profit and loss

[calbert at tiac.net]

From:           	kevin at limits.org

> The problem arises when a given nation/economy is through either a
> GATT-esque regulatory scheme or simple survival-of-the-fittest
> competition, required to sacrifice a desireable element of quality,
> whether that be a critical, modern environmental regulation, or a law
> limiting the ingredients that you can put in something and call it
> beer.

But if the choice is between simple sotf and GATT-esque regulation, 
which would you prefer?

I would suggest that ssotf is the default state, and its consequences 
are somewhat inevitable. If you, instead formalize procedures, those 
procedures can also be used by 'the weak' to affect behavior of 'the 
strong'.....in the ssotf that possibility is made more remote.....

> Another problem is when, as in NAFTA, the regulatory oversight of
> abuses is performed not in a nation's courts, but in arbitration.

But why does this HAVE to be "bad"? This means that any conflict is 
judged under the agreement negotiated by all involved parties 
(leaving aside the democratic participation of the consumer for the 
time being).....I'm not sure that in cases where an outcome may 
conflict with the domestic laws of an affected state, the arbitration 
decision is binding - it would seem that such conflicts would be 
addressed in the sessions to negotiate the structure of the treaty 
obligations.....again, such mechanisms would be binding on ALL 
parties.....


> I will certainly not put my stake in with the manifesto you're
> responding to (because, for starters, I didn't read it), or latch my
> arguments onto those of others.  But I will say that your argument
> seems to be based on what is, to me, an unhealthy fear of peer review
> and the democratic process,

I'm not sure they are the same thing......and again, if you use the 
term "peer", aren't you assuming some level of commonality 
between the "peer" and its subject that is different from that between 
"naif" and subject?

 which kind of gets to the point of why
> there were street battles in Quebec City two weeks ago:  the
> negotiation process was closed, and their final product was to be
> undisclosed.  (They did concede to release the draft agreement, but
> apparently with a backhanded "it will take us many many months to
> translate this into Spanish and Portugese, and we won't disclose the
> English version until we do.")

Correct me if I'm wrong in this assumption, but like ALL treaties, 
those concerned with trade must still be "ratified" by whatever 
constitutes deliberative bodies in the member states - non? The veil 
WILL HAVE TO come off at some point, and what is shown to 
irritate will have to be modified through re-negotiation....

> I recognize the value of basing major policy decisions on what
> Republicans like to call "sound science" (which is, of course, a joke
> given the GOP track record in that department). 

I hope this is not implication by association. I hate to disappoint any 
"pigeon-holers", but I have not voted for a national republican office-
holder since Gerald Ford (though this time I would have voted 
McCain, given the chance).....


 That said, a good
> part of my distaste for your reasoning -- we'll call this the part
> that's based on practical experience -- comes from working in
> Washington, DC, where people retire from industries to work for the
> government, and then retire from the government to work for the
> industries again.  You've either naive about the many "industry
> analysis" reports from scientists who are obviously on the take, or
> you're one of Them.

Neither...I too toiled on the hill some time ago, but probably in a 
much humbler assignment.... I fully agree with what you say about 
"junk science" and the revolving door.......but I also saw what 
enormous research resources are at the disposal of anyone 
associated with a reps office......they could call the Library of 
COngress, and get REAMS of research, compiled by excellent 
researchers in a matter of hours. As with the finance industry it 
pays to know whether analysts are toiling on the buy or sell side.....


  Dick "Halliburton" Cheney and the Treasurer from
> Alcoa are just the tip of a very large iceberg of biased and perhaps
> even venal adminstrators with a proven expertise in their particular
> fields.

That would be O'Neill. Another example of how Snort falls woefully 
short of his predecessor....you may be comforted to find out that, 
from what I can discern, O'Neill is not highly regarded on "the 
Street".
And, yes, Cheney is a travesty.......

> So please, don't tell me that I should shut up and let my leaders do
> their highly sophisticated job without any oversight.

You have misunderstood.....my objection is to the mandatory 
participation of "community representatives" on corporate 
boards.....I firmly belive that governments should VIGOROUSLY 
enforce the laws governing the behavior of commercial interests, 
particularly anti-trust provisions.....


> Again, I didn't read T's statement, and he is big enough to answer for
> himself on those grounds, but when you're talking about the democratic
> oversight of corporate enterprise, the answer is "when her enterprise
> is incorporated."  Or am I on a different boat, on a different sea?

I have no objection to the "oversight" of local Secretaries of State, 
nor do I have any to the jurisdiction of the FDA or any other 
LEGITIMATE regulatory agency. The manifesto called for the 
MANDATORY participation of "community reps", not once referring 
to any expertise they be obliged to manifest before being handed 
the wheel......Incorporation merely requires (in my limited three state 
experience) nothing more than a dream, a check (usually a nominal 
amount) and a completed form - do I have to get on the horn with 
my neighbour for his input today?


> I've sat through my fair share of school board meetings and cluster
> association meetings and rally organization meetings and so forth,
> many of which were held under Robert's Rules of Order because someone
> watched too much TV, and of course everyone wants to interrupt to ask
> how this affects them, personally, as in "well, if I'm starting with
> _six_ apples, but we're still taking away two, how many would that
> leave _me_ with?"  I know how that feels.  But would you prefer for
> decisions about what type of shrubs are planted between the pool and
> the tennis court to be made by
> 
>  a)  Municipal/ County officials
>  b)  State officials
>  c)  Federal officials
>  d)  UN officials
>  e)  Tom Pynchon

A,B,C,and D already excercise some input into any such decision, 
E may inspire some design or purpose, but I'll be dipped in squat 
before I get steamrolled into underwriting the realization of Donna 
Warren's landscaping fantasies......or to hear any more about the 
occasional mis-directed pedestrian.......

condo-associations - you can keep 'em.......


love,
cfa
> -- 
> Kevin Troy
>