to state such clearly demonstrates a complete

> and utter lack of under standing of what a real free market economic

> state would entail.

>

> The corporate behavior you see today couldn't be further from free

> market economics. No self respecting free market promoting company

> would ever take a government subsidy like the big boys do today.

>

> I find it amusing that the socialistic flavor of our modern day

> economics is so despised by so many and the proposed solution is

> more socialistic measures to " fix " it.

>

> If I have mis interpreted what you said than I officially declare

> myself an idiot and will now shut up :-)

____

" What can one say of a soul, of a heart, filled with compassion? It is a

heart which burns with love for every creature: for human beings, birds, and

animals, for serpents and for demons. The thought of them and the sight of

them make the tears of the saint flow. And this immense and intense

compassion, which flows from the heart of the saints, makes them unable to

bear the sight of the smallest, most insignificant wound in any creature.

Thus they pray ceaselessly, with tears, even for animals, for enemies of the

truth, and for those who do them wrong. "

--Saint Isaac the Syrian

[Guest guest]

Mike-

I like and respect you a lot, so I'm reluctant to get into any kind of

argument about this, but I also feel I can't let a statement like that

stand undisputed. (Maybe you knew that was coming. <g>)

Look at it this way: in any system, what are the incentives? Because when

there's an incentive to behave some way, some people will behave that way,

and if they're rewarded, they'll " win " -- they'll proliferate, their

behavior will be imitated, will spread, will be refined, etc. The entire

idea of a " free " market is to remove all " artificial " impediments to

commercial behavior. If polluting cuts costs in the short term, it will be

rewarded by higher profits. If it's more profitable to pollute and then

defend against lawsuits (and there's endless evidence of companies

accepting lawsuits and even settlements as an acceptable cost of doing

business) then that's how business will be conducted. Any belief to the

contrary is not a belief in free market behavior but in altruism, and I

believe extremely strongly that we cannot and must not base any workable

and just political system on wishful thinking. Even if 95% -- or 99.99% --

of people behave altruistically and don't pollute, the 5% or 0.01% of

people who are bastards will make the most money and therefore do the most

damage if they can pollute unimpeded.

Nor can we rely on lawsuits, for two reasons. First, they come after the

fact, and second, large, rich corporations can throw ungodly amounts of

money at suits and win regardless of the merits most of the time.

>The notion that

>free market is equivalent to PROFITS at ALL costs is pure and

>absolute drivel and to state such clearly demonstrates a complete

>and utter lack of under standing of what a real free market economic

>state would entail.

-

[Guest guest]

Good words, Dr. Mike! Business done without collateral damage.

Have a true story that would be a simple but highly unlikely solution. :-)

Political so its off topic but is also a look into tribal justice, culture and

history. This country's Constitution was in part from the Constitution of the

Iroquois Confederacy still in New York and Canada on reservations.

lin lived with them for a while. They're a matrilineal society with all

ancestry through females. Clan mothers choose the male Chiefs for overall good

character to tribal values. Few years back a Chief signed a deal with a large

corporation in the Great Lakes region to build on the reservation without

anyone knowing. The area is already polluted from previous industry taking

fishing away and causing health problems. The Clan Mothers saw this as a great

threat to all the people's wellbeing. Banishment was their justice. Strong men

went to the tribal office at the Clan Mother's request, physically removed the

Chief, put him in the back of a pickup truck, drove off the reservation and

left him there no longer wanted. The same consciousness is much needed in this

world if the ability to stop it other than on at the personal level isn't

available.

Wanita

>========================== No it doesn't my idea depends upon

>businesses being FORCED to do good business.  Once again DON'T KILL

>OR MAIM YOUR CUSTOMER.

>

>=================== I am aware of one thing here.  Humans have

>proven for thousands of years the inability to equitably govern

>themselves. Governements have proven themselves to be fat, lazy and

>burdensome.  The less there is the better and that begins with an

>unbridled economy that is based upon basic relationship

>fundamentals.  When you give a hugely profitable company the option

>of paying or lobbying to get the ability to maim or kill their

>customers they will do it for the short term gain as is done today. 

>The point is when you stop providing the opportunity they no longer

>do it. 

>

>I am suggesting utopia.  Not by tomorrow but if we want a solution

>that works what else should we be suggesting. 

>

>

>DMM

[Guest guest]

I wish this would happen, then I could afford to go to the doctor and have the

kind of health care I really want.

Michele

If you removed insurance from the picture and send the high

falootin' docs into the marketplace to peddle their wares and

compete against each other they'd have no choice to set fair fees.

No $10 asprins or inflated office calls. There would be excellent

docs setting fair fees seeing good patients at every level of the

economic ladder. The government participation in this matter

amounts to free money. There are few human beings who can walk away

from free money. Right now most people choose their doctor and

hospital based upon their " insurance network " without insurance

they'd choose based upon qualifications, convenience and cost and

you can bet with the sheer number of physicians competing in that

marketplace that they'd be knocking eachother over to reduce their

fees and get some patients. I know this business like the back of

my hand and this is exactly what would happen. But it could only

happen in the absence of gov't regs as it did in the 30's and 40's

and years prior.

DMM