[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Me Me Me
Lynn;
Why is it, do you suppose, that in the former Soviet Union, when food was
in short supply and many in the population were very near starvation (or
actually starving), the regime in Moscow relented and allowed families to
have small private plots. They allowed Soviet citizens to own land and keep
what they produced on that land, albeit it was limited to about 25 feet by
10 feet per family...something like that. And within 18 months, one HALF of
ALL THE FOOD in the Soviet Union was being produced on those private plots,
the other half being produced on the vast collective farms. Was it because
the Russians are just a bunch of inherently selfish prigs who could only
think of "me me me" so they wouldn't work for "the good of society" on the
collectives like they would work "for their families" on their private
plots?
There's absolutely nothing wrong with "me me me" when I am expending my
energy to please "you you you" so you will buy the production of my work!
It simply doesn't work any other way, Lynn. Anything else is fantasy land,
as the Soviets found out to their bitter demise.
--Greg
On Friday, February 12, 1999 7:04 PM, Lynn Hauka
[SMTP:lynn@evening-star.com] wrote:
> I somehow doubt this economy is floundering due to a more central control
> than the U.S. That's a bit simplistic not to mention naive. Guess Alan
> Greenspan hasn't yet figured out that he's the central control of the US
> economy.
>
> But why should I care? The Canadian economy may be floundering but I'm
going
> to make more money in my fourth year of business than I did in all three
> previous years combined. Me me me! That's what counts. Right? I mean, in
a
> free market?
>
> Cheers,
> Lynn
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: noprivacy@essential.org [mailto:noprivacy@essential.org]On Behalf
> > Of Greg Peisert
> > Sent: Friday, February 12, 1999 4:41 PM
> > To: Multiple recipients of list NOPRIVACY
> > Subject: RE: McQuaig
> >
> >
> > Thank you Lynn, for your response. I may take a look at McQuaig's book
on
> > the Myth of Powerlessness in a Global Economy. I am always interested
to
> > see how those who come from countries where the economy is more
centrally
> > controlled, and therefore floundering with respect to the U.S.,
> > attempt to
> > justify their continuing in their failed policies. For example, McQuaig
> > apparently disputes the notion that "governments cannot increase their
> > expenditures on programs to eliminate poverty and unemployment."
> > Here we go
> > again. Back to the "New Deal."
> > I don't know how well the reviewer understands the issues that
McQuaig
> > addresses, but statements like "Canada's finance department and
> > its central
> > bank hold views that go further than even the U.S. Federal Reserve,
which
> > has permitted a small amount of inflation in the American economy to
> > maintain a low unemployment rate." reveal an incredible naivete.
> > The reason
> > for the low U.S. unemployment rate is not because the Fed has
> > "permitted a
> > small amount of inflation." Not even (indeed, ESPECIALLY not) Alan
> > Greenspan would make that ridiculous claim!
> > At any rate, I'll try to get to it. Take care.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > --Greg
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Friday, February 12, 1999 3:57 PM, Lynn Hauka
> > [SMTP:lynn@evening-star.com] wrote:
> > > Well, Laura, you said it way better than I could so I'll just quietly
go
> > > erase the original email I was working on ;-)
> > >
> > > Greg, in the interest of opening one's mind, perhaps you would bend
so
> > far
> > > as to read one or two works by a Canadian author Linda McQuaig. The
two
> > > books that come to my mind are The Cult of Impotence: Selling
> > the Myth of
> > > Powerlessness in the Global Economy (published in 98) and The Wealthy
> > > Banker's Wife. She's written others but I've not read them. You can
find
> > > more information at
> > >
> > > http://www.oneworld.org/ips2/apr98/04_25_006.html
> > > http://www.ionline.net/~activist/Columns/950531.html
> > >
> > > And in my open attempt to not merely present one side of my argument,
I
> > give
> > > you the opinions of Conrad Black, a man whom I suspect would
> > become your
> > own
> > > High Priest, or at least someone to natter with at cocktail time ;-)
> > >
> > > http://www.blackenvy.com/pages/src_K41.htm
> > >
> > > People matter, Greg. All people. The economy used to serve society.
Now
> > we,
> > > as a society, somehow have become the servants, and the
> > almighty buck is
> > our
> > > master. What madness, to have an economy that depends utterly on
> > continuous
> > > growth instead of some kind of sustainability.
> > >
> > > Lynn
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: noprivacy@essential.org
> > [mailto:noprivacy@essential.org]On Behalf
> > > > Of Laura Walker
> > > >
> > Sent: Friday, February 12, 1999 1:11 PM
> > > > To: Multiple recipients of list NOPRIVACY
> > > > Subject: Re: WARNING: LONG, On Topic in the "Strategic" Sense
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Aum to the High Priest Peisert...
> > > >
> > > > The only difference between the rhetoric you espouse (and print
> > > > pages of for
> > > > the rest of us to swallow) is the party line you have chosen.
> > You are
> > no
> > > > different from any Democrat, Republican or any other politically
> > > > affiliated
> > > > individual, nor do your ideas smack of anything that even
>
> resembles NEW
> > > > solutions to our problems. These are hackneyed, overused,
simplistic
> > > > "intellectual" rhetoricisms that do nothing to solve the problems.
> > Your
> > > > "ideas" are just as grounded in tired phrases and worn-out mantras
as
> > many
> > > > of our current political leaders' are.
>
>