[OFB Cafe] lightening

[saki]

Peter Hollings wrote:
> Well, fine, suppose I accept all your assumptions and conclusions 
> including an expected result of the policies that we will experience a 
> "a relative diminution in our standard of living ".  The question I am 
> asking is if a) this was sold to us as a desirable policy outcome, or b) 
> this was an outcome concealed from us in the interest of attaining it 
> for the benefit of narrow interests.
> 

I don't, by nature, tend towards conspiracy theories, and I see no 
reason for one here. I think that each person/company makes rational (as 
possible) decisions based upon what is known about what is, or believed 
to be, at any given point in time.

These decisions may be about one's personal life (Shall I marry this 
woman, buy this house etc.,), or about business (Open a new shop, buy 
these shares, expand abroad). All these (except for those made for 
purely altruistic reasons), I suggest are driven by the desire for 
advantage or perceived advantage, and these decisions are not 
co-ordinated with, or communicated to the wider community for obvious 
reasons.

OTOH governments may shape policies for economic reasons such as trade 
barriers, and economic support for certain industries (The USA and the 
EU are examples of these), and to the extent that these match your 
comments above I have to agree with you.

I don't agree with the whole of b), as I do not think that generally the 
outcomes of business decisions remain hidden for long- the factory is 
built abroad, job losses are announced etc., but as in life generally, 
there is often an advantage in not broadcasting all you know until the 
outcome is confirmed. (Try playing poker with all the cards face up! 
Sorry, a very trivial example)

But of course, even if not concealed for the reasons you give, the end 
result is usually to the benefit of those who have sought that advantage.

Terence