re: Requests for comments

To Gerd Kohler:
Thanks for your prompt answer. As a newcomer to this group, I suppose that
its main purpose is discussing ways to address the shortcomings of the
present system governing our societies.
In our time most serious topics a left to academic professionals, who have
achieved incredible progress in science, technology and many other fields,
but as to the problems of our Society, their record leaves much to be
desired. They seen to be as influenced by ideological bias and personal
prejudice as the rest of us and I therefore beg to suggest, that in our
discussions, we should try to rely as much as possible on logic and common
sense. 

Coming back to my opening line, I suggest to call your attention upon the
failure of looking for a PRUDENT BALANCE between contrasting interest and
extremist viewpoints and the believe, that confrontation is the best way
for resolving conflicts. 

Examples:
1. Concerns for economic productivity vs. concerns for general welfare
(e.g.: social peace and a fair distribution of wealth).
2. Keynesian vs. neoliberal economics.
3. Protectionism vs. globalization and complete freedom o trade.

Though the first item is certainly the most important, we might have more
chances of getting ahead on the second and third item. In order not to tax
group's members patience, I shall today present my arguments as a summary
only.

A. KEYNESIAN VS. NEOLIBERAL ECONOMICS:
Why was Keynesianism abandoned after having helped to achieve an
unprecedented level of prosperity in most of the First World?  In my
opinion it happened, because politicians started to stimulate economies at
the wrong time, in order to win elections, thereby discrediting the whole
scheme.
But since the blind trust in the market has not been quite as successful as
the Chicago boys want us to believe and since the memory of the great
depression of the thirties is still with us, we should try to find out,
whether the principles of Lord Keynes could become effective again. Reagan
proclaimed: "Government cannot solve problems; Government IS the problem"
and this argument is not entirely wrong. What is needed is to give a great
priority to the search for checks and balances, capable of avoiding  the
human failings of politicians, something we might try to discuss.

B. PROTECTIONISM VS. GLOBALIZATION AND COMPLETE FREEDOM OF TRADE:
The progressive liberalization of trade during the second half of this
century, enabled many countries to use their comparative advantages in
order to achieve a very high degree of prosperity. But lately the
relentless pursuit of further liberalizing and globalizing trade has
brought persistent trade deficits to many industrialized countries, causing
loss of manufacturing jobs, reduced income for industries and their the
work-force, plus lower tax intakes and other economic problems for
governments. 
This proves that pushing such views to extreme limits might be
counterproductive.
Some countries have taken protective measures in a piecemeal fashion, such
as quotas, demanding sanitary specifications or promoting the export of
some individual products, but their success was rather limited. Therefore
some politicians propose a return to a more extreme form of protectionism,
which would involve a massive reduction of trade and might bring about a
depression (remember the thirties!).

What is needed is finding a middle way between conflicting interests, maybe
based on the  idea that TRADE CAN ONLY BE REASONABLY FREE, IF IT IS ALSO
REASONABLY BALANCED, while still maintaining the principle that WHENEVER
POSSIBLE, GOODS SHOULD BE PRODUCED, WHERE IT CAN BE DONE MORE CHEAPLY. In
that way one could maintain or even increase the present prosperity in the
first world, while also promoting progress in developing countries.

Looking forward for comments, I should like to defend my arguments in lore
detail.

Greetings               Paul Riesz.