University of South Carolina Libraries
-opinion. Soviet pipeline :j x:_._ mm us uuiisiutiicmon President Ronald Reagan must consider the consequences of his program of economic sanctions against European firms supplying parts and technology for the trans-Siberian pipeline. He hopes his program will force the Soviet Union to reduce arms expenditures. He will be HicannninfoH r\r? fh?c nnnnf \UUU|/^/Vllll>VU W*? tiHO VV/Utltt His program promises to effect the most change in our allies' perception of America as a fair trading partner and reliable ally. We must first consider Reagan's analysis of the Soviet Union's economic ills. The Soviet system of centrally planned industries succeeds in producing quantity, not quality, goods. Soviet managers have few incentives to improve the quality of their products. There are no market forces to punish those who turn out shoddy goods. Ill the West, firms that manufacture items that do not sell quickly go out of business (or, as with Chrysler, appeal for government protection). Firms manufacturing such goods in the Soviet Union still meet their production quotas. Reagan's analysis of Soviet economic problems is correct. The Soviet economy grows less than 1 percent a year, far below the 6 percent annual growth of the Khrushchev era. Reagan believes the United States can force the Soviet Union to choose between a well-oiled military machine and a happy, well-fed and wellplnthpH r>iti7Pnrv Thi? pnnplncinn ic mictalron Although we can unilaterally wage an economic war against the Soviets, it will be largely at our allies' expense. Reagan has wisely chosen to sell grain to the Soviet Union. Several economic tools are available to Reagan. These include grain and control of technology licenses. Both bear examination. The first tool is American grain sales to the Soviet Union. Soviets import grain from the United States, Canada, Argentina and Australia. Since the Soviets are able to obtain grain from other sources, they will not be seriously hurt by on Amoiti/ton mv?Knnrt/\ am rr?nin TU/i Anln nAAnln an runci twau ciuuai 5U *jii giaui. 111c umjf j;cupic hurt by such an embargo are American farmers in the Midwestern states. The second tool is American control of technology licenses. American firms developed much of the technology necessary for building the trans-Siberian pipeline. Their European subsidiaries are being pressured by the American government not to honor contracts for i.1 1-' me pipeline. Reagan's sanctions are selective. American grain is excluded. European turbines and piping are included. Both American farmers and European engineering firms depend on sales to the Soviet Union. Why should Reagan choose to include only the latter? The United States is less dependent upon foreign trade than the Soviet Union. Although the American government does possess some economic levers (mainly through technology licenses and credits), any attempt to use these levers will damage our relations with Western Europe. We must decide whether the benefits of such policies exceed the costs. -Gamecock ? Editor-in-Chief } Richard Meyers Copy Desk Chief 1 David DeWitt Opinion Page Editor.... Leslie Katz Asst. Copy Desk Chief. . Kay Bender Wire Editor Sydne Waller News Editor John Draun Photo Editor Andy Putnam Asst. News Ed.. Richard Culbertson Asst. Photo Editor John Osborn Asst. News Editor... Forrest Brown General Manager RonEmler Ent. Editor John Vaughan Adviser Mark Ethridge, Jr. Asst. Ent. Editor Chris Handal Ad Manager Linda S. Haines Sports Editor Johnny Boggs Business Manager . .. Jean Hatchell Asst. Sports Editor. . Dennis Switzer Production Manager Mark McEwan Advertising 777-4249 Newsroom 777 7181 Production 777-2833 Business Office 777-3888 The Gamecock welcomes letters and guest editorials. All letters and guest P editorials must he typewritten, triplc-spuced on a 65-space-line. 1 f /,^/iro ?//! Kfl ?A fArir>/>r * ? 9/U1 ~ ~ * - J * * : - -1 ' J L " * I_f o omi/uiu wc 'iv jw wurua unu truiiur cuts anuuui up limited to one newsworthy subject no longer than four typed pages. Letters and guest editorials MUST be signed with the writer's name, telephone number, mailing address, class standing or faculty position and major. Pseudonyms are unacceptable, but the writer's name may be withheld upon request if the circumstances warrant. We reserve the right to edit guest editorials and letters. Address letters and columns to: Opinion Page Editor, Gamecock, Drawer A, USC, Columbia. S C. 29208. / mtw .*A mmebuw r'-vm JSBm 5ENPA MK5A WmSm tmupiHGA* wwt omcr/oN in rf ^fl\ harsh RESULT Sophomore r Editor: Clearly something is amiss, for someone disagrees with me. The specific case is of Mr. Joe Murphy, who criticized my attack on the Gamecock (Oct. 29, 1982). The first fhirift fV*nf f/\ k/> ~ viuiig Mini' iiwvus n/ kiu 041U Id Ulitt U1C Gamecock can never come out "smelling like a rose" ? regardless of my (failure of) argument, the paper continually defames itself by its paltry existence. But on to specific points: First, he claims that I offer no support for my opinions. This is not true. I gave at least three examples, good ones, I might add. The only question of their sufficiency comes with their length, but, of course, I wrote the letter aware of the limitations of its genre, which was neither philosophical tract nor even guest editorial. Second, "nonsense" and "illogical" are not emotional words. Mr. Murphy's ignorance of semantirs is Student oppoj Editor: When I began reading a recent Garrn voter participation, I found myself noddin is very important mat we students realis and we have a voice in government. I stopped nodding when I reached the however. I first objected to the the st ployment, interests rates and inflation high." If you check the news story on the f notice facts pointing to declining interest r It was the next line, however, that reall; "Social and welfare programs have been < Gamecock assumption here is that cuts i are bad. However, it has been the excessiv programs that has expanded the federal d< problems mentioned above. Another thought which comes to mini students favor social programs, anyw; people attend college to gain the educatii 1 A-1 l- - x ma * iui sue cess in me juu marKei. jl nereiore,: be dependent on social programs. Financial Aid 0 Editor: To the students of USC Recently, a guest editorial from Edward M. Elmendorf, deputy assistant secretary for Student Financial Assistance for the United Qtatnc Honapfmant nf PrlnntKnn viiivut vi uuui.aiiwn, appeared in the Gamecock . Mr. Elmendorf outlined the various federal fnancial aid programs available for the 1982-83 academic year, and he explained the recent changes to these programs. We hope you took tjme to read this editorial, for.we feel in general that Mr. Elmendorf provided some valuable information to the students of USC. However, he did not explain "e ^Hi WK&mxm wmm wiNiHmmcE lpsi?| mit At Am TO ? GEToMMlWHOJg |K11 W-GOVRZ PHIlOSOim L W!fl& I mplATICN OF THE $S|HF RFAGAN0M(C5?_. 71 ^?r $Kh\ ^ y~, JW ohnte applies UMU l?f UUWUWI astounding. They refer to qualities of thought, meaningfulness and systematic ordering. "Silly," too, has to do with interpretation of quality of mentality, and though less formal it is no more emotional. What I consider emotional is Mr. Murphy's own telling "argument," "HA," that extremely substantial word. Third, I never said that "the Gamecock prints only stories that are wordy or verbose." I take by "stories" that he means news, which I do not speak about. The news is simply boring. Nor do "wordy" and "verbose," which are redundant, equal "big words" and "heady concepts," which I do claim is the standard of other features of the paper. Fourth, Mr. Murphy claims that "It also seems strange that a student of philosophy would question the media's (sic) purpose for printing an opinion that is not exactly like his own." First, tolerance has never been a prerequisite of philosophy, and I >es excessive? Secondly, those st cock editorial on arkf wi? ha,v.eha 1 g in agreement. It them tosuPP?rt thes< :e our votes count It is really not surp social programs, bee i third paragraph, assistance to attenc atement, "Unem- peopie irom lower-a are disastrously attend college by v ront page, you will gaining G.I. benefits ates and inflation. on merit). Today, y y exasperated me: families feel that the cut to shreds." The This point illustrat in social programs the economic pie. Th eness of these very not large enough to j sbt and created the The practice of defic effect is to lower ever d is, "Why should alternatives to the pr *y?" Presumably, spending, including i an skills necessary which do you choose? students should not ffice provides e that the U.S. Department of Education implemented a validation procedure requiring all applicants prior to June 16, 1982, to provide copies of their and their parents 1981 income tax returns before awards could be authorized. Furthermore, the Department of Education did not issue the 1982-83 official Pell Grant Payment Schedule until classes had already begun. Because of these additional administrative burdens and delays, the Office of Student Financial Aid and Scholarships was unable to process during registration. Despite the confusion and often long lines, your willingness to cooperate ^EP1& MY WIFE'S Jg v f^BVf J itory letter have never been accused of beinf tolerant. Second, tolerance is not the issue. My main point (as stated) was not that Miss Osborn was simply wrong (though she undoubtedly was), but that her thought processes were so muddled and what this fact tells about the Gamecock. Fifth, Mr. Murphy claims my argument is "riddled with selfrevelation," and that I was not aware nf tVlis Mr Murnhv nhvinuclu thinlrc that arguments should not be selfrevelatory. This is false, and I am always aware of its falsity. My argument reveals that I am very rational, with insight into the underlying structure of thought. Mr. Murphy's argument reveals that his semantic skills are benighted and that his judgmental faculites are weak. But what can one expect from someone who approves uf the Gamecock? Arthur L. Williams nL!l L .I - - rnnosupnyjreiiBious studies sophomore aid programs :udents who are successful in the job big chunk of their earnings taken from i programs. rising to see so many students defending ause so many of them depend on federal 1 college. In generations past, young nd middle-income families were able to working, serving in the military (and ;) or qualifying for scholarships (based oung people from financially-strapped government owes them a free ride. es how everyone wants his own piece of e problem is that America's tax base is ustifiably provide a slice for everyone, it spending is irresponsible, because its yone's standard of living. There are two oblem ? raise taxes or cut government social programs. As a future taxpayer, John Stsinbarger Public relations senior idditional facts made our job a great deal easier. We want to express our sincere appreciation for the patience and understanding displayed by each of you. Congress is currently considering legislation governing the student aid programs for 1983-84. Our officials in Washington have expressed some concern over how infrequently they ? r 1-j ?i ? ' < * ncai H um siuaenis. as mey lormuiaie policies and budgets for the 1983-84 school year, you may want to take a moment to write your congressman and senators to express your appreciation for the financial aid you have received. The Staff of the Office of Student v Financial Aid and Scholarships