Further Thoughts

By, Ted W. Stoddard

Have given some thought to your latest. I continue to respect your passion but must say that the ongoing use of rhetoric and labeling does little to advance your argument. To misquote, inaccurately report, or, assume in the name of others demonstrates a poverty of intellect. Let me first clarify that no one said your comments were knee-jerk, but rather that they seemed designed to illicit a knee jerk response. The difference being that one is calculated; the other is reactionary.

Use Of Voice

In your original thesis you begin by referencing an online pole that you conducted. As there were only three answers given I have to ask, how many people responded, and what was the breakdown of answers? If this were merely a creative literary device to open the door for your own opinion, it would seem appropriate to declare so. In the responses given, you list your choice as A: I hate those fools. Hate is one of the strongest and most destructive of emotions. You seem to have directed yours not to ideas that you disagree with, but rather toward the " fools" who hold beliefs different than your own. Lets look at some of these "fools".

Environmentalists

There are fringe groups in this movement that do cause a good deal of controversy. Those who break the law should be prosecuted and given their day in court. The actions of a few anarchists should not be used as a basis to defame the entire movement. We owe a debt of gratitude to the environmental movement for improvements in health and quality of life that have come about because of pressure that these "fools" have brought to bear on government and industry. Is it wrong to have auto and industry emission standards? Should our water and air be clean? Might it be a good idea to leave some forests and wildlife for future generations? The rape of the environment by business is what spawned and galvanized this movement.

Buchananites

"Their whole philosophy...." How do you assume to know what anyone’s "whole" philosophy is?

Immigrants

Back to the young lady. You say that if she were to have her way, we would have restrictive trade policies. Tell me, do you know her name? Where is she from? Does she have children? I'll wager that you don’t know the answers to these questions yet you seem to know her intimately enough to be confident

in ascribing both her motivation and misunderstanding of macro-economics. Have you become psychic or is this merely another literary device? To set the record straight we have engaged in restrictive trade for the past two centuries.

Big Labor and Wages

Please stop misquoting. What was said was " without the gains made by organized labor, many in this country would still be stuck in the poverty and brutality of the early industrial revolution".

The issue is not how many workers currently belong to unions, but rather, the improvements that all of us enjoy and many take for granted in their work worlds. These include, but are not limited to, 40 hr work week, overtime pay, restricting child labor, health care benefits, sick leave, better disclosure of work place hazards, workers comp, decent wages, etc etc etc….

In the example you give re: Ford, the emphasis is on " artificially" high wages. While you have no problem in rewarding the company CEO with an obscene salary, you place responsibility for current problems on the work force rather than the decision maker. Why is the Ford workers salary "artificially" high? Is it because they charge more for their labor than say a Korean or Chinese worker? What does it cost that Ford worker to do business? Unless they live in a cardboard box, I imagine the cost for housing costs more than their counterparts. How about food, transportation, health care, insurance, education costs, etc? If it costs the Ford worker more to live and work than his competition, is it not fundamentally unfair to insist that he is somehow to blame for these problems and should work for less? How much is enough for either CEO or worker?

Prices and Competition

To say that workers in third world countries are somehow content to work for $2 hr is demonstrated by the fact that they are free not to work there is absurd. The notion that this is a matter of choice does not ring true. For many it is a matter of survival (remember Maslows' Hierarchy).

There was a great deal of controversy of late having to do with the conditions a wages at Nike factories in Asia. In some plants the workers realized as little as a few dollars a day for their labor. Some employees could only use the restroom two times a day. Tell me, have your Air Jordans cost you any less lately?

Some of these workers might have been able to afford your $89 VCR if their employer had given fair measure for their labor.

To assume that business and industry will improve working conditions and safety is contradicted by a long and sordid history to the contrary. It is because of that history that they have been reigned in through law and regulation. If you would be happy to join in a protest against oppressive (third world) governments, how about protesting some of the huge multi national corporations that seem to be pulling the strings of same.

Environmental Concerns

Why do you assume that citizens in third world countries are willing to pollute themselves and their families in order to enjoy some foggy promises about the benefits of a free economy? Might some of those self same benefits include disease, increased birth defects, shorter life span, privilege of paying for the social and economic costs of clean up.

It is because the governments of China, Russia, and Poland were focused on production over other concerns that they have such a mess. When governments become little more than a tool for trade this is what we can expect. I believe your example makes the case for more restrictions, not less.