>
> Compare inefficiently giving 10 men a moderate salary to inefficiently do
> something
> with
> giving 1 man even less, employing 1 other man as a contractor, sending the
> vast profits overseas and paying the other 8 men unemployment benefit, and
I
> know what I would choose.
>
> Telecom was sold for about 2.5 billiion NZ dollars and is now "worth"
about
> 4 times that. It completely repaid the original buyers their investment
> BEFORE they resold it and is now taking about 1/4 of the original sale
price
> out of the country each year. Summat aglae there methinks.

This is what concerns me so greatly about so-called "free-trade" policies.
Here in the US, the profit motive is continually held up as a means whereby
the marketplace will self-regulate it's conduct, but I see that cut-throat
competition and unprincipled corporate executives are as much a blight on a
society as government control is. (IMHO)

It seems that neither is a good solution. I used to embrace the free-market
dogma, but now I think I embrace neither that or government control of
industry.

Is there a third way?

Mark

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
use mailto:listserv@mitvma.mit.edu?body=SET%20PICList%20DIGEST