COMMENT ⊗   VALID 00002 PAGES
C REC  PAGE   DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00002 00002	.require "let.pub" source
C00008 ENDMK
C⊗;
.require "let.pub" source;
∂AIL Mr. Charles McCabe↓%2San Francisco Chronicle%1
↓San Francisco, CA∞

Dear Mr. McCabe:

	I found your July 1 column distressing as I always do when
this country is attacked unfairly and guilt-mongering is
indulged.

	The analogy between the world situation and the upper and
lower decks of a ship is tragically incorrect, if the poor nations
are to be considered analogous to the crew who do the work.
Unfortunately, our suburban standards of living do not depend
on the labor of the starving people of Bangladesh, India and
Africa.  Therefore, there is no way they can get more by increasing
the prices of what they sell us.  The only way they can get more
from us is by direct handout.

	We export to them not only manufactured goods but also
food.  Our major import, oil, doesn't come from the starving
countries; it comes from rich though undeveloped countries.
Their moral case for overcharging for it is far from clear.  We,
the developed West, discovered it, invented the technology
for extracting it and using it, and, since it is a capital
intensive industry, and the capital equipment comes from the
West, even supply the majority of the labor that goes into it.
The prices we pay for oil are enough to give the workers that
directly produce the oil a standard of living far higher than
that of the U.S.

	A case for saying that we live well at the expense of
the poor countries can
only be made by saying that the U.S. has more than its share of
agricultural land and that this land or its fruits must be divided among the
peoples of the world.
Anyone who really wants to share equally with all the people of the
world should favor abolishing our immigration laws.  Then we would have
to share.

	It was formerly true that the poorest people
worked hard for low wages.  Many still work hard for low wages,
but the poorest people, who fit Goldworth's description, both here and abroad,
suffer from non-participation in the economic system
rather than from exploitation by it.  Maybe we
are exploiting the workers of South Korea by buying their cheap
textiles shoes and TVs, but they are advancing so rapidly that their wages will
pass those of Britain by the late 1980s.

	Why these countries don't grow economically is a difficult
question, because countries like Taiwan, starting from just as
low a base, are advancing rapidly.  My opinion is that the middle
.skip to column 1
class success ethic, which allows conscience-free enjoyment of
one's earnings, is an important component of national success.  If
this is so, to the extent that people in these countries believe
that earned wealth is undeserved,  they postpone their own economic
salvation.  To the extent their leaders believe that they can
get more from us, their incentive for capital accumulation is reduced.
We can successfully help any country that is already capable of
accumulating capital, although the country will eventually succeed
even without help.  If the country always consumes all it gets, help can
only relieve distress temporarily.

	The United States was more generous when its economy was expanding
faster.  The failure to grow caused by eco-politics has made everyone
feel poor and become stingy.
One of the best ways to help the poorer countries is to become independent
in energy so we will stop outbidding them for oil.  This will require
overcoming squeamishness about nuclear energy.

.sgn