Powered by Bravenet Bravenet Blog

Subscribe to Journal

Tag Board

Tovah: Good Day. Without the capacity to provide its own information, the mind drifts into randomness.I am from Micronesia and also now am reading in English, give please true I wrote the following sentence: "Many different styles to choose from."Thank :o Tovah.
Scot: Excuse me. What children take from us, they give?We become people who feel more deeply, question more deeply, hurt more deeply, and love more deeply. Help me! There is an urgent need for sites: Lowes bathroom mirrors. I found only this - christian counseling debt relief. I do this just after the wall is framed so the plumber and electrician can see it. Discount codes, voucher codes and promotional codes to save you money. Thank you very much :-). Scot from Nicaragua.
lamkhie: visiting your lovely blog :)
Pam: Just blog hopping and thought that I'd say "HI!"
John Médaille: I am proud to announce the publication of my book, The Vocation of Business: Social Justice in the Marketplace, by Continuum International.The overriding theme of this book is that the original unity of distributive and corrective justice that prevailed in both economics and moral discourse until the 16th and seventeenth centuries was shattered by the rise of an individualistic capitalism that relied on corrective justice (justice in exchange) alone. But an economics that lacks a distributive pr
Gen: Welcome!

Please type in the four characters shown in the black box.

Thursday, November 19th 2009

12:38 PM

Further Evidence Catholic Social Teaching is out in AmChurch today

"I think that the hierarchy doesn't know as much about those things as they do about their theology."
(when asked to comment on the Catholic Church's recognition of a worker's right to unionize -Tom Monaghan 8/19/2006).

found at : http://avewatch.com/?p=309

 

Also found at the site is this recent post:

Ave Maria University Donor: “… I’m pro-choice.”

» Thu, November 5th, 2009 - 3:56 pm CST


- Address for this article: http://avewatch.com/?p=309
- View date: 11-19-2009


Tom Monaghan secured a $4 million “investment” from a pro-choice billionaire for Ave Maria University’s new “Tom Golisano Field House”.  Golisano is a major donor to Democrat campaigns and the founder of a political party with a pro-choice platform.

From the New York Times during one of Golisano’s campaigns for Governor (10/23/94):

“Where do you stand on abortion?” one woman asked him.

Mr. Golisano responded, “The country has been very clear that it wants choice, and I’m pro-choice.”

Click below for more…

**********

Make no mistake.  It was Monaghan who solicited Golisano, hard.  Naples Daily News (11/5/09; excerpts):

So the university’s founder contacted Golisano, and they set up a time for him to visit Ave Maria.  “He did his basic sales work,” Golisano said. “You prospect, then you present and then you close.”

Video from the press conference shows Golisano saying:

He [Monaghan] also came and visited me two or three times in Rochester, New York… So, he did a lot of work.”

Ave Maria University would ban pro-choice President Obama from speaking on its campus.  But, AMU is happy to actively go after $4 million from pro-choice Tom Golisano.  Both men ran for political office on a pro-choice platform.

Who was the first to give Golisano a standing ovation at the donation press conference?  AMU Director of Campus Ministry, Fr. Robert Garrity (image courtesy Naples Daily News; left to right – Garrity, AMU President Nick Healy, Golisano, Monaghan):

Related AveWatch Articles:


 

0 total marks / Comments

Tuesday, November 17th 2009

6:17 AM

Subsidizing Wal-Mart

Sunday, October 28, 2007

Subsidizing Wal-Mart

The recent collapse of the dollar vs. the Euro has intensified the debate over whether we should have a “strong” dollar vs. a “weak” dollar. The extent of the collapse is indicated by the fact that in January, 2002, you could buy a Euro for $0.86. Today, you will pay nearly $1.43, a whopping 66% increase. Should the United States have a strong dollar or a weak one? In an economy that didn't depend on the imports, the question would not be important. But, as we are dependent on foreign oil and foreign goods, the question is of critical importance to each and every American. They may find (as I do) the question of exchange rates to be supremely confusing, not to mention boring. Nevertheless, the price of the dollar affects each and every American consumer and worker, and does so every day.

Jane Jacobs, in Cities and the Wealth of Nations: Principles of Economic Life, explains the way currency fluctuations are supposed to work:

When a nation's currency declines in value relative to the currencies of the other nations with which it trades, theoretically the very decline itself ought to help correct the nation's economy. Automatically its exports become cheaper to customer nations, hence its export sales should increase; and at the same time, its imports automatically become more expensive, and this should help its manufacturers. Theoretically, then, a declining national currency ought to work automatically like both an export subsidy and a tariff, coming into play precisely when a nation begins to run a deficit in its international balance of payments... Furthermore, this automatic export subsidy and tariff ought to remain in play precisely as long as it is needed, no longer.

In other words, currency fluctuations function as an automatic way of balancing trade, no government intervention required. No spurious debates on free trade and protectionism, no political wrangling of any sort. However, in practice this doesn't actually happen. The major reason this happens is that we don't just import and export goods, we also import and export money, and these capital flows work in the opposite direction of trade flows, thereby confusing the signal.

International imports and exports of capital work in just the opposite way. If a country has been importing more capital than it has exported (by borrowing abroad, for example), the value of its currency is automatically bolstered. Conversely, if it has exported more capital than it has been importing (by lending, making gifts, paying interest on prior foreign loans, exporting the profits of foreign-owned industries), the value of its currency is automatically depressed to that extent.

This gives governments a way to manipulate the currency of another country, if they have a mind to. They can simply lend the gullible country vast amounts of money, keeping the value high, or buy up its currency to hold in reserve. Why would any country want to do such a thing, since it would not only be very expensive, but constitute a trade war and perhaps provoke a reaction? Well, in the short term, to smooth out trading fluctuations, such manipulation does no harm. However, a country convinced that it can only grow by exports and not by raising the living standards of its own people (thereby expanding its internal market) may well elect to manipulate its trading partner's currency. Is there such a country so ignorant of basic economics that it would spend its valuable capital to shore up the currency of another country rather than invest it in its own? Yes, there is.

That country is Communist China.

Granted, they are new to this whole “market” thing, and so perhaps haven't gotten it down yet. And since they have a long history of abusing their own people, a little more “market” abuse would hardly seem to make any difference. Finally, their “success” in international markets creates a strong constituency for continuing a rather foolish policy. But this success isn't real, and it is coming at a terrible price for their own people, a price that will one day have to be paid.

The Chinese also have another way of “cheating” in the game of international trade. They can simply “peg” their currency, the Yuan, at an artificially low rate. That is, they can guarantee that no matter how strong their currency gets, they will still give the same amount of dollars from for each Yuan; they alow the Yuan to trade only in a very narrow range (about 13 or 14 cents). In effect, this is an export subsidy and an import tariff by another name.

And this brings us to the subject of Wal-Mart, the “low-price” people. Wal-Mart just happens to be Communist China's largest trading partner, but its “low prices” are not the result of either a free market or of free trade. Rather, it is the beneficiary of government manipulation of the markets. In fact, Wal-Mart is an island of corporate privilege floating on a sea of public subsidies. These subsidies and privileges come from every level of government. At the local level, they often get special zoning and tax treatment from governments desperate for development, even if such “development” means impoverishing local entrepreneurs. At the state and federal level, the whole business plan is in fact a creation of the highly subsidized “freeway” system, (see “Free Markets, Free-ways, and Falling Bridges”), without which Wal-Mart would not exist. And our own government, for political reasons, tends to keep the value of the dollar artificially high (although that policy is weakening). But the biggest subsidy comes not from our government, but from the Chinese Communists. It is a subsidy that, in the long-term, must impoverish both countries. Our manufacturing is hollowed out, while the real needs of the Chinese people are ignored.

America has nothing to fear from real free trade and truly free markets. We benefit from having strong trading partners; the rise of Japan, Europe after the devastation of war, Taiwan, Korea, Singapore, etc., makes both us and them stronger. And on a level playing field, American workers and American firms can compete. Some firms it is true, have lost out, such as the auto industry. However, in that case it took a near conspiracy of stupidity on the part of both the companies and the unions, who worked hard in favor of their short-term interests and against their own long-term good. In more normal, and less arrogant companies and unions, even a small perception of the realities is sufficient to get them to adjust their products, technology, and compensation plans to counter the foreign competition. And this benefits everybody.

American consumers believe that they get a benefit from Wal-Mart's low prices, while American workers believe that they pay a high price in jobs, dignity, security, and even national survival. So who is right? The answer is that they both are. But the costs and benefits are not symmetric. American do get lower prices, in the short-term. But only at the cost of enormous and unsupportable trade imbalances, imbalances that most, sooner or later, come out in higher prices, higher taxes, higher interest rates, and higher unemployment or “reduced”employment (e.g., replacing well-paying factory jobs with poorly-paid “service” economy jobs, like maids or hamburger flippers). The benefits are short term, the costs are devestating to the economy and to the dignity and well-being of the workers, their families, and the country.

What's to be done? The American government must inform the Chinese that they must end their artificial currency policies and let the market price prevail. At the same time, America must get its own fiscal and monetary house in order, and not depend on huge loans from foreign governments to finance its day to day operations. Naturally, this must be done prudently, over an appropriate period of time. If the Chinese Communists persist in this trade war (to call it what it is), then we should “adjust” their currency for them, by gradually raising tariffs over a three to five year period to bring the costs of Chinese products to what they should be if their currency were correctly priced. On a level playing field, Americans can compete even with subsistence wages and low-cost lead painted products. This policy would benefit the Chinese people as well, as their government would have more funds to invest in the needs of their own people, and less supporting a corrupted American regime. Of course, such a policy will not be painless. Prices at Wal-Mart will rise and the happy-face price-cutter will not be quite as happy. But the pain will be short-term, the gain will be long-lasting. Just as the fall in the dollar has increased our exports to Europe, so the rise of the Yuan both cut imports and increase exports. That's the way it's supposed to work.

To answer our original question, the dollar should be neither “strong” nor “weak”; it should be right, its priced based on actual market conditions. But neither American nor Chinese trade policy can be based, in the long-term, on simply subsidizing Wal-Mart.


0 total marks / Comments

Friday, November 13th 2009

5:29 AM

Article on Mondragon Corporation

AN HISTORIC ALLIANCE

http://www.companywekeep.net/an-historic-alliance/

November 10, 2009 · Posted in Employee Ownership, economic crisis, workplace democracy 

My friend David Smathers of the TeamWorks Cooperative Network in California writes:

“The Mondragon cooperatives and the United Steelworkers have announced an historic partnership through which they will buy or start manufacturing businesses in the U.S. and Canada that will combine Mondragon’s democratic structure of ownership and governance with collective bargaining.

It will take many years to implement.  But particularly in the face of the economic crisis that has exposed Wall Street’s failure to provide responsible stewardship of the economy, this is a very heartening development.  Together, these two institutions have the resources, technical expertise, and vision to demonstrate to the public that it is possible to structure and run large corporations in entirely different ways than what we have become accustomed to.”

mondragonThe Mondragon Cooperative Corporation (MCC) is the world’s longest-running, highest-grossing, most successful experiment in workplace democracy.  Now 53 years old, the Basque association of worker cooperatives consists of roughly 260 cooperative enterprises with more than 100,000 employee owners.It is the seventh largest corporation in Spain and the world’s largest industrial workers’ cooperative.  Its enterprises include its own university, research center, and bank.

In January 2001 I visited Mondragon with a small group of Americans for a four-day examination of the culture of both the town and the MCC. Having used a version of the Mondragon principles as the basis for the restructuring of South Mountain Company fourteen years before that, it was thrilling to get a firsthand look at this system of worker-owned cooperatives that appears to be unparalleled in its dynamism and its impact on a region.

Mondragon has created a total system wherein people can learn, work, shop, and live within a cooperative environment. The town, in its isolated valley, has a vital, prosperous feel—a small bustling city with a comfortable mix of young people from the university, new middle-class families, and those who have been in the valley for generations. The surrounding hills are verdant and productive, dotted with villages and farms. The MCC’s influence reaches into every aspect of community life.

I’ve always wondered why the amazing story of Mondragon is such a secret in the United States.  It has attracted significant attention worldwide, but far less here. Even the U.S. based socially responsible business movement pays it little mind (as it does the issue of ownership in general).  Is the idea that capital is a tool, rather than the residence of power, too radical to embrace?  Instead of awarding profit and control to capital, Mondragon has succeeded by awarding profit and control to labor in a system of democratic capitalism.  It has developed an enduring way to use capital productively and distribute income equitably at the same time.

For too long the idea of worker-cooperatives as a potent business model has flown under the radar, but in Michael Moore’s new film:  Capitalism: A Love Story (marquee photo)  people all over the country have been seeing worker cooperatives and workplace democracy in action.  kb v2 cropped" height=151 alt="capitalism theatre 288 kb v2 cropped" src="http://www.companywekeep.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/capitalism-theatre-288-kb-v2-cropped-300x151.jpg" width=300>He presents them as a possible solution to the undemocratic, inequitable and greed-driven economy that he spends most of the film building a case against.

Featured on film are Alvarado Street Bakery in Rohnert Park, California, and Isthmus Engineering in Madison, Wisconsin.  Scenes of workers making decisions, working on production lines, and eating and laughing together paint a picture of worker cooperatives that stands in marked contrast to the exploitation and abandonment shown in other parts of the film.

The new Mondragon/Steelworkers association will further raise the profile of cooperative business in the U.S.   More importantly, it may jump start the crucial re-industrialization of the nation that is so essential to our future.

In the Steelworkers announcement of the agreement USW president Leo Gerard says, “We see Mondragon’s cooperative model with ‘one worker, one vote’ ownership as a means to re-empower workers and make business accountable to Main Street instead of Wall Street.”

I’m excited by the prospect of seeing where this will lead.

0 total marks / Comments

Tuesday, November 10th 2009

7:37 AM

Bishop Sheen also did not support "Capitalism"

The Christian Doctrine of man is intrinsically bound up with the problem of property. There are three possible solutions of the problem of property.

One is to put all the eggs into a few baskets, which is Capitalism;the other is to make an omelet out of them so that nobody owns, which is Communism;the other is to distribute the eggs in as many baskets as possible, which is the solution of the Catholic Church.

Bishop Fulton Sheen Introduction to "Christian Social Principles", 1941

0 total marks / Comments

Wednesday, November 4th 2009

7:42 AM

Reflections on a Rotten Apple

(too funny, thanks to Distributist Review for bringing this to light)

 

by G.K. Chesterton




Our age is obviously the Nonsense Age; the wiser sort of nonsense being provided for the children and the sillier sort of nonsense for the grown-up people. The eighteenth century has been called the Age of Reason; I suppose there is no doubt that the twentieth century is the Age of Unreason. But even that is an understatement. The Age of Reason was nicknamed from a famous rationalist book. [Thomas Paine's 1794- 95.] But the rationalist was not really so much concerned to urge the rational against the irrational; but rather specially to urge the natural against the supernatural. But there is a degree of the unreasonable that would go even beyond the unnatural. It is not merely an incredible tale, but an inconsistent idea. As I pointed out to somebody long ago, it is one thing to believe that a beanstalk scaled the sky, and quite another to believe that fifty-seven beans make five.

For instance, a man may disbelieve in miracles; normally on some principle of determinist thought; in some cases even on examination of the evidence. But on being told of the miracle of the multiplication of the loaves and fishes, he is told something that is logical if it is not natural. He is not told that there were fewer fishes because the fishes had been multiplied. Multiplication is still a mathematical term; and a mob all feeding on miraculous fishes is a less mysterious or monstrous sight than a man saying that multiplication is the same as subtraction. Such a story, for such a sceptic, does not carry conviction; but it does make sense. He can recognise the logical consequence, if he cannot understand the logical cause. But no pope or priest ever asked him to believe that thousands died of starvation in the desert because they were loaded with loaves and fishes. No creed or dogma ever declared that there was too little food because there was too much fish. But that is the precise, practical and prosaic definition of the present situation in the modern science of economics. And the man of the Nonsense Age must bow his head and repeat his , the motto of his time, . ["I believe because it is impossible."]

Or again, the term unreason is sometimes used rather more reasonably; for a sort of loose or elliptical statement, which is at least illogical in form. The most popular case is what was called the Irish Bull; often suspected of resembling the Papal Bull, in being a supernatural monster bred of credulity and superstition. But even this old sort of confusion stopped short of the new sort of contradiction. If any Irishman really does say, "We are not birds, to be in two places at once," at least we know what he means, even if it is not what he says. But suppose he says that one bird has been miraculously multiplied into a million birds, and that in consequence there are fewer birds in the world than there were before. We should then be dealing, not merely with an Irish Bull but with a Mad Bull, and concerned not with the incredible but with the incomprehensible. Or, to apply the parable, the Irish have sometimes been accused of unbalanced emotion or morbid sentiment. But nobody says that they merely imagined the Great Famine, in which multitudes starved because the potatoes were few and small. Only suppose an Irishman had said that they starved because the potatoes were gigantic and innumerable. I think we should not yet have heard the last of the wrong-headed absurdity of that Irishman. Yet that is an exact description of the economic condition to-day as it affects the Englishman. And, to a great extent, the American. We learn that there is a famine because there is not a scarcity; and there is such a good potato-crop that there are no potatoes. The Irishman, with his bull or his bird, is quite a hard-headed realist and rationalist compared to that. Thus, the old examples of the fantastic fell far short of the modern fact; whether they were mysteries supposed to be above reason or merely muddles supposed to be below it. Their miracles were more normal than our scientific averages; and the Irish blunder was less illogical than the actual logic of events.

For it seems that we live to-day in a world of witchcraft, in which the orchards wither because they prosper, and the multitude of apples on the apple-tree of itself turns them into forbidden fruit, and makes the effort to consume them in every sense fruitless. This is the modern economic paradox, which is called Over-Production, or a glut in the market, and though at first sight it sounds like the wildest fantasy, it is well to realise in what sense it is the most solid of facts. Let it be clearly understood, therefore, that as a description of the objective social situation at this instant in this industrial society, the paradox is perfectly true. But it is not really true that the contradiction in terms is true. If we take it, not as a description but as a definition, if we take it as a matter of abstract argument, then certainly the contradiction is untrue, as every contradiction is untrue.

The truth is that a third element has entered into the matter, which is not mentioned in this abstract statement of it. That element might be stated in many ways; perhaps the shortest statement of it is in the fable of the man who sold razors, and afterwards explained to an indignant customer, with simple dignity, that he had never said the razors would shave. When asked if razors were not made to shave, he replied that they were made to sell. That is A Short History of Trade and Industry During the Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries.

God made a world of reason as sure as God made little apples (as the beautiful proverb goes); and God did not make little apples larger than large apples. It is not true that a man whose apple-tree is loaded with apples will suffer from a want of apples; though he may indulge in a waste of apples. But if he never looks upon apples as things to eat, but always looks on them as things to sell, he will really get into another sort of complication; which may end in a sort of contradiction. If, instead of producing as many apples as he wants, he produces as many apples as he imagines the whole world wants, with the hope of capturing the trade of the whole world - then he will be either successful or unsuccessful in competing with the man next door who also wants the whole world's trade to himself. Between them, they will produce so many apples that apples in the market will be about as valuable as pebbles on the beach. Thus each of them willfind he has very little money in his pocket, with which to go and buy fresh pears at the fruiterer's shop. If he had never expected to get fruit at the fruiterer's shop, but had put up his hand and pulled them off his own tree, his difficulty would never have arisen. It seems simple; but at the root of all apple-trees and apple-growing, it is really as simple as that.

Of course I do not mean that the practice is at present simple; for no practical problem is simple, least of all at the present time, when everything is confused by the corrupt and evasive muddlers who are called practical politicians. But the principle is simple; and the only way to proceed through a complex situation is to start with the right first principle. How far we can do without, or control, or merely modify the disadvantages of buying and selling is quite another matter. But the disadvantages do arise from buying and selling, and not from producing: not even from over-producing. And it is some satisfaction to realise that we are not living in a nightmare in which No is the same as Yes; that even the modern world has not actually gone mad, with all its ingenious attempts to do so; that two and two do in fact make four; and that the man who has four apples really has more than the man who has three. For some modern metaphysicians and moral philosophers seem disposed to leave us in doubt on these points. It is not the fundamental reason in things that is at fault; it is a particular hitch or falsification, arising from a very recent trick of regarding everything only in relation to trade. Trade is all very well in its way, but Trade has been put in the place of Truth. Trade, which is in its nature a secondary or dependent thing, has been treated as a primary and independent thing; as an absolute. The moderns, mad upon mere multiplication, have even made a plural out of what is eternally singular, in the sense of single. They have taken what all ancient philosophers called the Good, and translated it as the Goods.

I believe that certain mystics, in the American business world, protested against the slump by pinning labels to their coats inscribed, Trade Is Good," along with other similar proclamations, such as, "Capone Is Dead," or "Cancer Is Pleasant," or "Death Is Abolished," or any other hard realistic truths for which they might find space upon their persons. But what interests me about these magicians is that, having decided to call up ideal conditions by means of spells and incantations to control the elements, they did not (so to speak) understand the elements of the elements. They did not go to the root of the matter, and imagine that their troubles had really come to an end. Rather they worshipped the means instead of the end. While they were about it, they ought to have said, not "Trade Is Good," but "Living Is Good," or "Life Is Good." I suppose it would be too much to expect such thoroughly respectable people to say, "God Is Good"; but it is really true that their conception of what is good lacks the philosophical finality that belonged to the goodness of God. When God looked on created things and saw that they were good, it meant that they were good in themselves and as they stood; but by the modern mercantile idea, God would only have looked at them and seen that they were The Goods. In other words, there would be a label tied to the tree or the hill, as to the hat of the Mad Hatter, with "This Style, 10/6." All the flowers and birds would be ticketed with their reduced prices; all the creation would be for sale or all the creatures seeking employment; with all the morning stars making sky-signs together and all the Sons of God shouting for jobs. In other words, these people are incapable of imagining any good except that which comes from bartering something for something else. The idea of a man enjoying a thing in itself, for himself, is inconceivable to them. The notion of a man eating his own apples off his own apple-tree seems like a fairy-tale. Yet the fall from that first creation that was called good has very largely come from the restless impotence for valuing things in themselves; the madness of the trader who cannot see any good in a good, except as something to get rid of. It was once admitted that with sin and death there entered the world something that we call change. It is none the less true and tragic, because what we called change, we called afterwards exchange. Anyhow, the result of that extravagance of exchange has been that when there are too many apples there are too few apple-eaters. I do not insist on the symbol of Eden, or the parable of the apple-tree, but it is odd to notice that even that accidental image pursues us at every stage of this strange story. The last result of treating a tree as a shop or a store instead of as a store-room, the last effect of treating apples as goods rather than as good, has been in a desperate drive of public charity and in poor men selling apples in the street.

In all normal civilisations the trader existed and must exist. But in all normal civilisations the trader was the exception; certainly he was never the rule; and most certainly he was never the ruler. The predominance which he has gained in the modern world is the cause of all the disasters of the modern world. The universal habit of humanity has been to produce and consume as part of the same process; largely conducted by the same people in the same place. Sometimes goods were produced and consumed on the same great feudal manor; sometimes even on the same small peasant farm. Sometimes there was a tribute from serfs as yet hardly distinguishable from slaves; sometimes there was a co-operation between free-men which the superficial can hardly distinguish from communism. But none of these many historical methods, whatever their vices or limitations, was strangled in the particular tangle of our own time; because most of the people, for most of the time, were thinking about growing food and then eating it; not entirely about growing food and selling it at the stiffest price to somebody who had nothing to eat. And I for one do not believe that there is any way out of the modern tangle, except to increase the proportion of the people who are living according to the ancient simplicity. Nobody in his five wits proposes that there should be no trade and no traders. Nevertheless, it is important to remember, as a matter of mere logic, that there might conceivably be great wealth, even if there were no trade and no traders. It is important for the sort of man whose only hope is that Trade Is Good or whose only secret terror is that Trade Is Bad. In principle, prosperity might be very great, even if trade were very bad. If a village were so fortunately situated that, for some reason, it was easy for every family to keep its own chickens, to grow its own vegetables, to milk its own cow and (I will add) to brew its own beer, the standard of life and property might be very high indeed, even though the long memory of the Oldest Inhabitant only recorded two or three pure transactions of trade; if he could only recall the one far-off event of his neighbour buying a new hat from a gipsy's barrow; or the singular incident of Farmer Billings purchasing an umbrella.

As I have said, I do not imagine, or desire, that things would ever be quite so simple as that. But we must understand things in their simplicity before we can explain or correct their complexity. The complexity of commercial society has become intolerable, because that society is commercial and nothing else. The whole mind of the community is occupied, not with the idea of possessing things, but with the idea of passing them on. When the simple enthusiasts already mentioned say that Trade is Good, they mean that all the people who possess goods are perpetually parting with them. These Optimists presumably invoke the poet, with some slight emendation of the poet's meaning, when he cries aloud, 'Our souls are love and a perpetual farewell.' In that sense, our individualistic and commercial modern society is actually the very reverse of a society founded on Private Property. I mean that the actual direct and isolated enjoyment of private property, as distinct from the excitement of exchanging it or getting a profit on it, is rather rarer than in many simple communities that seem almost communal in their simplicity. In the case of this sort of private consumption, which is also private production, it is very unlikely that it will run continually into overproduction. There is a limit to the number of apples a man can eat, and there will probably be a limit, drawn by his rich and healthy hatred of work, to the number of apples which he will produce but cannot eat. But there is no limit to the number of apples he may possibly sell; and he soon becomes a pushing, dexterous and successful Salesman and turns the whole world upside-down. For it is he who produces this huge pantomimic paradox with which this rambling reflection began. It is he who makes a wilder revolution than the apple of Adam which was the loosening of death, or the apple of Newton which was the apocalypse of gravitation, by proclaiming the supreme blasphemy and heresy, that the apple was made for the market and not for the mouth. It was he, by starting the wild race of pouring endless apples into a bottomless market, who opened the abyss of irony and contradiction into which we are staring to-day. That trick of treating the trade as the test, and the only test, has left us face to face with a piece of stark staring nonsense written in gigantic letters across the world; more gigantic than all its own absurd advertisements and announcements; the statement that the more we produce the less we possess.

Oscar Wilde would probably have fainted with equal promptitude, if told he was being used in an argument about American salesmanship, or in defence of a thrifty and respectable family life on the farm. But it does so happen that one true epigram, among many of his false epigrams, sums up correctly and compactly a certain truth, not (I am happy to say) about Art, but about all that he desired to separate from Art; ethics and even economics. He said in one of his plays: "A cynic is a man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing." [The quotation is from (1892).] It is extraordinarily true; and the answer to most other things that he said. But it is yet more extraordinary that the modern men who make that mistake most obviously are not the cynics. On the contrary, they are those who call themselves the Optimists; perhaps even those who would call themselves the Idealists; certainly those who regard themselves as the Regular Guys and the Sons of Service and Uplift. It is too often those very people who have spoilt all their good effect, and weakened their considerable good example in work and social contact, by that very error: that things are to be judged by the price and not by the value. And since Price is a crazy and incalculable thing, while Value is an intrinsic and indestructible thing, they have swept us into a society which is no longer solid but fluid, as unfathomable as a sea and as treacherous as a quicksand.

Whether anything more solid can be built again upon a social philosophy of values, there is now no space to discuss at length here; but I am certain that nothing solid can be built on any other philosophy; certainly not upon the utterly unphilosophical philosophy of blind buying and selling; of bullying people into purchasing what they do not want; of making it badly so that they may break it and imagine they want it again; of keeping rubbish in rapid circulation like a dust-storm in a desert; and pretending that you are teaching men to hope, because you do not leave them one intelligent instant in which to despair.

Taken from
The American Chesterton Society
 
0 total marks / Comments

Monday, November 2nd 2009

6:26 PM

Eaten Alive-what I saw and learned in Minnesota-Part 2

In my first segment:  http://distributistparty.bravejournal.com/archive/09/25/2009

  I talked about my first day in Minnesota..Saturday, got up and got on my new suit and was rather hot.

It was unseasonal and in the 80’s. I drove my compact rental to the college I had staked out and surveyed the night prior. I saw a few fellows standing to the left of what I perceived was the great hall (would find out shortly it was the new Church, the old with its lovely wood work and windows is no the Great Hall).

I got talking to them and found out that the science building was the meeting place. We got talking and I felt immediately at home talking to people that felt the way I did! Distributists.

Shortly, I heard a rather familiar voice, one that I had heard on youtube broadcasts on Chesterton…yes, it was Dale Ahlquist himself.I introduced myself to him and tried to make my self useful with displays and any help..But as I was starting to meet and greet, another voice was recognizeable, British-Joseph Pearce!. Very soon, other heroes would filter in-including John Medialle, author and contributor to the The Distributist Review

 

I would invite you to watch the videos I recorded from that day for the speeches: 

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=EATEN+ALIVE+CONFERENCE&search_type=&aq=f

 

But will continue with my experiences, I quickly set up my video camera and sat in the back. Intermittently Dale and others speakers would perch near me. It was a long day, but I barely noticed the time as great speaker after great speaker took the podium each followed by some Q&A. We then had lunch and settled in for more talks.

I wound up talking to 3 fellows on my way to the lunch hall and only when we  were getting in line I noticed that one was Michael Matt of the Remnant. One of his companions noted he had attended the college and was our tour guide after lunch, touring the beautiful campus.

Each was featuring different parts of Catholic Social Teaching. Each one had a wealth of experience and insights into CST. We then ajounred for dinner. Walking by the new Church, its brooding and dark, it reminded me of the large, bland buildings of Hitler’s Reich.

The reception, on the other hand, was held in the middle of the old church.Still in place were the beautiful wood floors and walls, artwork and stain glass windows.

 

(see http://distributistparty.viviti.com/#image;collection_23836,/files/resized/15946/700;500;c9ce4f9547f4052d755b72598dcd42a143ed52fc.jpg)

 

As it would turn out, on our way to the dining hall, roughly were the old sacristy was, I got talking to Robert Hanten and wound up sitting next to him and at the main table.I aksed Dale if he minded and he said no.I settled into to wonderful dinner buffet and a speech by Dale. He is working right now on getting a mster database of Chesterton's writings and search engine.Also, he recently wentto the Library of Congress and found several lost Chesterton writings that he will in the future reveal. He read a few select pieces that were excellant and sadly, I did not get most of it on video.

After a tiring and hot day, I was exhausted.I was able to get in a picture with Joseph Pearce and speak a few minutes more with an equally tired John Medialle and then back to my hotel room.

I did take a detour to the hotel lobby to try to get my airline information in order, but after a few failed attempts, I was exhausted.It did not take me long to go to bed, once I packed everything back up and got my plans in order to attend Mass downtown St.Cloud on my way out of town and to the airport.

(last installation coming soon, as is my pictures-some glitches still)

Chris Campbell

Director, Distributist Party

Creative Commons License

0 total marks / Comments

Monday, November 2nd 2009

8:12 AM

Wal-Mart Enlists Bloggers in P.R. Campaign


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/07/technology/07blog.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5089&en=ae7585386bf280b9&ex=1299387600&partner=rssyahoo&emc=rss

Wal-Mart Enlists Bloggers in P.R. Campaign

By MICHAEL BARBARO
Published: March 7, 2006

Brian Pickrell, a blogger, recently posted a note on his Web site attacking state legislation that would force Wal-Mart Stores to spend more on employee health insurance. "All across the country, newspaper editorial boards — no great friends of business — are ripping the bills," he wrote.

It was the kind of pro-Wal-Mart comment the giant retailer might write itself. And, in fact, it did.

Several sentences in Mr. Pickrell's Jan. 20 posting — and others from different days — are identical to those written by an employee at one of Wal-Mart's public relations firms and distributed by e-mail to bloggers.

Under assault as never before, Wal-Mart is increasingly looking beyond the mainstream media and working directly with bloggers, feeding them exclusive nuggets of news, suggesting topics for postings and even inviting them to visit its corporate headquarters.

But the strategy raises questions about what bloggers, who pride themselves on independence, should disclose to readers. Wal-Mart, the nation's largest private employer, has been forthright with bloggers about the origins of its communications, and the company and its public relations firm, Edelman, say they do not compensate the bloggers.

But some bloggers have posted information from Wal-Mart, at times word for word, without revealing where it came from.

Glenn Reynolds, the founder of Instapundit.com, one of the oldest blogs on the Web, said that even in the blogosphere, which is renowned for its lack of rules, a basic tenet applies: "If I reprint something, I say where it came from. A blog is about your voice, it seems to me, not somebody else's."

Companies of all stripes are using blogs to help shape public opinion.

Before General Electric announced a major investment in energy-efficient technology last year, company executives first met with major environmental bloggers to build support. Others have reached out to bloggers to promote a product or service, as Microsoft did with its Xbox game system and Cingular Wireless has done in the introduction of a new phone.

What is different about Wal-Mart's approach to blogging is that rather than promoting a product — something it does quite well, given its $300 billion in annual sales — it is trying to improve its battered image.

Wal-Mart, long criticized for low wages and its health benefits, began working with bloggers in late 2005 "as part of our overall effort to tell our story," said Mona Williams, a company spokeswoman.

"As more and more Americans go to the Internet to get information from varied, credible, trusted sources, Wal-Mart is committed to participating in that online conversation," she said.

Copies of e-mail messages that a Wal-Mart representative sent to bloggers were made available to The New York Times by Bob Beller, who runs a blog called Crazy Politico's Rantings. Mr. Beller, a regular Wal-Mart shopper who frequently defends the retailer on his blog, said the company never asked that the messages be kept private.

In the messages, Wal-Mart promotes positive news about itself, like the high number of job applications it received at a new store in Illinois, and criticizes opponents, noting for example that a rival, Target, raised "zero" money for the Salvation Army in 2005, because it banned red-kettle collectors from stores.

The author of the e-mail messages is a blogger named Marshall Manson, a senior account supervisor at Edelman who writes for conservative Web sites like Human Events Online, which advocates limited government, and Confirm Them, which has pushed for the confirmation of President Bush's judicial nominees.[Text: A PDF copy of an e-mail exchange between Mr. Manson and Rob Port, of Sayanythingblog.com.]

In interviews, bloggers said Mr. Manson contacted them after they wrote postings that either endorsed the retailer or challenged its critics.

Mr. Beller, who runs Crazy Politico's Rantings, for example, said he received an e-mail message from Mr. Manson soon after criticizing the passage of a law in Maryland that requires Wal-Mart to spend 8 percent of its payroll on health care.

Mr. Manson, identifying himself as a "blogger myself" who does "online public affairs for Wal-Mart," began with a bit of flattery: "Just wanted you to know that your post criticizing Maryland's Wal-Mart health care bill was noticed here and at the corporate headquarters in Bentonville," he wrote, referring to the city in Arkansas.

"If you're interested," he continued, "I'd like to drop you the occasional update with some newsworthy info about the company and an occasional nugget that you won't hear about in the M.S.M." — or mainstream media.

Bloggers who agreed to receive the e-mail messages said they were eager to hear Wal-Mart's side of the story, which they said they felt had been drowned out by critics, and were tantalized by the promise of exclusive news that might attract more visitors to their Web sites.

"I am always interested in tips to stories," said one recipient of Mr. Manson's e-mail messages, Bill Nienhuis, who operates a Web site called PunditGuy.com.

But some bloggers are also defensive about their contacts with Wal-Mart. When they learned that The New York Times was looking at how they were using information from the retailer, several bloggers posted items challenging The Times's article before it had appeared. One blog, Iowa Voice, run by Mr. Pickrell, pleads for advertisers to buy space on the blog in anticipation of more traffic because of the article.

The e-mail messages Mr. Manson has sent to bloggers are structured like typical blog postings, with a pungent sentence or two introducing a link to a news article or release.

John McAdams, a political science professor at Marquette University who runs the Marquette Warrior blog, recently posted three links about union activity in the same order as he received them from Mr. Manson. Mr. McAdams acknowledged that he worked from Wal-Mart's links and that he did not disclose his contact with Mr. Manson.


The e-mail exchanges between Marshall Manson, who handles online public affairs for Wal-Mart, and Rob Port, of Sayanythingblog.com

"I usually do not reveal where I get a tip or a lead on a story," he said, adding that journalists often do not disclose where they get ideas for stories either.

Wal-Mart has warned bloggers against lifting text from the e-mail it sends them. After apparently noticing the practice, Mr. Manson asked them to "resist the urge," because "I'd be sick if someone ripped you because they noticed a couple of bloggers with nearly identical posts."

But Mr. Manson has not encouraged bloggers to reveal that they communicate with Wal-Mart or to attribute information to either the retailer or Edelman, Ms. Williams of Wal-Mart said.

To be sure, some bloggers who post material from Mr. Manson's e-mail do disclose its origins, mentioning Mr. Manson and Wal-Mart by name. But others refer to Mr. Manson as "one reader," say they received a "heads up" about news from Wal-Mart or disclose nothing at all.

Mr. Pickrell, the 37-year-old who runs the Iowa Voice blog, said he began receiving updates from Wal-Mart in January. Like Mr. Beller, of Crazy Politico, Mr. Pickrell had criticized the Maryland legislature over its health care law before Wal-Mart contacted him.

Since then, he has written at least three postings that contain language identical to sentences in e-mail from Mr. Manson. In one, which Mr. Pickrell attributed to a "reader," he reported that Wal-Mart was about to announce that a store in Illinois received 25,000 applications for 325 jobs. "That's a 1.3 percent acceptance rate," the message read. "Consider this: Harvard University (undergraduate) accepts 11 percent of applicants. The Navy Seals accept 5 percent of applicants."

Asked in a telephone interview about the resemblance of his postings to Mr. Manson's, Mr. Pickrell said: "I probably cut and paste a little bit and I should not have," adding that "I try to write my posting in my own words."

In an e-mail message sent after the interview, Mr. Pickrell said he received e-mail from many groups, including those opposed to Wal-Mart, which he uses as a starting point to "do my own research on a topic."

"I draw my own conclusions when I form my opinions," he said.

Mr. Pickrell, explaining his support for Wal-Mart, said he shops there regularly and is impressed with how his mother-in-law, a Wal-Mart employee, is treated. "They go real out of their way for their people," he said.

Wal-Mart's blogging initiative is part of a ballooning public relations campaign developed in consultation with Edelman to help Wal-Mart as two groups, Wal-Mart Watch and Wake Up Wal-Mart, aggressively prod it to change. The groups operate blogs that receive posts from current and former Wal-Mart employees, elected leaders and consumers.

Edelman also helped Wal-Mart develop a political-style war room, staffed by former political operatives, which monitors and responds to the retailer's critics, and helped create Working Families for Wal-Mart, a new group that is trying to build support for the company in cities across the country.

At Edelman, Mr. Manson, who sends many of the e-mail messages to bloggers, works closely on the Wal-Mart account with Mike Krempasky, a co-founder of RedState.org, a conservative blog. Both are regular bloggers, which in Mr. Manson's case means he has written critically of individuals and groups Wal-Mart may eventually call on for support.

Before he was hired by Edelman in November, Mr. Manson wrote on the Human Events Online blog that members of the San Francisco city council were "dolts" and "twits" for rejecting a proposed World War II memorial and that every day "the United Nations slides further and further into irrelevance." After he was hired, Mr. Manson wrote that the career of Senator Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island was marked by "pointless indecision."

Wal-Mart declined to make Mr. Manson available for comment. Ms. Williams said, "It is not Wal-Mart's role to monitor the opinions of our consultants or how they express them on their own time."

In a sign of how eager Wal-Mart is to develop ties to bloggers, the company has invited them to a media conference to be held at its headquarters in April. In e-mail messages, Wal-Mart has polled several bloggers about whether they would make the trip, which the bloggers would have to pay for themselves.

Mr. Reynolds of Instapundit.com said he recently was invited to Wal-Mart's offices but declined. "Bentonville, Arkansas," he said, "is not my idea of a fun destination."

0 total marks / Comments

Monday, November 2nd 2009

7:17 AM

Scots Keeping Home Crafts and Heritage alive.


Weavers won’t let tartan heritage be kilt off

(Go to site for video)

08 October 2009, 17:12

Step into the Weaver’s Cottage in Kilbarchan, Renfrewshire and you will be transported back centuries to experience the life of a Weaver.

Built in 1723, this idyllic cottage houses the last piece of history within a town that was once teeming with weavers and their families.

“The cottage itself was built in 1723,” The National Trust of Scotland weaver Christine, one of few allowed to use the 200-year-old hand loom, explains.

Weavers won’t let tartan heritage be kilt off

“What would happen is that the living accommodation was upstairs and the work was downstairs. At that period of time, weavers were masters of their own destiny – they could control the hours they worked.”

Agnes Christie donated the house to The National Trust of Scotland in 1949 and since that time, the cottage has continued to produce unique brands of tartan using the last remaining hand loom and obtaining natural dye from plants and herbs in the cottage garden.

“We like to think that we give people a real flavour of what it was like to live and work here,” Christine said. “It is not just about the weaving, it is about the whole way of life of the weavers of the past.”

The life of a weaver was not an easy task with one simple miscalculation ruining the look of the intricate tartan design so widely admired around the world.

“It requires a great deal in terms of math,” Christine said. “If you haven’t got your calculations right, then the whole piece is wrong.”

The hand loom is currently being used to create a new blanket for the bed of Robert Burns at the Burns Cottage in Ayrshire and the trust is hopeful that this unique window into history will continue to remind future generations of the life and work of a Scottish weaver.

Last updated: 08 October 2009, 18:29

http://programmes.stv.tv/the-hour/news-gossip/128963-weavers-wont-let-tartan-heritage-be-kilt-off/

 

0 total marks / Comments

Wednesday, October 28th 2009

7:15 AM

Fr.John Ryan's Distributive Justice: The Right and Wrong of Our Present Distribution of Wealth

0 total marks / Comments

Monday, October 26th 2009

6:34 PM

Update

BACK FROM MY VACATION TO ST. THOMAS-WILL GET AN ARTICLE ON IT SOON, ALSO STILL OWE YOU ALL PARTS 2 AND 3 OF MY TRIPE TO MINNESOTA. PLEASE LOOK INTO THIS GROUP, WILL BE VOLUNTEERING TO GLEAN, BUT NOT RELIGIOUS ACTIVITIES:

 

ENDHUNGAR.ORG (SOCIETY OF ST.ANDREW)

0 total marks / Comments