RE:Psych. label bible mocked in London Times

Liberty (liberty@vaxxine.com)
Mon, 01 Dec 1997 02:37:22 -0500


Dear Don,

At 08:11 PM 30/11/97 -0800, Donald Bokor wrote:

>I hope you don't mind if I take another shot at your ideas.

So far everybody else has, why not you too? <grin>

>On Sat, 29 Nov 1997, Liberty wrote:

>> The marketplace will take care of these exploitive landlords, once we are
>> able to get people better access to their own financial resources to pay
>> to live wherever they want to live.
>
>This obviously is a capitalist myth used to justify and apologize for
>free market capitalism. The marketplace always favors the most efficient
>and most effective organizations in the economy.

What is wrong with that?  Why settle for inefficiencies and waste?

>These are always large monopolies that benefit from efficiencies of scale 
>and the effectiveness of applying more massive resources to out-competing 
>smaller competitors (including things like being better able to suffer 
>attrition, or just to plain assassinate those that are threats).

With growing technology and the knowledge-based sector, small enterprises
are becoming a greater threat to the larger corporations.  At this time,
my small management firm has the same access to the type of technology 
that was previously only available to large corporations ... Corporations
are suffering for this.  This is why their margins are remaining very 
small, and they are the ones that are laying the people off.  The economy 
is shifting in favour of the smaller and medium-sized companies.

>The only way that monopolies do not maintain their advantages is when 
>governments intervene in the economy.

Yes, this is why we get stuck with few choices, less accountability.  As
long as monopolies receive protection, they have no incentive to improve
or become more efficient, technologically adept.

>Yet, once we let the government protect us from exploitive landlords, then 
>we are just substituting the exploitation of the government for the 
>exploitation of the landlord.

No, under an ideal market economy, landlords would have to compete by
providing better service at a reasonable price.  They would not gouge
consumers as consumers would simply pick up their stakes and go elsewhere.

<snip>
>I want answers.  Capitalism and AmeriKKKan style democracy have failed to
>provide for the needs of all of the people in their own countries of
>control let alone in the world.  We have given them four hundred years of
>chances, at the cost of untold billions of lives, all so that certain
>elite minorities (read "power elites") called citizens could have a better
>standard of living than they had in the past.

So-called "free market economies" have always had heavy government 
intervention, which has often led to the ill effects you describe.
Many things are just better left alone.  Government's role is to
encourage and provide resources/support for folks so they can compete
in the "free market economy", and get their needs met.

Respectfully,

Liberty (Lillian)
- liberty@vaxxine.com