RE: [asa] climate change severity

Nice posting but consider this.

Let's say I want to make a change in public policy. Now not tomorrow. My
choices are to wait for another election to vote out the guy who isn't
listening to my view and then hope that the new guy doesn't end up being
corrupted by the very corps you mention, or I can make a difference now by
using the very monetary power that they are clinging to. Put best,
boycotting works! If every American decided tomorrow that they would send a
message to China to stop mistreating their citizens (an old and current
complaint of human rights advocates), WE as a people need only decide to
stop buying at Wal-Mart. The amount of revenue China gets from this one
company is great enough to send a message. It would also help balance out
the trade deficit that is easily blamed on the government. Our government
does not purchase the vast amounts of goods from China, we do. Like it or
not, money is power. The corporations look big and people like Gates look
like gods. But the fact is, the collective amount of resources and money in
the hands of a free and capitalist nation can break any nation on this
earth, let alone a single corporation. Apartheid in S. Africa came to an
end only when the money stopped flowing in. The USSR broke when their bank
broke. Unfortunately we as western Christians have the unfortunate idea
that money is evil. Money is simply a IOU for services which are rendered
to someone and I can then go to someone else to redeem it. Basically a
barter system with which one can exchange on a global level. Money is not
evil, the love of money is evil. Government employees which are corruptible
shows evil. Their love of money outweighs their love of the people. Same
can be said for corps and their boards. The difference is that it takes
years if not lifetimes to replace our elected bankrobbers. At least a
corporate is easier to take down. It's as simple as passing on the word
about a companies bad practices and then the people need only stop buying
from them. A company will change to the will of the people immediately
because, as you implied, they only care about the money. Corporations are
also the least prejudice because again they care about the color of money
not a person's skin.

Perhaps some time in the future when we have finally grown up and realized
that any form of government is bad. What's that root word again, GOVERN.
Then when all people can directly vote on the issues, via bio-scanned and
secured voting on-line, then maybe you'll be able to get away from the need
for money to be the true power. Until then, educate those around you to
learn how to manipulate the money so that the good of the people can come
out. We sit back and watch the bad people, such as drug dealers, use money
to control people. When will we use the same technique to control the bad
people and perhaps our own lives?

Another example of supply and demand, if a product is too high, it's demand
goes down. When the demand is low, the price will come down. If however
the demand stays low long enough then people will find other interests and
the product may stop being produced. I know this is simplified but I think
most will agree.

Now take the drug trade. Some say legalization will stop the crime
associated with it. Perhaps. It does not help the victim (drug user)
though. If however the price can be made to be so high that it is no longer
profitable then it's manufacture may slow or stop. So long as the price is
within the reach of the average joe, it will stay in our society.

Don Perrett

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Merv
Sent: Saturday, January 06, 2007 4:13 PM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] climate change severity

"There are two kinds of people in the world: those who say there are
two kinds of people in the world, and those who don't." ---???

In that spirit, and since we all like to have pegs on which to hang our
hats, here is your weekly oversimplification from merv:

The controversy between those who choose their cautionary status with
reference to economy and those who choose their cautionary status in
regards to environment also seems to loosely fit another dichotomy.
The former harbor mistrust towards government and hearken instead to the
private sector as the best keeper of the public good (often citing
blundering inefficiencies of the public sector as compared to the private).
They trust the profit motive to keep the public best interests in mind at
some level.

The latter are much more trusting of the public sector -- and with good
reason. While they can't deny the blundering ineptitudes of many
government programs, at least, the powers behind them (to the dwindling
extent that those can stay free of corporate control) are, in theory, more
accountable to the voter at large (i.e. one person = one vote rather than
under the private sector where 1$ = 1 vote). So I have to agree with Joel
Bakan ("The Corporation") as I ponder who I would rather
trust: the blundering politician who at least has a chance of
having some public good in mind and pushing clumsily in that
direction; or the multinational corporation which, with
breathtaking efficiency rapes and pillages our communities and our
environments in brilliantly run programs which, at bottom, are designed to
separate you from your money in the present and immediate future.
---and that is the ONLY final motive any corporation can legally have in its
accountability to its stockholders (despite what green looking ads
would have you believe). And to those who say that corporations are
still constrained by law, Mr. Bakan shows that even that is an
illusion. Even their choice to follow any given law is only another
cost-benefit analysis. "Will our profits justify our risking
expenditures with fines and lawsuits? --- or how likely is it we'll even be
caught?"

Lord knows I'm no fan of big government, and powerful corporate lobbyists
have blurred the distinction between public and private almost
beyond discernment. But I'm even less of a fan of huge corporations.
Yes, they are good! But it is WHAT they are good at that worries me.
Between the brilliant pirate or the clumsy good Samaritan, I will take the
latter any day. And while politicians may be motivated by the next election
to say whatever people want to hear, they probably stand a better chance of
showing occasional fits of moral courage and leadership, than the average
CEO stands of escaping the enslavement
driving him to the next $. My apologies to the multitude of exceptions
to all this that no doubt exist. I know that I'm biting the hand that
feeds me. But truth stands apart from and irrespective of that obligatory
gratitude.

--merv

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with "unsubscribe
asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Jan 6 18:10:15 2007