[44] in Discussion of MIT-community interests
Re: LIVING WAGE SIT-IN AT HARVARD (fwd)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Cyrus R Eyster)
Thu Apr 19 17:42:45 2001
Message-Id: <200104192142.RAA29401@technomage.mit.edu>
To: "Sourav K. Mandal" <Sourav.Mandal@ikaran.com>
cc: mit-talk@MIT.EDU
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 19 Apr 2001 16:50:15 EDT."
<200104192050.QAA11854@dichotomy.dyn.dhs.org>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 17:42:15 -0400
From: Cyrus R Eyster <cyruse@MIT.EDU>
Sourav wrote:
>Do you really think that is plausible? Wealth grows, instead of
>remaining static, because economic efficiencies get exploited. How can
>this happen without the freedom to do so? Conversely, I don't see the
>causal link from wealth to freedom. Our freedoms are being etched away
>daily in the US (Drug War, political correctness, taxes), though wealth
>in increasing (though this rate of increase has slowed recently). In
>China, Internet and press are censored, and capital activity has to be
>okayed by party bosses, despite booming trade. And, women are still
>subjugated in the Middle East, even in oil rich countries.
Whoa there, chief. Flip all those examples around and they serve as
counterexamples to the freedom leads to wealth principle you put forward.
With wealth and freedom, how can you tell which is the cause and which
the effect?
Here's something else to think about. An increase in wealth could be
caused by a large increase in the wealth of a few people, even if most
people lost wealth. I think that such an increase in wealth would be of
questionable value.
Cyrus
