Pearson,

I wasn't consciously drawing on Rawls, but just like the monkeys who 
occasionally type Hamlet, maybe one of my poorly formed ideas 
accidently overlapped with those of a genius.  ;-)

Norm


On Mar 1, 2005, at 5:33 PM, Pearson Liddell, Jr. wrote:

> Norm,
>  
> I'm asking this purely as an aside.  Is the way you are arguing in any 
> way related to how John Rawls views the responsibility of society?  
> I'm trying to understand Rawls better. 
>  
> Pearson
> ----- Original Message -----
>  From: Norman Hawker
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 3:51 PM
> Subject: Re: Robert Reich article in NY Times
>
> Maybe, but I'm far less concerned about government than I am about 
> private monopolies. And I don't see conservatives (or many liberals) 
> calling for aggressive antitrust enforcement.
>
> Assuming that democracy in America survived Bush v. Gore, we can vote 
> out a government that does not abide by our wishes. We have no such 
> direct control over Microsoft or GE, for example. And since we control 
> the government in a democracy, we cannot neatly distinguish between 
> the government's conduct and our own, we cannot hold our government to 
> a lesser moral standard than we do ourselves as individuals. As Pogo 
> said, "We have met the enemy, and he is us."
>
> And I am concerned about the distribution of wealth. I have nothing 
> against rich folks, but I think it's immoral for anyone to gain 
> financially because someone else was paid less than a living wage. I 
> realize that begs the question of what is a living wage.
>
> The bottom line is that what matters is how wealthy are the economy's 
> poorest members, not the total wealth or growth of the economy. We can 
> make trade-offs between economic growth and alleviating poverty. As 
> Paul Krugman wrote in the New York Times a few years ago, Sweden's per 
> capita GDP may be no bigger than the per capita GDP of America's 
> poorest state, Mississippi, but the poorest fifth of Swedish citizens 
> have a significantly higher standard of living than the poorest fifth 
> of America's citizens.
>
>  Of course, if you could provide me some assurance that further 
> deregulation will raise the standard of living of America's poorest 
> citizens, I'd be all for it. But the history of America since the era 
> of deregulation began under Jimmy Carter (and accelerated under 
> Reagan) is that America's poor have lost ground while our wealthy have 
> grown wealthier.
>
> Norm
>
> --
> Norman Hawker, Associate Professor
> Western Michigan University
> http://www.wmumea.org/
>
> On Mar 1, 2005, at 4:07 PM, Zupanc, Thomas wrote:
>
>
> Norm
>
> I still think I can agree with you.  I perceive you are distrustful of 
> the “select few”, as am I.  But more regulations actually play into 
> their hands, and more severelyhamper their entrepreneurial competitors 
> who keep them from “dominating” our decisions and who give us choices. 
>  Governmental regulations are the epitome of “big guy” domination, and 
> many times are well-intentioned but counter-productive, like mandatory 
> health insurance coverage for employers with over 50 employees.  What 
> a great way to stifle your competition.  Make it expensive to grow 
> beyond 50 employees.  Such a regulation ain’t gonna hurt Wal-Mart.  It 
> hurts its local competitors….
>
>
> TZ
>
>  
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Academy of Legal Studies in Business (ALSB) Talk 
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Norman Hawker
> Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 2:33 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Robert Reich article in NY Times
>
>  
>
> At the risk of losing your gratitude, what I meant was that the 
> "select few" dominant our large, private institutions, not the other 
> way around.
>
>  
>
> Norm
>
>  
>
> --
>
> Norman Hawker, Associate Professor
>
> Western Michigan University
>
> http://www.wmumea.org/
>
>  
>
> On Mar 1, 2005, at 12:44 PM, Zupanc, Thomas wrote:
>
>  
>
> I agree that the “select few” are dominated by large, private 
> institutions.  Thank you for agreeing with my point.
>
>   
>
>  
>
>   
>
> TZ
>
>   
>
>  
>
>   
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
>  From: Academy of Legal Studies in Business (ALSB) Talk 
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Norman Hawker
>
>  Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 10:33 AM
>
>  To: [log in to unmask]
>
>  Subject: Re: Robert Reich article in NY Times
>
>   
>
>  
>
>   
>
> First, is wrong to assume to that our choices are just "regulation by 
> a select few" or tolerance of all private sector outcomes. For 
> example, we could significantly expand the Earned Income Tax Credit 
> rather than raise the minimum wage.
>
>   
>
>  
>
>   
>
> Second, in a democracy, government intervention is not the product of 
> a select few, but rather the decision of hundreds of millions 
> decision-makers casting ballots.
>
>   
>
>  
>
>   
>
> Indeed, in our society, the "select few" who make decisions affecting 
> us all are found in large private institutions, including, but 
> certainly not limited to, major business corporations.
>
>   
>
>  
>
>   
>
> --
>
>   
>
> Norman Hawker, Associate Professor
>
>   
>
> Western Michigan University
>
>   
>
> http://www.wmumea.org/
>
>   
>
>  
>
>   
>
> On Mar 1, 2005, at 10:36 AM, Zupanc, Thomas wrote:
>
>   
>
>  
>
>   
>
> I understand that markets containing hundreds of millions of 
> decision-makers are not perfect.  But is regulation by a select few 
> better?
>
>   
>
>  
>
>   
>
>  
>
>   
>
>  
>
>   
>
> TZ
>
>   
>
>  
>
>   
>
>  
>
>   
>
>  
>
>   
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
>   
>
> From: Academy of Legal Studies in Business (ALSB) Talk 
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Norman Hawker
>
>   
>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 9:17 AM
>
>   
>
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
>   
>
> Subject: Re: Robert Reich article in NY Times
>
>   
>
>  
>
>   
>
>  
>
>   
>
>  
>
>   
>
> Sarcasm aside, the basic point of the article is correct. In actual 
> practice, markets are not perfect.
>
>   
>
>  
>
>   
>
>  
>
>   
>
>  
>
>   
>
> Norm Hawker
>
>   
>
>  
>
>   
>
>  
>
>   
>
>  
>
>   
>
> --
>
>   
>
>  
>
>   
>
> Norman Hawker, Associate Professor
>
>   
>
>  
>
>   
>
> Western Michigan University
>
>   
>
>  
>
>   
>
> http://www.wmumea.org/
>
>   
>
>  
>
>   
>
>  
>
>   
>
>  
>
>   
>
> On Mar 1, 2005, at 9:56 AM, Zupanc, Thomas wrote:
>
>   
>
>  
>
>   
>
>  
>
>   
>
>  
>
>   
>
> ALSBers
>
>   
>
>  
>
>   
>
>  
>
>   
>
>  
>
>   
>
> I am no economist, but why stop there? Shouldn’t we force health care 
> providers, pharmaceutical companies, medical device manufacturers, and 
> all those in that industry to lower their prices?  Shouldn’t we force 
> insurance companies to lower their premiums?  Shouldn’t we limit 
> punitives, contingent fees, malpractice awards?  Couldn’t we go on and 
> on?  
>
>   
>
>  
>
>   
>
>  
>
>   
>
>  
>
>   
>
> Increased demand (for “affordable health insurance”) will most 
> certainly increase premiums, and on and on.  In the end, the only 
> “affordable” health insurance will be available to employees of large 
> employers.  What happens to the start-ups and small firms?  They 
> disappear.
>
>   
>
>  
>
>   
>
>  
>
>   
>
>  
>
>   
>
> The history of regulation (good like health and safety, and bad, like 
> this proposal) really has been a boon to large business at the expense 
> of small business.   
>
>   
>
>  
>
>   
>
>  
>
>   
>
>  
>
>   
>
> It seems to me that if you don’t like the way Wal-Mart treats its 
> employees, don’t let them profit from your dollars as a consumer, 
> investor, supplier or otherwise.  Period.
>
>   
>
>  
>
>   
>
>  
>
>   
>
>  
>
>   
>
>  
>
>   
>
>  
>
>   
>
>  
>
>   
>
>  
>
>   
>
> TZ
>
>   
>
>  
>
>   
>
>  
>
>   
>
>  
>
>   
>
>  
>
>   
>
>  
>
>   
>
>  
>
>   
>
>  
>
>   
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
>   
>
>  
>
>   
>
> From: Academy of Legal Studies in Business (ALSB) Talk 
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Dan Levin
>
>   
>
>  
>
>   
>
> Sent: Monday, February 28, 2005 10:00 PM
>
>   
>
>  
>
>   
>
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
>   
>
>  
>
>   
>
> Subject: Robert Reich article in NY Times
>
>   
>
>  
>
>   
>
>  
>
>   
>
>  
>
>   
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
>   
>
>  
>
>   
>
>  
>
>   
>
> ALSBers,
>
>  
>
>  
>
>   
>
>  
>
>   
>
>  
>
>   
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
>   
>
>  
>
>   
>
>  
>
>   
>
> Robert Reich has a good op-ed piece in today's NY Times (Feb 28) 
> called "Don't Blame Wal-Mart."
>
>  
>
>  
>
>   
>
>  
>
>   
>
>  
>
>   
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
>   
>
>  
>
>   
>
>  
>
>   
>
> He argues that legal regulation can help mediate the conflict between 
> two sides of ourselves -- the consumer's desire for low prices and the 
> worker's/citizen's desire for good wages, fair treatment of workers in 
> third world countries, etc.
>
>  
>
>  
>
>   
>
>  
>
>   
>
>  
>
>   
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
>   
>
>  
>
>   
>
>  
>
>   
>
> Here's part of his argument:
>
>  
>
>  
>
>   
>
>  
>
>   
>
>  
>
>   
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
>   
>
>  
>
>   
>
>  
>
>   
>
> "The only way for the workers or citizens in us to trump the consumers 
> in us is through laws and regulations that make our purchases a social 
> choice as well as a personal one. A requirement that companies with 
> more than 50 employees offer their workers affordable health 
> insurance, for example, might increase slightly the price of their 
> goods and services. My inner consumer won't like that very much, but 
> the worker in me thinks it a fair price to pay. Same with an increase 
> in the minimum wage or a change in labor laws making it easier for 
> employees to organize and negotiate better terms."
>
>  
>
>  
>
>   
>
>  
>
>   
>
>  
>
>   
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
>   
>
>  
>
>   
>
>  
>
>   
>
> Dan Levin
>
>  
>
>  
>
>   
>
> -- 
>
>  
>
>  
>
>   
>
>  
>
>   
>
>  
>
>   
>
> Daniel A. Levin, JD, MBA
>
>  
>
>  
>
>   
>
> Associate Professor of Business Law
>
>  
>
>  
>
>   
>
> Minnesota State University, Mankato
>
>  
>
>  
>
>   
>
> Dept. of Accounting and Business Law
>
>  
>
>  
>
>   
>
> Morris Hall 150
>
>  
>
>  
>
>   
>
> Mankato, MN 56001
>
>  
>
>  
>
>   
>
> 507.389.1827
>
>  
>
>  
>
>   
>
> [log in to unmask]
>
>  
>
>  
>
>   
>
> [log in to unmask]