Thomas,  That was quite a thoughtful response to Professor Rosemont's 
article.  Thank you.  Maybe we'll hear from others.  *  The drift of 
Professor Rosemont's remarks seems to be that the rewards of the 
capitalist system are not fairly distributed (that "trickle down" is 
only a convenient phrase, not a reality) rather than an insistence 
that capitalism doesn't increase the size of the pie.  The substance 
of "fair distribution," of course, is up for grabs.  A widely held 
moral position is that America is a "Land of Opportunity," not one of 
guaranteed health care, social security, and related social 
entitlements, and it'd just be a guess where ALSB membership came out 
on that.  *  Focusing on U.S. (not global) stats, it's surely the 
case that average family incomes are up, even since the end of the 
post-war boom (1973).  But, as an economist on campus recently 
remarked, that's kind of like Bill Gates walking into a 
bar.  Averages skyrocket, but down-home, things are pretty much the 
same.  In other words, there's a real question whether the typical 
American worker has shared in these gains.  Median inflation-adjusted 
earnings of full-time workers was lower in 2005 than in 1973 (Paul 
Krugman, The Great Divergence, p. 127).  *  Anyway, thanks much for 
your comments, Thomas.  Your remarks have opened up a whole new field 
for us to dissect.  Maybe we'll hear from some of our members whether 
nations permeated with Confucianism are economically progressive and 
whether they share the wealth in a way consistent with that 
tradition.  Cordially, Bill

================

I understand the elements of restorative justice, and restorative 
mediations as an excellent alternative to litigation and other forms 
of adversarial dispute resolution.  I have practiced it and I believe 
it signals the next phase in the evolution of dispute resolution.
However, Professor Rosemont displays an astounding ignorance of 
economics and civil liberties which acted as a barrier to my 
acceptance of his otherwise worthy subject of restorative justice.  A 
common fallacy, repeated there, is that if I am rich, I must have 
made others poor:
"...and as the policies and actions of the United States, adamant in 
pressing this unfettered capitalism on the rest of the world, are 
doing more to exacerbate than alleviate the gross inequalities that 
contribute so much to the violence in so much of the contemporary 
world."  I am not sure the Pacific Rim nations, or India, or other 
emerging economies which have accepted capitalism would agree.  I 
think I can conclusively prove he is wrong by pointing to their 
astounding increase in their standard of living as they accept 
capitalism.  Yes, Russia is not as wealthy as when it enslaved 
Eastern Europe, but that has more to do with its present corruption 
and the lack of consistent enforcement of civil liberties than it has 
to do with capitalism.  See below.
Believe it or not, capitalism creates wealth.  It doesn't hoard 
others' wealth, it adds wealth.  The pie grows, as do the slices we 
earn. Of course the rich get richer compared to the poor.  The 
baseline for the poor will never move...the limits for the rich 
continues to move upward.  Explain to me again why it is bad to create wealth?
He also uses the worn out canard regarding tax cuts....if 40% of the 
taxpayers in the US do not pay taxes, ANY tax cut will favorably 
affect "the rich" who actually do pay taxes.  Further, the richest 5% 
report 36% of income but pay 60% of the taxes (2005, CBO and IRS 
statistics).  I don't have a problem with that, but tell me again, 
why is this unfair?
Last, "the rich" and "the poor", in developed nations (I discuss 
underdeveloped nations below) are not the same people they were 5, 10 
or more years ago. When the population moves into higher brackets, 
they are no longer "the poor".  Further, the richest income earners 
are those who finally cash in the stock of the company they 
grew.  They get a one-shot appearance at the top of the heap.  It is 
their justly deserved award.  Next year it will be someone else, and so on.
Members of the 400 club varied widely from year to year, according to 
the IRS.  Of the taxpayers who appeared in this group (1992-2000) 
less than 25% appeared more than once, and less than 13% appeared 
more than twice.  The large amount of income reflected capital gains 
- their one and only cash-out.  Why is this bad?  How does this rob 
others?  These people are the job creators.  They should be 
encouraged.  When they are, those in the lowest strata, the ones with 
the new jobs, move up. Studies of families in the lowest quintile 
show that the vast majority of them do not stay there over a 
generation.  They move up.  And the "new" families in the lowest 
quintile posses and earn more than any generation in the lowest 
quintile ever had, even after taking into account inflation.
And again, "..., respect for first generation rights doesn't cost 
very much, requires very little effort, is now a formidable bulwark 
protecting the rich and the powerful, and has thus become  a 
hindrance to the implementation of social, economic and cultural 
rights, and of attendant social justice both nationally and 
internationally."  He is misguided.  The "first generation rights" 
allow one to become richer, better off, than the generation 
before.  It certainly does not hinder implementation of social, 
economic or cultural rights but nurtures them by allowing capitalism 
to flourish. The first generation rights came first, then came 
prosperity.  It did not occur the other way around (unless you want 
to re-write history incorrectly).
How to explain third world poverty?  Scratch a third world country, 
and you will find no basic civil liberties (certainly not a free 
press), a controlled economy, probably both, and the result is 
massive corruption.  It is the lack of these civil liberties and lack 
of free markets which allows the corruption which in turn creates the 
violence, degradation, hopelessness, death, wars, starvation, you 
name it.  It is that country's failure to embrace civil liberties and 
participate in free markets which dooms them.  Their only hope is the 
free market and those first generation rights.
I have grave and deep opposition to any idea which purports to help 
but in fact will sidetrack the two engines which lead us to a better world.


Thomas Zupanc
Associate Professor
St Cloud State University
Herberger College of Business
CH 417
720 4th Ave South
St Cloud MN 56301
(320) 308 6678