renner@uiucdcs.CS.UIUC.EDU (01/17/86)
> If a few people control most of the income and the wealth and most > people control nothing then only the wants of the wealthy will be > measured by the market. This is one of the worst flaws of laissez > faire economics. > -- tim sevener (orb@whuts) If a few people control most of the income and wealth, then in practice *any* political system will cater to the wants of these people. This is unavoidable. A "free market" is no better and no worse than anything else in this situation. Scott Renner ihnp4!uiucdcs!renner
dlo@drutx.UUCP (OlsonDL) (01/22/86)
[] >The market is only an accurate measure of people's >ability to provide *money* for their wants, which in turn depends >upon the distribution of income and, more importantly, wealth. >The people starving in Africa and in other Third World countries >throughout the world have one most fundamental want and *need* : >food. Yet because they have no money they count for nothing >in the market. >There have been theoretical economic articles written which demonstrate >that the market is only a reasonable reflection of people's actual >wants *given a relatively equal distribution of income*. >If a few people control most of the income and the wealth and most >people control nothing then only the wants of the wealthy will be >measured by the market. >This is one of the worst flaws of laissez faire economics. > >To put it in Michael's graphic terms - "it only forces people to >put their money where their mouths are *if they have money*". >And anyway what the starving throughout the world really want is >FOOD in their mouths, not money. For agencies like C.A.R.E., World Vision, C.C.F., as well as Live Aid, the appeal has not been for food. i.e. they do not say, "Send us an apple." or "Put some grains of wheat into an envelope and mail them to us." The appeal is for cash money in order to purchase food in the market place. Further, just because there are people in Africa who need food, does not mean that, say, your nutritional needs are any different. i.e. although your risk of starvation may not be as imminent, unless your nutritional needs are met, (pardon the melodrama) you will starve to a death that is just as dead as those in Africa. Yet, I assume that you purchase the food that you eat with the money you make. I assume that the same holds true for your other necessities like energy and shelter. Thus, fulfilling needs (as well as wants) is a market function. Even though many people may not realize it (or even care), their wants and needs most definitely make them count as a part of the market. They are a part of what Adam Smith called the "invisible hand". Another point: your concept of wealth control bothers me. The market is not a zero-sum game. Just because someone became wealthier, does not *necessarily* mean that someone else became poorer. Because some people control more wealth, does not mean that others *must* control less. For instance, I have a garden in my back yard that produces much of the food (a form of wealth) eaten at my home almost all year long. Because my garden flourishes, does not mean that someone else's garden has to perish. Because I control my garden and enjoy food that comes from it, does not mean that someone somewhere in the world has been made hungrier. > tim sevener whuxn!orb My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employer. David Olson ..!ihnp4!drutx!dlo "To laugh at men of sense is the privilege of fools". -- Jean de la Bruyere
berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) (01/22/86)
> > > If a few people control most of the income and the wealth and most > > people control nothing then only the wants of the wealthy will be > > measured by the market. This is one of the worst flaws of laissez > > faire economics. > > -- tim sevener (orb@whuts) > > If a few people control most of the income and wealth, then in practice > *any* political system will cater to the wants of these people. This > is unavoidable. A "free market" is no better and no worse than anything > else in this situation. > > Scott Renner There is still a difference between a system in which wealth means a lot and a system in which wealth means everything. Piotr Berman
franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) (01/23/86)
In article <101500008@uiucdcs> renner@uiucdcs.CS.UIUC.EDU writes: >If a few people control most of the income and wealth, then in practice >*any* political system will cater to the wants of these people. This >is unavoidable. A "free market" is no better and no worse than anything >else in this situation. Well, not quite. A revolutionary political system will generally destroy most of the wealth, instead. (Of course, no political system remains revolutionary for very long, except in name.) Frank Adams ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka Multimate International 52 Oakland Ave North E. Hartford, CT 06108
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (01/24/86)
In article <101500008@uiucdcs> renner@uiucdcs.CS.UIUC.EDU writes: > > If a few people control most of the income and the wealth and most > > people control nothing then only the wants of the wealthy will be > > measured by the market. This is one of the worst flaws of laissez > > faire economics. > > -- tim sevener (orb@whuts) > > If a few people control most of the income and wealth, then in practice > *any* political system will cater to the wants of these people. This > is unavoidable. A "free market" is no better and no worse than anything > else in this situation. The market is not a political system, because income and wealth are only components of power. Political systems need not cater to the wealthy: they need to cater to the sources of their power. That's the whole idea behind democracies (or democratic republics): the recognition that there is real power in mere numbers. Because poor men can kill rich men: it may not be an even ratio, but the worse it gets, the better the chances of the poor. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
dlo@drutx.UUCP (OlsonDL) (01/25/86)
[] >>In <318@drutx.UUCP> David Olson writes in reply to Tim Sevener: >>Another point: your concept of wealth control bothers me. The market >>is not a zero-sum game. Just because someone became wealthier, does not >>*necessarily* mean that someone else became poorer. Because some people >>control more wealth, does not mean that others *must* control less. >>For instance, I have a garden in my back yard that produces much of the >>food (a form of wealth) eaten at my home almost all year long. Because >>my garden flourishes, does not mean that someone else's garden has to >>perish. Because I control my garden and enjoy food that comes from it, >>does not mean that someone somewhere in the world has been made hungrier. >>David Olson >Let me explain the concept of "wealth control" to you, using >your garden-example and expanding it. >Nobody in the world is necessarily hungrier because you control >your garden, but with your decision, whether to let participate >others in the benefits of your garden or not, you make a >difference for those who are involved. The difference might >be negligible for those who don't care or don't depend on your >caring for them; for those who depend on your charity, this >difference is essential. You exercise power over those who >depend on you by deciding how/if/when... you distribute your >goods; Who is this "those who are involved"? As far as I know, nobody worked that garden but me. And, how is it that my garden gives me power over people, when but for me, that garden would not even exist? i.e. would these people be any better or worse off, if I decided not to grow a garden at all? Nonsense. If I chose not to grow a garden, they lose nothing; you cannot lose what never existed. The fact that I grow one, still means that they lose nothing; you cannot lose what is not yours to lose. I have given food to people who were needy; it was my choice to make. But, I am *NOT* required to distribute to them anything. >not everybody is fortunate enough to have a garden... Before I started that garden, what was there consisted mainly of thistle barely growing on dirt that was almost as hard as concrete. I had to use a pickaxe on much of it just to break up the dirt. I finally got it workable and put in some nutrients (mainly organic). It still requires someone (me) to, among other things, till the earth, plant the seed, worry about hail storms, harvest and preserve the food. It probably always will. "fortunate enough to have a garden"? There's more to it than that. >(Note in this context: for everybody whom you give more, somebody >else gets less. The market, that re-distributes >limited resources, is a zero-sum game). Nonsense. If you mean that if *I choose* to give person A more than A already has, then you cannot possibly deduce what (if anything) was given to person B. If you mean that if I choose to give person A more than to person B, B looses nothing. For instance, if I decide to give person A four carrots, but person B three carrots, B has lost nothing. Indeed, B now has three carrots profit. If I did not give either A or B anything, they still lose nothing, since the carrots were not theirs in the first place. Remember, I am not *required* to give them anything, no matter how badly they need it. > Armin Roeseler ...ihnp4!ihlpa!doit >-- Let's look at things in a global context. > Let's move our gardens out into the world. What's this "Let's" and "our" crap? I have given food to people that needed it. You had nothing to do with it; you have no say in the matter! My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employer. David Olson ..!ihnp4!drutx!dlo "To laugh at men of sense is the privilege of fools". -- Jean de la Bruyere
tonyw@ubvax.UUCP (Tony Wuersch) (01/27/86)
>The market is not a political system, because income and wealth are only >components of power. Political systems need not cater to the wealthy: they >need to cater to the sources of their power. That's the whole idea behind >democracies (or democratic republics): the recognition that there is >real power in mere numbers. Because poor men can kill rich men: it >may not be an even ratio, but the worse it gets, the better the chances >of the poor. >-- >Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh Too cynical, Mike. If the power of numbers were all that were needed for democracy, China would have been a democracy for thousands of years. And there hasn't been enough historical time to tell if democracy is the most stable or successful answer to a "recognition" that there is "real power" (whatever that is) in mere numbers. I thought democracy was an evolution of the ideas of the Enlightenment to industrial society. The Enlightenment broke the way open to make democracy a new legitimate way of running states. Until WWII, it was one of a number of different ways of governing which were followed by industrialized states. Then WWII militarily defeated and broke up the fascist and imperialist-colonial modes of governance, leaving democracy as perhaps the only remaining modes of legitimate governance left to capitalist states. The power of the ideas behind democracy is that they set up a standard which states claiming to be democratic have to fulfill or lose the label. Most of that standard evolved from the US Constitution, British parliamentary history, and the Code Napoleon of France. Today, democracy thrives because the democratic countries control the world pursestrings, so nations wanting international legitimacy try hard to conform to a world system run by democratic states expecting to see their democratic models emulated worldwide. I don't think it's right any more to say that states become democratic because they are "adapting to internal developments". No, they're adapting to internal developments in a way that will be ratified by the Western industrialized countries as fair and appropriate. Tony Wuersch {amdcad!cae780, amd}!ubvax!tonyw
franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) (01/29/86)
In article <362@drutx.UUCP> dlo@drutx.UUCP (OlsonDL) writes: >>not everybody is fortunate enough to have a garden... > >Before I started that garden, what was there consisted mainly of >thistle barely growing on dirt that was almost as hard as concrete. >I had to use a pickaxe on much of it just to break up the dirt. >I finally got it workable and put in some nutrients (mainly organic). >It still requires someone (me) to, among other things, till the earth, >plant the seed, worry about hail storms, harvest and preserve the food. >It probably always will. "fortunate enough to have a garden"? There's >more to it than that. Yes, but not everybody has a place to put a garden. There's more to it than being fortunate enough, but being fortunate enough is part of it. Frank Adams ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka Multimate International 52 Oakland Ave North E. Hartford, CT 06108
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (02/03/86)
In article <411@ubvax.UUCP> tonyw@ubvax.UUCP (Tony Wuersch) writes: > >The market is not a political system, because income and wealth are only > >components of power. Political systems need not cater to the wealthy: they > >need to cater to the sources of their power. That's the whole idea behind > >democracies (or democratic republics): the recognition that there is > >real power in mere numbers. Because poor men can kill rich men: it > >may not be an even ratio, but the worse it gets, the better the chances > >of the poor. > > Too cynical, Mike. If the power of numbers were all that were needed for > democracy, China would have been a democracy for thousands of years. And > there hasn't been enough historical time to tell if democracy is the > most stable or successful answer to a "recognition" that there is > "real power" (whatever that is) in mere numbers. You misunderstand. There is power in mere numbers: however it is diffuse, inefficient, and weak compared to more direct and brutal forms of power. In order to observe weak forces, one must control for stronger forces. In colonial America, the abundance of essentially free resources and sparse population diverted attention from power over people to exploitation of the resources. Oppressive government just didn't pay well when the governed could just up and move far enough away that it was inefficient to govern them. This hasn't been the case in China during recorded history, so it's not surprising that democracy didn't arise there. The wisdom of our system lies in the amplification of democratic force through a traditional bureaucratic system. This allows us peak power while retaining responsiveness and subtlety of control. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
tonyw@ubvax.UUCP (Tony Wuersch) (02/05/86)
In article <923@cybvax0.UUCP> mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes: >In order to observe weak forces, one must control for stronger forces. Now here, I think, is a real insight about democratic systems. In the modern era, where sparse population is not such a spur to democracy, a democratic state has to be strong in two ways: strong enough to restrict its own power to the supervision and not the influence of a democratic procedure, and strong enough to inhibit other forces which would distort or undermine democratic processes. But these are ideal guidelines which democratic states can only aspire to, since they tend to interact with and contradict each other in real operation. As far as the US goes, my own complaint has not been with its democratic systems (aside from distortions of voter eligibility), but with the extremely narrow range of topics which are considered in an American context as matters to be decided by democratic means. Where economic matters are concerned, the relationships between crucial economic institutions -- the federal executive, the Federal Reserve, major corporations -- seem to me incredibly bureaucratic and insulated by law and convention from any popular recall or revision. The supposed need for a separation of economic management from politics has always seemed to me an excuse to keep voters uninformed and infantile where US national economic issues are concerned. Latin countries in debt have much closer relationships between government economic policy and popular opinion than the US, even in semi-democracies like Brazil. >The wisdom of our system lies in the amplification of democratic force >through a traditional bureaucratic system. This allows us peak power >while retaining responsiveness and subtlety of control. >-- > >Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh I tend to see the world today as in conflict involving bureaucracies, economies, and democracies. There are systems where the democracy is an appendage to the bureaucracy, and some where the reverse also holds. And there are systems where the economy comes out on top, for instance Singapore and Hong Kong. I'm a democrat, so I think the balance of power and the ability to make enforceable decisions should rest in the democratic elements of a national system. But I see the states which have this capacity as the Western European ones, and eventually some Latin American states. As far as effective democracy goes, the US seems to me an overbuilt economic and bureaucratic dinosaur in contrast. A cult of national destiny and leadership plus economic abandonment masked as laissez faire theory isn't democratic, it's just indolent. And the direction of a resurgent militarized US isn't democratic either. Western European nations may be a little slower, but they know that no democratic society would vote for economic growth by wage cuts, which is what the "democratic" US has "voted" for as its great plan of economic recovery ????? Tony Wuersch {amdcad!cae780, amd}!ubvax!tonyw
berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) (02/11/86)
> .......... > As far as effective democracy goes, the US seems to me an overbuilt > economic and bureaucratic dinosaur in contrast. A cult of national > destiny and leadership plus economic abandonment masked as laissez > faire theory isn't democratic, it's just indolent. And the direction > of a resurgent militarized US isn't democratic either. > > Western European nations may be a little slower, but they know that > no democratic society would vote for economic growth by wage cuts, > which is what the "democratic" US has "voted" for as its great plan > of economic recovery ????? > > Tony Wuersch Tony is exagerating. For example, Italians voted (i.e. government encouraged unions to vote that way) to relax the mechanism of "scala mobile", which in US means COLA, to increase Italian competetiveness and so to restore economic growth. This is nothing else but growth by wage cuts. I admit that in the long run the idea is absurd: growth should increase individual wealth, not decrease. But in the short run it may mean a necessary correction. (This is at least what Italians seemed to believe.) Piotr Berman
tonyw@ubvax.UUCP (Tony Wuersch) (02/13/86)
In article <1997@psuvax1.UUCP> version B 2.10.3 alpha 4/15/85; site ubvax.UUCP version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site psuvax1.UUCP ubvax!cae780!amdcad!decwrl!decvax!bellcore!ulysses!burl!clyde!cbosgd!ukma!psuvm.bitnet!psuvax1!berman berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) writes: >> Western European nations may be a little slower, but they know that >> no democratic society would vote for economic growth by wage cuts, >> which is what the "democratic" US has "voted" for as its great plan >> of economic recovery ????? >> >> Tony Wuersch > >Tony is exagerating. For example, Italians voted (i.e. government >encouraged unions to vote that way) to relax the mechanism of "scala >mobile", which in US means COLA, to increase Italian competetiveness >and so to restore economic growth. This is nothing else but growth >by wage cuts. > >I admit that in the long run the idea is absurd: growth should increase >individual wealth, not decrease. But in the short run it may mean >a necessary correction. (This is at least what Italians seemed to >believe.) > >Piotr Berman I didn't know about the Italian case -- thanks, Piotr. My point was that rather than putting such matters up to a vote of some sort, the US right wing prefers to place economic policy outside the jurisdiction of democracy, as much as it can. There certainly are times when austerity is necessary, but I would hope the population of the US is responsible enough to agree about the threat and some solution via democratic channels, instead of being left out of the process by right wing and business interests who prefer bureaucratic power. As to Italy, the system is very complicated and I'd expect the motives to be more arcane than "to restore Italian competitiveness". Which Italian competitiveness -- Fiat? Italy has the fastest growth rate in Europe, based on the Northern Italian underground economy. Maybe the unions wanted to make a deal whereby Fiat would continue to be restricted from using underground suppliers in exchange for an end to COLAs, which don't mean much in a non-inflationary world economy. But this is just speculation -- Piotr may well be right there. Italy slipped through my mind when I thought of Western Europe. Tony Wuersch {amdcad!cae780,amd}!ubvax!tonyw