On canikickit's point on Nice leading to a more prosperous economy...
The Blanket
August 30, 2002
The Oldest Profession
Eoghan O’Suilleabhain
During The Middle Ages, tens of thousands of people all across Europe
were wiped out by the bubonic plague. Included in The Black Death toll
were thousands of craftsmen whose decrease in population increased the
labour value of the surviving craftsmen engendering powerful Medieval
Guilds capable of negotiating far better monetary arrangements for their
living members thus serving as a precursor of sorts for today’s Labour
Unions.
The above paragraph is standard Chapter One reading in just about any
Labour Economics or History textbook for the sole pedagogic purpose of
driving home the irrefutable point about how wages or prices are
determined by the market forces of supply and demand. That is, if demand
for any goods or services exceeds their supply, then prices or wages
will rise. Likewise, if the supply of any goods or services exceeds
demand for same, then prices or wages will fall. The current Dublin
housing market is a good real world example of this long tried and
tested economic axiom: too few houses and apartments (i.e. supply) for
the population that wants and needs to be served (i.e. demand) means
prices and rents for same will rise as they have.
This is one of the major reasons why multi-national business
corporations push for the making and enlarging of free trade zones. It
gives them greater access to an ever larger supply of cheaper labour as
the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) did for US companies in
Mexico and as the Treaty of Nice will do for the EU in Eastern Europe.
Not surprisingly, much of the usual corporate sponsored politicians,
academics and media pundits in the US denied this reality for the
benefit of their pro-NAFTA business johns. It is like the oldest
profession: politicians, professors and the press, like prostitutes,
will say and do things for money that they would not otherwise say and
do for free.
Enter Exhibit A: Dick Roche, current Irish Minister of State for
European Affairs. Prior to that appointment he was the Minister of State
at the Department of Taoiseach where he once upon a time was asked his
views about the second running of the Treaty of Nice and he responded as
follows: “It would be an affront to democracy.”
Now comfortably ensconced in his new position like a high priced call
girl for European Affairs he lashes out today at the No to Nice camp
with his very own guest editorial entitled “No Camp argument suffers
fundamental flaws” (The Sunday Business Post, August 18, 2002, at page
n24). In it Roche attacks Justin Barrett of the No to Nice campaign and
Professor Anthony Coughlan of the National Platform for putting forward
false assertions about Ireland’s position on the free movement of
workers such as making “…baseless allegations about jobs and wage
levels.”
Specifically, Roche claims: “Coughlan’s assertion that the influx of
foreign workers will drive down wages in Ireland, because wages are
determined in his words ‘by the law of supply and demand’ is nonsense.
Even his own political allies have discredited the claim.” (emphasis
added).
Notice big Dick didn’t say “his own economic allies” because that would
have to include the entire Economics profession, or at least those
Economists who aren’t in any way sponsored by Multi-National Corporate
johns. And think about just how much money Big Business would have to
pay an Economist anywhere to publicly mutter “Voila! Wages are not
determined by the law of supply and demand.” For any Economist to say or
write this would be professional suicide. They could never for instance
work again as expert witnesses in legal cases because the cross
examination of their proffered expert credentials would always go
something like so:
Attorney: “So Professor Twatsky, you say you’ve been a
Professional Economist for the last 20 years, numerous
publications, research and teaching assignments, all well
and good, but tell me Sir, did you ever write or say that
wages in free market economies are not determined by the
law of supply and demand?”
Economist: “Yes.”
Attorney: “Oh, then what pray tell does determine wages or prices in
a free market economy if not the free market forces of
supply and demand?”
Economist: “Hominahominah.”
With all due respect to the late Jackie Gleason, but what else could
such a compromised Economist say? Except for prostitution, politics &
free market media punditry, once you sell your soul like that, you’re
pretty much finished in most other professions. You become a laughing
stock because you can no longer be credible in your allegations or
assertions about reality, economic or otherwise. But pundits and
politicians, like prostitutes, aren’t here on this Earth to describe
reality for the rest of us. As The Baffler Magazine Editor Thomas Frank
points out about the so called New Economy theory (capitalist ideologue)
pundits who seem impervious to the usual consequences of error:
“…generating an accurate picture of economic life really wasn’t their
main function.” (The Guardian Weekend, August 17, 2002, at page 23)
(Emphasis added).
Political propagandising was! Since: “Their trade was politics…New
Economic theory was less an objective assessment of our situation than a
world class hustle by a political movement that believed it was very
close to winning the game. --- In such circumstances… objective
wrongness doesn’t matter. Propaganda does. Money walks while bullshit
just talks and talks and talks.” (Ibid, at page 24) (Emphasis added).
Although Thomas Frank was analysing political pundits in service to
corporate power, the same analysis works when studying the behaviour and
sayings of politicians in service to the same corporate powers. How else
do you explain Dick Roche’s utter nonsense that wages aren’t determined
by supply and demand? If only 1% of the 75 million or so people in the
EU applicant states of Eastern Europe decided to come to Ireland
(legally or illegally), that would mean finding housing, jobs or some
kind of subsistence (dole or criminal) for 75,000 new people. If 2%
came, then for 150,000 new people. And if 3% came, well, do the math.
Now you know why Fianna Fail Foreign Minister Brian Cowen waived
Ireland’s right to restrict immigration from the 75 million citizens of
candidate countries for a period of up to seven years. Cheaper labour
moving west will depress existing wage structures here just as surely as
dying craftsmen during The Middle Ages increased it. And the only way
around this reality is to deny it like a liar for hire. No wonder IBEC
supports enlargement and such things as “flexible labour markets” (i.e.
weakened labour unions or none at all).
Cowen and Roche are both just manifestations of the same law of
political gravity that says law follows politics and politics follows
economics. They know who brought them and it wasn’t we. Hence their
second referendum on the Treaty of Nice and all of our need to say no to
it once again since it is imperative for the future of Ireland and other
small nations. We simply cannot let their hustle win this game!
So please, if you feel the same way, contact among others the NO TO NICE
CAMPAIGN at 60a Capel Street, Dublin 1. Telephone: (01) 874 - 6858. Fax:
(01) 873 - 0464. Web: www.no2nice.org & Email:
[email protected]
And fight the power!