[PLUG-TALK] Re: [PLUG] False advertising?
Jeme A Brelin
jeme at brelin.net
Mon Dec 9 04:15:50 UTC 2002
On Sun, 8 Dec 2002, Russ Johnson wrote:
> What is wrong with "generating demand" for a product?
The point was that profit-driven industry doesn't meet the needs of the
people, it creates needs.
> >I think you'll also find that private industry simply does not survive
> >without massive state intervention.
>
> Yeah, the state has to tax it to death.
If the state is taxing private industry to death, then how can you agree
with my statement that it only survives WITH state intervention? You seem
to be stating the opposite; that state intervention destroys private
industry.
Walk down the Fortune 500 and see which of those organizations are granted
state contracts or propped up by state supported monopolies. There are a
few examples of large corporations without direct state support, but
you'll find that they are _all_ service industries used primarily by other
industries that do receive state support. (The example that comes
immediately to mind is Manpower, Inc. which drives down wages, decreases
job security, and destroys unions.)
Privately held industry as the basis for an economy was utterly disproven
by the Great Depression and contemporary events. The business sector
quickly realized that the only way to survive was by creating structures
that funnelled public funds DIRECTLY into the hands of private power.
This could have been done through contracts to build schools and hospitals
and create a massive social support network which actually gave the public
benefit for their contribution (for example), but that was undesirable
because it people actually care about the kinds of schools and hospitals
they use. So the business community encouraged the creation of the
Pentagon following the Second World War to send public funds to the newly
invented "defense industry" because the average person doesn't care to be
involved in the development of fighter jets and the like.
Without state support, private industry cannot survive.
[As a side note, consider whether we actually have a Defense Department or
a Terrorism Department. The primary concern of the the Pentagon system
and the CIA is launching offensives against foreign powers. This is
strictly illegal by all international law. It's also interesting to note
the hypocrisy involved in deciding that the U.S. has the right to bomb the
shit out of foreign countries, but no foreign sovereign power has the
right to bomb the shit out of anyone else without U.S. approval. The U.S.
clearly recognizes that it's the largest bully on the block and the rules
are irrelevant when you have the biggest guns. If the U.S. had truly been
spending the trillions of dollars allocated to "defense" since 1946 on
defending the national territory, incidents like the attack on September
11th would have been at least PARTLY mitigated by the interference of
defense systems. Instead, no defense system became involved until after
hundreds (perhaps thousands) were dead.]
> >>With that in mind, if public transportation were privatized, and
> >>forced to at least break even, then it wouldn't exist very long.
> >>Public transportation loses money, every day of every month, of every
> >>year.
> >
> >How can you say that money spent to move people around the city safely and
> >(relatively) efficiently is "lost"?
>
> Spend a dollar, and it's gone.
That's not how the economy works. Dollars simply trade hands. It's not
"gone" until the Treasury Department buys it back (where it's usually just
applied to the national debt).
> You have to earn another to spend another. The problem here is that PT
> (Public Transportation) doesn't GENERATE revenue.
It's a public service, it is paid for by the public.
> It's a cost center, and on the deficite part of the budget equation.
> You talk about making cars pay their own way, and "the true cost of
> car ownership". I'm asking for the same thing, for the PT system.
I didn't say that cars should pay their own way, I wrote that a analysis
made between the cost to the public of private vehicle proliferation
(which is vast and likely immeasurable) and the apparent cost to private
motorists would show that nobody "can afford it" (as one participant
suggested). It was a counter-argument to the idea that people on public
transit are the only ones who can't afford a car.
> >It was public money and it was spent on public service. That's not lost,
> >that's appropriately spent.
>
> In your eyes.
When people pool their wealth, it should be spent in a way that benefits
everyone in the pool. Do you disagree with that?
> I believe a viable system could be privately run, at a reasonable
> profit, and be more efficient than the public system.
Do you have a design for such a system? Have you done any market
research? What is the price point? Would it be "viable" to provide free
passes to the poor and charitable organizations?
Are you basing this belief on anything other than your slavish devotion to
neo-conservative propaganda?
> On top of that, less of the money I earn would go to federal and local
> taxes, so I could spend more, giving the economy a boost.
I agree that the economy would get a boost if money was put into the hands
of those who could spend it, but better to put it in the hands of those
who cannot afford the basic means of survival so that those sectors of the
economy that provide said means would be primary beneficiaries of the
boost.
I think you'll find that greater than 50% of your tax dollars are going to
current and past military expenses. A destruction of the public transit
system would, as I wrote, result in a highly regressive tax system that
provided slightly more money to the rich and take a huge percentage of the
poor's money. The federal budget would not be decreased in a way that
you'd see on your pay stub by the abolition of public transit.
> My employer would be taxed less, so I could get paid more, in turn,
> I'd spend more.
Do you really think your capitalist employer would pay you more and take a
cut in profits?
Over the past ten years profits have soared while employment and wages
have fallen sharply. How does your theory explain this phenomenon?
> At the same time, I'm a shareholder in the company I work for, so if
> they kept the additional, and showed more of a profit, then I benefit
> because my stocks are worth more.
Just like .com stocks were a direct reflection of corporate profits,
right?
When you are laid off, your stock might be worth more, but not until then.
> >Privatizing necessary services to the public (like education and
> >transportation) is effectively a highly regressive tax that makes the poor
> >poorer and the rich richer. The poor are hit very hard by the increased
> >fees while the rich see the fee increase as nominal. The poor get poorer
> >and the rich (particularly the ones who own the privately held transit
> >system) get richer.
>
> Yadda yadda yadda. No one has yet proven to me that this "regressive"
> bullshit is anything more than good fertilizer.
What needs to be proven? "Regressive" just means that the poor pay a much
greater percentage of their income or wealth than the rich. The result is
poorer poor people and richer rich people.
Are you simply not convinced that more consolidation of wealth and an
increasing disparity of wealth between the classes has negative effects?
Consider that richer rich mean more political power in fewer
hands. Consider that poorer poor means more desparation among workers and
lower wages through increased job insecurity (there's always some poor sap
who will do your job for less money). Consider that the regression scales
across classes and even the relatively rich become poorer than the
relatively richer, hence the largest corporations gain economically over
smaller corporations, destroying competition through greater market power.
> If the taxes are lower (and they SHOULD be if the govmt is supported
> less programs) then the "poor" should get paid more, making the "hit"
> far less for everyone.
Why would the poor be paid more? They are wage slaves competing for jobs
in a buyer's market. If the expenses of the Firm decrease, that simply
adds to profits (and maybe CEO wages and bonuses). The workers are still
paid as little as possible to keep costs down and maximize profits.
And if the poor have less money because the user fees for public education
and transit increase, then they are less capable of educating themselves,
getting to work, feeding their children, etc. and the quality of the
workforce decreases.
> I'm firmly of the opinion that you should pay for something you use,
> and not pay for it if you don't. If I don't visit any state parks, I
> shouldn't have to pay for them. When I do visit them, then I'll gladly
> pay a user fee. Just get your grubby hands out of my wallet.
You benefit from the parks system by getting clean air. You benefit from
the parks system by keeping them available for some time in the future
when you or your children MIGHT visit them.
Do you believe you have no obligation to the future? You had
children. Do you not want to give as many options as possible to their
children and their children's children?
A purely economic assessment of land use cannot account for the infinite
possibilities of the future and results in a destruction of resources for
short-sighted benefits.
> >Who said anything about the United States of America?
> >
> >Public services democratize a society, that is to say that public services
> >cause people to get involved in their communities and try to exert their
> >personal power over those things which directly effect it. A society can
> >be highly democratized and still live under a despotic, tyrannical state.
> >Usually when that situation exists, though, some blood is about to be
> >shed.
>
> Make govmt smaller, with fewer programs, and less money, and society
> can move forward without it's "help".
Do you want to ensure that this future anarchist state is run by
tyrannical dictators who have hoarded the keys to wealth and military
might or that it is run by the people working for the common good and the
benefit of all living things?
If you begin your deconstruction of the state by destroying public
services while leaving the systems that consolidate power and arm the rich
in place, you are ensuring the former. By first dismantling the military-
and prison-industrial complexes, you take a first step toward the latter.
> >Are you elderly or infirm? You can probably get one of those little
> >electric carts if your arms are as weak as your legs so that a regular
> >wheelchair won't suffice.
>
> Not at all. I just don't have the time to spend walking everywhere.
And why don't you have the time? Because you work long hours so that a
high unemployment level can be maintained and wage costs kept low to
increase profits and provide a wide pool of potential replacements when
you start asking for a higher wage. There are dozens of other reasons,
I'm sure.
> Walking or using any form of PT is inherently slower than driving
> myself.
Get a bicycle. Within a very wide area of space (from, say NE
Killingsworth to SE Holgate on the east side and NW Vaughn and SW Lincoln
on the west side and from the west 27th streets to the east 52nds), I can
pretty easily beat a car's travel time door to door. The PLUG list's own
Bruce Kingsland and I tested this many times from my house on NE 7th
Avenue to various locations around town, him on his motorocycle and me on
my bicycle.
> I can get to work in 25 minutes (average), 15 on a good day, when I
> drive. It takes nearly an hour (consistently) if I take PT.
...ignoring that you live farther from your work than is at all necessary.
And, in fact, that you can only live that far from your work because of
your dependence on highly subsidized private automobiles.
> That's an hour extra out of my day.
An hour more to watch television? An hour more to sit at home? What
would do you with just one more hour each day that can't be done on the
train or bus?
> >Take a look at the world's oldest industrialized cities. They're pretty
> >much the same as they were a hundred years ago. Sometimes industrial
> >neighborhoods become urban residence, but that kind of change just
> >requires a change in the ratio of passenger to freight cars. Cities don't
> >really change. The major thoroughfares are still the major thoroughfares.
>
> That's not entirely true. While the major streets stay the same,
> stores move and arn't always replaced.
By anything? Like downtown Detroit?
I don't know anything that thinks this is a GOOD thing. So perhaps
fixating some infrastructure would alleviate this problem.
> The company I'm working for has move twice since I was hired (in 1999)
> and once prior to that. I can point to major "community anchors" that
> have either moved or disappeared, and caused bus routes to be
> re-evaluated. A permanent installation like a train isn't as flexible.
Have you considered that perhaps the option of moving was only made
available due to the reliance on private automobiles? If infrastructure
was more permanent, the growth of the urban area could be better
controlled by the people who live there while greater care and time could
be taken to consider changes to the shape and flow of the city itself.
> >The big change that you will find is related to the private automobile.
> >You'll see that the amount space usable by living things has decreased and
> >the working population has been fragmented, class-differentiated, and
> >suburbanized. Essentially, no public good has come from the change.
>
> So tell me. If private transportation was non-poluting, would you
> embrace it?
If you're talking about the private automobile, the answer is "not at
all". It's isolating and destructive to community. It creates an
enormous waste of urban space which is largely dedicated to huge,
closely-spaced roads and parking lots.
> Or is any type of private transportation evil?
Bicycles and tricycles are private transportation as are wheelchairs. I
totally embrace the use of that variety of private transport.
> >>We still haven't solved the issue of increased transit times.
> >
> >How about shorter working hours and more pleasurable transit?
>
> The problem with that is working hours are directly related to the
> number of dollars an employer is willing to give for said position.
> Reduce the hours, and the individual is less valuable to the
> organization.
American workers have the second lowest wages and the second highest
working hours in the industrialized world (second only to the UK where
Thatcherism was slightly more effective than Reagan-Clintonomics).
Unions in the U.S. are almost totally powerless and social democracy only
the vaguest notion in the public mind. Temps and "permanent replacement
workers" are the fastest growing segment of the blue-collar workforce and
security and prison guards are the fastest growing white-collar segment.
Wages are going down steadily, even in periods when profits were
skyrocketting. The minimum wage is about half the living wage, by most
indicators. The U.S. is the only industrialized country without mandated
vacations for workers.
Tell me, how is it that people in other industrialized countries (like,
say, France and Germany) are able to work shorter hours for higher wages
and maintain better public transit and social programs while unemployment
remains relatively low and crime rates drop?
> How you would make PT more pleasurable is beyond me. I'm sitting in a
> box, with little control over my ride, and no control over who (or
> what) sits near me. Regardless of any "higher social purpose", I
> still have the right to interact with whom I choose, and not interact
> with those I don't.
While you have that right, I also think you have the responsibility (and
remember what liberty is without responsibility) to interact with the
people in your community in order to learn from their perspectives and
ensure that your actions do not adversely impact their quality of life.
It is precisely this picking and choosing of neighbors and friends that
isolates and fragments culture into thousands of tiny subcultures with
little or no cross-pollination of ideas and values. The problem is
exacerbated by sprawled communities segregated from industry and one
another which are made possible by the proliferation and seemingly
unquestioned acceptance of private automobiles as the dominant form of
transportation.
J.
--
-----------------
Jeme A Brelin
jeme at brelin.net
-----------------
[cc] counter-copyright
http://www.openlaw.org
More information about the PLUG-talk
mailing list