[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [microsound] sorry for being so vociferous this morning but...



yeah, i never meant to imply that the u.s. economy was TOTALLY free.

but the whole notion of 'exploitation' is just completely subjective
to a given individual's set of values, mores, perspective in general, etc...


AUUGHH!!
i've already gone on too much...

later everyone.

david



--- David Miller <damille@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> i tend to think that the notion of 'exploitation' is
> an entirely subjective
> one.

I beg to differ. I work, sell part of my day and my
talent to my boss, who marks it up and sells it to his
customers. If I were selling my labor at what it was
worth, My boss wouldn't make a profit.

Exploiation is a fundamental cog in the economic
machine.

> in the case of the music industry, if you've got a
> band or artist whoring
> themselves
> to the label, to pepsico, to the public, then it's
> not exploitation.
> the label then becomes pimp.

Consensual or forced, it's still exploitation. I
"consent" to go to work every day, like most of us do.
I can opt not to, but then I would be opting for
homelessness as well.

>
> but if it truly is exploitation, then the positive
> effect of a free market
> system
> [as we almost have] is that the market will correct
> itself.
> that's one of the wonders of capitalism: freedom.

The last time the US (I assume we're talking about the
US and not Hong Kong) was almost a free market was in
the late 20's. Our economy is highly regulated with
it's largest industries in near-marital partnerships
with the government. Tremendous amounts of public
money subsidize the vanguard of "free enterprise."

e.g. I'm free to hang my shingle and start producing
widgets. If, perhaps, my widgets become strategically
important, I will be much more free to produce my
widgets, perhaps getting a tax incentive to build my
widget factory in Cobb County, Georgia, or maybe
tariffs on foreign widgets being imported into the
U.S., or a substantial military contract.

Now imagine the above from the competing widget
maker's point of view: Does that look like a free
market?

> and that's why those countries whose economies are
> based upon a free market system
> have been historically and remain to be THE MOST
> prosperous countries in the world,
> whose citizens have a much higher standard of
> living, that continues to rise.

If you're talking about the U.S. I maintain that we do
not have a free market economy. I'll also argue that
our standard of living is not continually rising, and
that the disparity between haves and have-nots is
growing.

> it's a beneficial system whose focus remains not the
> company, but those who
> continue to benefit from the economy: the consumer.

The consumers are the company, or the government (same
difference). Us worker bees merely collect the
byproducts.

Your notes are a spot-on summary of Adam Smith's "The
Wealth of Nations", though. I just don't think they
fairly describe the modern economy.

-Neil


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: microsound-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: microsound-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
website: http://www.microsound.org