17,1991
iys
etting drug
tion habit;
often lead
ograms.
ly critical d
rontrol Pol
f ignore (lit
5 abuse ant
res to fieli!
Opinion
[ Wednesday, August 7,1991 —— - The
Page 5|
ION
Is
-ia — Yu-
Tuesday
in Croatia
the war-
bide by a
jg news
cease-fire
at 6 a.m.
DT Tues-
ig parties
t of firing
re
ites
e Federal
ay that it
interest
onomists
escue ef-
rom slip-
>W
lewsman
elegant
elf-effac-
:BS’ "60
one of
• shows,
said. He
Norwalk
i. He had
ice June
a blood
he also
it
ies
ido
P) - A
me of the
World of
day after
ill over-
ie marine
O-pound
i others
inder the
: Shamil
j through
and had
laid Brad
ice presi-
tions.
healthy/
jws said’
acting a
d of the
is Kenan,
! respira-
Andrews
■xtremel) 1
omewhai
ited with
ool when
God, not greed,
made U.S. great
Self-interest shouldn't justify
improvements in social welfare
'Greed — for lack of a better word —
is good. Greed is right. Greed works.
Greed clarifies, cuts through and
:aptures the essence of the
•evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all its
forms ... has marked the upward surge
of mankind, and greed ... will not only
save Teldar Paper, but that other
malfunctioning corporation called the
USA."
— Michael Douglas, as Gordon
Gekko, in "Wall Street"
"What is the source of quarrels and
conflicts among you? Is not the source
your pleasures that wage war in your
E embers? You lust and do not have; so
m commit murder. And you are
envious and cannot obtain; so you, fight
and quarrel."
— James 4:1-3
Tim Truesdale
Columnist
w,
ill selfish greed be
the salvation of the United States, or its
destruction? Obviously, opinions
differ. However, both sides agree that
greed is an important force in
capitalistic economies. And most
observers agree that the United States
is currently a capitalistic country. But
just what is capitalism?
In his best seller "The Wealth of
Nations," Adam Smith explained
capitalism in terms of an "invisible
hand". This hand causes people to
spend their lives trying to satisfy their
own selfish interests. Smith claimed
that if each of us subjected ourselves to
greed, we would produce a virtual
heaven on Earth. Production and
wealth would she maximized, and
society would be much better off.
This utopia could be attributed to
everyone acting in the most greedy
way possible, maximizing profits. If
Smith was indeed correct, then greed
must certainly be reclassified from
cardinal sin to virtue.
Does this system actually work in the
long run, away from the textbooks? If
you think the S&L scandal has
benefited our country, then you would
have to agree that greed is good. If you
believe greed has "marked the upward
surge of mankind," then you must
agree that rising drug addiction and
alcoholism rates (both of which are
supplied at tremendous profits) are
beneficial to our society. Greed leads to
corruption and degradation, not
honesty and wholeness.
Some of the problems we face in 1991
are not all that different from the
issues in 1776. National
competition from other superpowers is
still concern, as Michael Douglas'
character pointed but in "Wall Street."
But placing ourselves under the
invisible hand of greed is seen as the
solution to problems away from Wall
Street, as well. A survey of recent
Battalion issues reveals the following
answers to national crises:
□ In last Tuesday's paper, one
columnist pointed out that, "We need
to educate the state's poor, too."
Although there are many good reasons
to do so, the columnist provides only
one: selfish interest. The columnist
points out that unless we educate "all
of our students," the United States will
fall behind in the world market.
□ A column appearing last Friday
suggested that "organized activities for
today's youths will help solve gang
problem." This column did a great job
of explaining how inner city boredom
leads to "doing drugs, stealing and
shooting ..." The columnist points out
that "our society needs to focus more
time, energy and money on its young
people." But when she gets around to
explaining why society should fund
these much-needed programs, she
offers only one reason to do so:
selfishness. She points out that it will
probably cost more in the long run to
build prisons than keep inner city
youth occupied.
□ Another Friday column claimed
that "Education can save future of
economy." The columnist proposes a
sound program. However, the only
reason he gives for us to consider it is
because the alternatives are limited to
supporting "one-fourth of our
population through our welfare system
or let the poor become a permanent —
and dangerous — underclass."
Each of these writers claims we are
currently too absorbed in selfish
interests to solve domestic problems.
Then each of them go on to say that we
should be greedy enough to implement
the solutions. Fight greed with greed.
On the other hand, both the Bible
and common sense agree that greed
produces weakness and instability, not
strength and security.
So, how has our country prospered
for so long while based on capitalism,
whose roots lie in greed? The point is
that THE UNITED STATES HAS NOT
ALWAYS BEEN AN ADAM SMITH
CAPITALISTIC NATION!
In capitalism, all actions are directed
by the invisible hand of selfish interest.
However, early American settlers
knew nothing of an invisible hand, but
trusted fully in the hand of Providence.
They felt that by putting their efforts
in God's hands, He would provide for
them. It was not a disgrace to be poor.
But it was a disgrace to stop short of
doing one's best. To do so would be to
rob God. Likewise, if someone in the
community had a need, others
provided for his needs. Not for selfish
reasons, but just because it was the
right thing to do.
But, since nowadays we prefer not to
"believe in anything that cannot be
seen," we have rejected God in favor of
the invisible hand. (If anyone has an
explanation for this hypocrisy. I'd sure
like to hear it.) And if you think God is
unjust, take a look around and see the
havoc that can be wrought on a nation
by the invisible hand of selfish
interest.
Tim Truesdale is a graduate student in
urban planning.
Call
The Battalion is interested in hearing from its readers and welcomes all letters to the editor. Please include name, classification,
address and phone number on all letters. The editor reserves the right to edit letters for style and length. There is no guarantee
letters will appear. Letters may be brought to 216 Reed McDonald, sent to Campus Mail Stop 1111 or can be faxed to 845-5408.
U.S. intervention is wrong
EDITOR:
As a student in a Mexican university, a history profes
sor repeated to us a phrase that has become a very familiar
slogan: "Those who do not learn from the past are destined
to repeat it." It is with this in mind that I respond to Tim
Truesdale's column "Uncle Sam must look south again."
Tim endorses the concept that U.S. intervention into
the domestic affairs of independent Latin American coun
tries is not only acceptable, but actually a moral imper
ative. This idea is not new; quite the contrary, it has
shaped American foreign policy toward Latin American
countries almost since these nations began to sever these
ties with their parent country, Spain. And there has never
been a shortage of men who, in a Truesdale-like analysis,
have been ready to explain why past interventions were
wrong and present intervention is not.
The now-infamous Monroe Doctrine was written with
this type of reasoning. European intervention is unaccep
table, but American intervention is fully justified. And the
United States has intervened in more instances than we
care to remember. When Colombia, for example, refused
to allow the American government to dig what would have
been the "Colombian Canal," the United States sponsored
a revolution whose army was comprised of volunteer fire
fighters who declared a new nation of Panama and
promptly sold the land to the United States. While Tim
may now assert that this was "not a case of good paren
ting," the American participants at the time would have
countered that the construction of the canal is obviously in
the best interests of all American countries.
And where has this intervention brought us? Tim is
correct in stating that "the United States is not one among
equals in the Organization of American States." We are the
most powerful and the most distrusted among OAS mem
ber nations. OAS members will rarely openly support
American intervention of any kind; to do so would make
gaining OAS support against the United States difficult in
possible future intervention in their own countries.
Most Americans would be surprised to learn that the
majority of the Mexican population seriously believes the
United States has plans to forcefully take control of Mexico
at some unspecified future date, either by military or eco
nomic means. As one Mexican put it, "This is not said, but
it is believed." Nearly all of those with whom I discussed
this topic during my nine-month stay in Mexico agreed
with the above statement. This belief underlies Latin atti
tudes toward the United States, and has been strength
ened by our recent interventions in Grenada and Panama.
This is where our intervention in Grenada and Panama has
brought us.
Finally, we must realize that Latin American countries
are NOT our children nor are they our nephews NOR DO
THEY WANT TO BE. They are independent, self-govern
ing nations who gained their freedom from Spain and its
imposed governments through the sacrifices and deaths of
their own patriots and their own citizens, without the aid
of neighboring United States. We did not spawn them, and
we cannot claim any parental status, responsibilities or
privileges over them; neither does our high standard of liv
ing or the freedoms that exist here give us this status.
Our credibility in the Latin American community is low
— it can only be bolstered by allowing these nations to re
tain the complete self-determination we expect for our
selves.
Christopher Lee Medlin '92
Thanks go out to Aggies
EDITOR:
"Asa graduate of a rural school, Annapolis, I would like
to say thank you to the fine students, professors and staff
I've spent this past year with. Aggies are very special.
There's Charles Gibson, a foodservice handler at Sbisa
and Mark, his manager and the other hard working ded
icated workers. Thanks, Sbisa! The food was great, espe
cially on those special nights — creole, German! Amazing
that so much food, especially fruit, was available at such a
low price.
There are the two Davids, Linda (bet it's a girl!), Hal,
Mel and beautiful Sarah at the LRD in the Library. Thanks
staff. A died-in-the wool IBM user before, now, thanks to
the helpful coaching of the LRD staff, a Mac convert. Great
Product!
Thanks, also, to Martha, Cain pool's capable manager,
who made the best of a difficult situation. With the main
filter pump broken in the fall — shutting down the outdoor
pool — for fitting - in recreational pool hours in every con
ceivable time space in the indoor pool.
Finally thanks to my fellow economics graduate stu
dents, especially those from Korea, especially Seung-Luon
Kang and Yunho Lee. We had a good time. And learned.
As I board a Continental Airlines airplane next Thurs
day, from Easterwood, returning me to my family. I'll have
my fondest memories yet in my total of ten years here.
You current Aggies are the best I've been with. You are
smarter, friendlier, healthier and the coeds more beautiful
than any of your predecessors since 1968.
And next year at Kyle Field, against t.u.. I'll be cheering
you on. 1991 — my graduation year and the year we go to
the Cotton Bowl!Go Aggies! Gig 'em Horns.
Gibbs Digrell
economics graduate
Budget cuts would he catastrophic for Texas higher education
JDY
or
an
who
T,
se, VIP
study,
will be
J
he Texas House
Representatives has passed an
Appropriations Bill that would create a
budget catastrophe for the University
of Texas at Austin and Texas A&M
University and deal a devastating blow
to high-quality education in Texas.
The bill would deprive UT Austin
and Texas A&M of more than one-
fourth of the state funding needed just
to maintain current services. It would
destroy the institutions as they are
known today and would set them on
the road toward mediocrity.
Texans through the years have
wisely provided for a diverse system of
higher education that includes
different kinds of colleges and
universities serving different needs.
Two of the state's major
comprehensive universities — UT
Austin and Texas A&M — have
| achieved truly international standing.
They offer a mil range of
undergraduate and graduate programs
of the highest quality, conduct world-
class advanced research in numerous
fields and provide services to citizens
of
Dr. William H. Cunningham
and Dr. William H. Mobley
Guest Columnists
all across the state.
They are also major engines driving
the state's economic development and
diversification, as attested by their
roles in attracting MCC, Sematech and
the Superconducting Super Collider.
And they are among the nation's
leaders in attracting private and federal
research funds, which benefit the
entire state.
Our concern is not to cry foul or
protect a vested interest, but to make it
clear the extent and destructiveness of
the House bill. The consequences
should be clearly understood. The bill
would cut UT Austin's current level of
appropriations by $100 million and
A&M's by $70 million during the next
two years.
Compared with the funding level
required to maintain current services
for the next two years, UT Austin
would lose approximately $106 million
in General Revenue appropriations and
A&M would lose approximately $94
million. ("Current services" means the
current level of funding adjusted for
the actual growth in student
enrollment and related educational
facilities since the last appropriations
period.)
The bill prescribes much more drastic
reductions for UT Austin and A&M
than for other institutions. It requires
overall cuts of $245 million in the
current services budget for the next
two years at the state's 35 senior
colleges and universities.
Schools with less than 10,000
students would face a budget cut of 2
percent, while schools with
enrollments between 10,000 and 37,500
would face cuts of 3 percent. Schools
with more than 37,500 (only UT Austin
and A&M fall in this category) would
be required to absorb all the rest of the
$245 million in cuts. That would be a 26
percent cut at both UT Austin and
Texas A&M.
This plan is inherently inequitable.
and it is bad public policy. UT Austin
and A&M, which together enroll 22.4
percent of the students at Texas public
senior colleges and universities, would
be burdened with 81 percent of the
total budget cuts among those
institutions. Texans should seek to
strengthen all institutions of higher
education, rather than tearing down
two of the state's most comprehensive
universities.
We at UT Austin and A&M
understand very well the serious
budget problems faced by the state and
stand ready to do our fair part to help
legislators and other public officials
deal with those problems. But our two
institutions cannot fairly be expected to
do their share and everyone else's
share as well.
The House bill would effectively
deny to the people of Texas the option
of maintaining these institutions at the
highest level. Many of Texas' best and
brightest students would be forced to
go outside the state to obtain the type
of education that has been available at
UT Austin and Texas A&M. They will
find significantly higher costs outside
the state, and the long-term costs to
Texas will be enormous, as many of the
young people who go elsewhere in
search of opportunity will not return.
Since the founding of the Republic of
Texas, the visionary and practical
citizens of Texas have aspired to
develop universities of the highest
quality. This aspiration has been
visionary because education enriches
and ennobles all of society, and it has
been thoroughly practical because
education is the only sound foundation
for personal and societal advancement.
Today, UT Austin and Texas A&M
embody that aspiration, but all that has
been achieved can be destroyed quickly
in the extremely competitive world of
higher education. The House
Appropriations Bill is a pernicious
proposal that threatens to undo, almost
overnight, everything that generations
of Texans have labored to build at these
two magnificent institutions.
Dr. William H. Cunningham is
president of the University of Texas at
Austin, and Dr. William H. Mobley is
president of Texas A&M University.