From: Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury@aeiveos.com)
Date: Wed Jun 27 2001 - 09:27:31 MDT
On Wed, 27 Jun 2001, Greg Burch wrote:
> Here's an excellent article that punctures a few of the so-called "facts"
> upon which the new "anti-globalists" base much of their crtique of economic
> liberty:
>
>
> http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/highlights/opinions_july_01/index.html
>
I agree with Greg, a great review.
It misses the point that indirectly, the people through their
own accounts and pension funds, do presumably control the
corporations. Concerted actions by groups making "anti-tobacco",
or "green" investments do influence the markets.
I suspect you don't see more of this because responsible
corporate actors presumably have lower profits. Could
BP increase the construction rate for solar cell factories
and lower the end-user costs? Yes, but only at the expense
of corporate profits presumably generating shareholder howls.
Its interesting that the anti-GMO people are picketing the BIO
industry conference this week, *instead* of picketing the
mutual fund managers on Wall Street and the pension fund
managers in their State capitals. You wouldn't have a BIO
industry if the funding dried up tomorrow.
I particularly liked:
> Many voters are rationally ignorant about the issues confronting them,
> because the return on acquiring the knowledge is so small. The
> interesting question is not why do people fail to vote, but why
> *do* they vote, given the tiny probability that they will affect
> the outcome.
I'd emphasize this. For example, my recent commentary on why
I'm against GMO food labels. If the anti-GMO individuals
actually *did* acquire sufficient molecular biology and medical
knowledge to *really* evaluate the labels, their ROI would
be *negative* because they would have to give up their cherished
ideas that "natural" is better!
Robert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:08:18 MST