Re: Lolita
Friedman (bananafish_9@yahoo.com)
Sun, 21 Mar 1999 09:48:43 -0800 (PST)
Now I understand where you are coming from Camille, but I do not think
you clearly understood me either. I am not saying that Capitalism is
entirely good, there are a lot of evils incorporated into it. So I am
not an expert on this issue, but I do not need to be an expert to
enjoy the benefits of living in a capatilistic society. The reason why
Russia has completely gone down the tubes because of capitalism is
because their government was corrupt from the beginning and it
continues to be corrupt. Capatilism in the United States is not
perfect, it is actually far from it, but it works. I do not know much
about economic rationalism, but I know enough that I do not think that
it would work or that society would develop into those rules. It is
highly unlikely that the United States would allow anti-monopoly laws
to be made. Americans have always been wary of monopolies. Right now
there is a law suit against Microsoft because people believe that the
company is too monopolisitc. If you look at the trust busting days of
Teddy Roosevelt and Wilson you could see that the government and the
American people would not allow monopolies to occur. That is why the
Standard Oil Trust, and many others, did not last. I believe that
capitalism fits into the ideals of the people and that is why you see
capitalism have different affects in different countries.
-Liz Friedman
---Camille Scaysbrook <verona_beach@geocities.com> wrote:
>
> Friedman wrote:
> > Okay, where are you getting these examples from? From my experiences
> > of living in the United States I am a bit confused by what you mean.
> > First of all who would ban theatre?
>
> No one would ban it in America or any other capitalist country. But
> according to the rules of economic rationalism, it could be
rationalised
> out of existence. Think about how much `Baywatch' makes. Think about
how
> much some esoteric but brilliant production in someone's basement
that a
> guy has to hock his car to finance makes, and it's easy to see which
one is
> going to survive if society continues on in the way it has.
>
> > Second of all who would
> > ban houses?
>
> Same answer, different details. I'm watching it happen in my area
right
> now. Where one house stood on a large block of land, it makes more
> financial sense to run its elderly owners out of their own home and
build
> an ugly block of flats to fit ten times as many people on the block of
> land. What results is overcrowded towns and unhappy people and a
couple of
> very rich and selfish businessman at the top of it all.
>
> > This sounds more like a totalitarian dictatorship.
>
> Big businesses are already attempting to undermine the authority of
> governments. That's why anti-monopoly laws are (for now) in place.
>
> I advise you to read up on this topic before discussing it again -
it's
> really a lot more complex than `X-good, Y-bad'.
>
> Camille
> verona_beach@geocities.com
> @ THE ARTS HOLE http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Theater/6442
> @ THE INVERTED FOREST http://www.angelfire.com/pa/invertedforest
>
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com