mcgeer@ucbvax.ARPA (Rick McGeer) (01/01/70)
In article <1808@psuvax1.UUCP> berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) writes: >> In article <1231@ihlpg.UUCP> tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) writes: >> >> >[Piotr Berman] >> >> >The most general law is that the market has a tendency >> >> >toward equilibrium: the demand stimulates the prices up, the supply >> >> >stimulates the prices down. Increase of prices may stimulate the >> >> >production, decrease may stimulate removing marginal producers from >> >> >the market. The real problem is that the equilibrium does not imply >> >> >superior fulfillment of social needs. >> >------- >> >> [Rick McGeer] >> >> This is a common statement of leftwingers, and it is completely >> >> meaningless. What are "social needs"? Who sets them? >> >> Why are the demands met by the market >> >> not an adequate reflection of the generalized demands of society, if such >> >> things in fact exist? And how do you propose to measure how well or badly >> >> any system of organizing society meets "social needs"? When, or if, you >> >> can answer these questions, then we'll have something to talk about. Until >> >> then, you're just flaming. >> >-------- >> >Unbelievabe. First, there is the unwarranted ad-hominem characterization >> >of Piotr Berman as a leftwinger, because he thinks there are social needs. >> >By that standard, even Ronald Reagan is a left-winger. >> >> C'mon. I hardly think Piotr is terribly upset at being called a leftwinger, >> for two reasons: ............... > >1. I am not offended to be called "leftwinger" by Rick. Seems that it >means that I am not "to the right of Attilla the Hun", which indeed is >the case. Cheap shot? Actually, Attila, Hitler, Napoleon, Stalin, and Mao all look pretty much alike to me -- statists prepared to justify any crime in the name of their cause. Or, better put, Attila was a leftwinger. Indeed, the only true righty in all of history was Old Tom Jefferson, a man who realized that you have to jump on the state with both feet and beat on it. >As far as "social needs" are concerned, these are simply needs >of people, period. Skip "social" and read the sentence again. >In fact, in one of your postings you wrote > The consumption of small computers is an excellent example: > the demand for their product, information, existed and was > largely unmet -- as witness the (then- existing) demand for > a host of substitute products. >I am using the word "need", you say "demand". (The purpose of this >quote is to show how demand is use in respect to an abstract notion >which is not easily quantified, like information.) You prefer to >discuss demand and measure it in amount of money that people are >ready to offer. I prefer to talk about needs and measure it in the >number of people who desire it (it may be recreation, health care etc.) Sorry, this really is flaming. My needs involve a large harem, a massive estate, a truly spectacular collection of wines, original editions of all the great philosophical works. You going to provide them? >and their level of satisfaction with the current availability. I ain't satisfied. >You claim that your method is scientific, while my is not. In fact, >in terms of sociology, needs are as easily definable and quantifiable >as the demand in economics. I really don't know much about sociology, since the only college course on the subject that I attended began with the instructor saying that you had to be a Marxist to be a sociologist. Well, that was that. I didn't hear the rest of the lecture. Marxism is like smallpox: the only thing you want to learn about it is how to stamp it out. Anyway... The trouble with your "needs" is that someone has to decide which are valid, and which are not -- which in turn involves cultural value judgements. The great thing about demand as a measure is that you don't make judgements on the relative worth of A's vs B's demand -- it all comes out in the wash. More to the point, demand measure may be optimized automatically without examining the nature of the demand, whereas -- by definition -- that's not true of "needs". Finally, whether you call them "needs" or "demands", you're still talking about the allocation of scarce resources...which is done optimally in a free market. Your concern seems to be that such allocation is inequitable. But that word itself is almost meaningless, since I think that any means of organizing the world in any way where I don't get what I want is inequitable. And you know damned well that that's a pretty universal definition of inequity. So who decides, Piotr? And, better put, who prevents the market from acting as it will? When needs are allocated "so that the poor can receive them" -- as, for example, certain "staple" foods are in Mexico, or as almost everything is in the USSR -- the inevitable result is black markets and shortages. *The market reality always makes itself felt*; when you try to prevent the market from working -- and I'll concede your motives -- all you manage to do is bollix things up terribly and hurt the people you were trying to help. > >> >> > Now, about "social needs". How about starting with adequate food, >> >clothing and shelter for all? >> >> I'll agree that each person needs these things: I won't agree that that makes >> them "social needs". Can anyone define this beast for me, as opposed to giving >> me examples? >> >> >Almost every non-libertarian would agree with >> >these. >> >> Evidence? >> >You are right Rick, Attilla the Hun would disagree for sure :-) In short, you don't have any. > >> >Conservatives might stop there, liberals might add a few more, while >> >social democrats would add a lot more. Who decides? Why, the electorate, >> >through its elected representatives, of course. >> >> Well, the Southern electorate through the first half of the 19th century >> decided that slaves were a social need. > >First, blacks were excluded from the electorate, that makes a little >difference. Second, without the electorate will, blacks will be >slaves even today. > >> The Germans decided in the thirties that glomming onto most of Europe was a >> social need, but that Jews definitely weren't. The history of democracies >> makes me less than sanguine about their future >> >Inexpensive shot, I must say. Socialists are bad because they starved >Kulaks. Democrats are bad because they elected Hitler. Free-marketeers >are bad because they starved Irish. Nobody is perfect. The first two statements are pretty close: as for the third, someone's going to have to go after this nonsense. As I dimly recall, Ireland in the 19th Century was pretty much a colonial feudal aristocracy, which is close enough to socialism that a simple hacker like me can't really tell the difference. ANyone want to correct me? > >> >Since social needs >> >are not defined in Libertarian economics, they clearly don't exist. >> >> First, there is only economics, not Libertarian economics, or Marxist >> economics, or socialist economics. > >There is also sociology, you know. > I try to ignore it. Seriously, I will, for your sake, Piotr, try to at least glance over the basic points. Standard sophomore text in the subject? -- Rick.
nrh@inmet.UUCP (09/05/85)
>/* Written 1:20 am Sep 4, 1985 by psuvax1!berman in inmet:net.politics.t */ >/* ---------- "Re: Health Care, Wonderful Market f" ---------- */ >Warning: may be boring. >[concerning low costs of privite charities vs. high cost of the government] >> >People who make it hard to be helped get dumped >> >on the government. In Libertaria, people who make it hard to be >> >helped, schizophrenics being the most notable case (and there are >> >MILLIONS of them around, some of whom I know), still would be turned >> >away by private agencies. >> >Remember, the criteria for success for >> >private agencies tends to be the number of bodies they end up helping. >> >Any body that makes life hard on them would reduce the "success" rate. >> >> ................. Right now, those people do NOT have a choice regarding >> (say) welfare. People who would put such things in the hands of the state >> deny it to them. >> Is it a shame that AIDS funding is too low? Give them a few bucks. >> >There are two issues conveniently omitted. >1. Help (charity, wellfare) considered here concerns people who are > in this way or another incapacitated. Thus not only cash benefits > are needed, but also WORK: guidance, therapy etc. Charities have > voluntiers. However, I do not expect the number of voluntiers to > increase drastically under any system. In fact, the capabilities > of charities are often limited by the number of voluntiers, thus > they distribute only as much help as they can do it cheaply. Ho-hum. You seem to have missed little places like the Salvation Army, which does some of the stuff you're talking about, and certain religious and private charities which help do retraining. IF you are right, then work, guidance, and therapy should be provided. If you can convince others you are right, such things WILL be provided (they are now, on a limited scale). In a libertarian society, you need only to find one or two crazy millionaires to set up such a charity. In a more statist society, you must find and convince all the appropriate government bureaus. By the way, Piotr, lots of charitable concerns employ non-volunteers. >2. There are various needs which are not particularly popular. The > system proposed would determine the size of help available > according to current fads. Today baby seals are popular, tomorrow > starving Africans. If your case was not popularized yet (or > popularized 4 years ago and now forgotten), you can rot. > AIDS is a good example, since the victims were quite unpopular > for quite a while. Oh, Piotr. Give it just a LITTLE thought -- government is MORE sensitive to this than private charity. Most folks give to the United Way without making any special effort to find out, except in a general way, where the money is going. Of course, if it is PUBLIC money, then you can bet that the political popularity of where the money is going will be very carefully judged -- and if you don't have the right lobbyists, and make the right connections, you can REALLY rot. >> >>Of course, if you REALLY think that people a libertarian society would >> >>be less generous, you should bear in mind that you are saying that >> >>people tend to give less than a fifth voluntarily than they do under >> >>coercion, and that the poor have not been denied reasonable jobs >> >>by such things as minimum wage laws and licensure. Not a tenable >> >>position. You're also assuming that a large number of people will >> >>need charity -- remember Daniel Mck.'s very well-defended discussion >> >>of unemployment in libertaria. >The argument of McKiernan is that in the absence of minimal wage, >wellfare and licencing everybody would find employement (or starve >and cease to be unemployed anymore, I presume). Tsk! I don't recall McKiernan mentioning starving people in this context. >Then we have another >argument that everyone should pay himself for health insurance >(if he wishes one) plus save for his old age (or, equivalently, >support his folks). It amazes me that you can read! The TOPIC of discussion is charity under a libertarian society, and you're trying to imply that everyone, even those who are natural objects of charity are expected to pay for themselves. >The problem is that I do not see how with >current minimal wage ($6700 yearly) one can afford it. My family >insurance costs more than $2000 a year. Now, necessary savings, >shelter (shack?), clothes and food. OK, possibly I could afford >enough of liver, milk and bread for three people. Oops, I forgot >school for my son! Also, I forgot that my wage will be smaller >than minimal! (the implicit invocation of this arithmetic was >labelled "invoking fictional Dickensian horrors"). I think you've misquoted JoSH. I believe he said "[Litany of Dickensian horrors]". If you can't find the word "fictional" in that bracketed statement, you owe JoSH and the net an apology, and I'll expect it forthwith. The problem, Piotr, is that you are not listening to what people are telling you. Just for example, your complaint about the cost of medicine is based on the current costs of such a setup. It has been pointed out in detail how doctors control the AMA, which in turn employs the law with regard to "practicing medicine without a license" to keep the number of doctors artificially low, and thus the price is artificially high. More important, you would indeed be foolish to attempt to raise a family of four on minimum wage. Why not a family of 10? Or 20? The reason is that you would, I hope, exercise a certain discretion in bringing children into an uncertain world when the expectation is that you could not afford to feed them. Of course, misfortune may befall anyone, and they may not have had the chance to lay something aside just in case. WITH a minimum wage, you (and thus your family) may find it impossible to make money at all. Without it, you've a chance. With government charity, you may fall through this or that crack or be unable to fight your way through the bureaucracy in order to get money (I'm told, New York City copes with the problem of not having enough money to support all those that it is required to place on Welfare by putting up bureaucratic obstacles to getting the money -- the people who can't get all the way through the maze don't get the checks). >> >Again, there are millions of schizophrenics who don't have to live in >> >institutions. I don't remember Daniel's discussion. And I really >> >think people in a libertarian society would be as generous as other >> >people with similar after-tax incomes today. That sounds reasonable >> >to me. And I don't think most people I know are very generous. >> >> Go just a step further. Supply AND demand, remember? In our society, >> the Supply of money is limited by taxation. Demand for private funding >> is ALSO limited -- the government is assumed to be "doing something" >> (and it is, mostly inefficiently) and is put in charge of anything >> regarded as a public health emergency. In a libertarian society, >> the SUPPLY of money is greater (your after-tax income is raised to >> match your pre-tax income) and the DEMAND for those funds from >> private charities is larger. Why? Because the private charities have >> not been subsidized. They have stronger cases that the funds are >> needed, and needed locally. They also can do their part more efficiently. >> >Market forces indeed. More schizofrenics, >obviously, will cause more people to care about schizophrenics. >Why? Because in the economics course they teach that demand increases >supply. What about another economical law - supply generates demand. >More charitable contributions - more schizofrenics (another way of >cutting unemployement in Libertaria). I wasn't aware of any elasticity in supply for schizophrenics. Of course, there is in a public charity system elasticity in DEMAND, so that people meeting the criteria are paid, but in a private setup, there's a limited amount of money (and a limited amount of credibility). In a public setup, there's an unlimited amount of credibility. Don't believe it? Want examples? Surely. New York City, by the terms of a court agreement, is obliged to provide places to sleep for all of its homeless. All, regardless of how they came to be homeless, regardless of where they came from. >> >>Another example? Certainly. Kidney machines are rationed and >> >>subsidized by the government. There has been relatively little research >> >>on improving these machines because the whole thing is pretty closely >> >>regulated, there have also been pretty severe limits placed on access to >> >>those machines. For details, see Reason Magazine, August 1984. >> > >> >Boy, you're in a mess on this one. Government pays for kidney maintenance >> >because most kidney disease sufferers can't afford dialysis. So the >> >government created the market for kidney machines in the first place, >> >by making current technology affordable. >> > >> >> Tsk! When you go to the doctor, how much of the bill do you pay? >> I generally pay $1, because I have health insurance. Was the insurance >> federally subsidized? Nope, not as far as I can tell (modulo, of course, >> the ever-present tax arguments by which it may be argued that anything >> is subsidized). My understanding is that I'm paying for things like >> dialysis, should I need them, by pooling my risk of needing such things >> with other people. Need dialysis be expensive? > >As I noted before, the insurance is expensive. My insurance (according >to my employer) costs more than $2000 and I still pay the first $400 >for visits, plus unlimited for medicines. Since more than 10% of GNP >are medical services, it seems to be right. No wonder, at leat 25% >of population cannot pay for they insurance. Again, you'd find this sort of thing cheaper in a libertarian society. Of course, if you were really badly off, you'd have to depend on private charity. (Probably mostly in the form of foundations for helping out people in relatively specific situations, just as scholarships used to be at older schools). >> [from a libertarian magazine] >> Dutch physician Willem Kolff, the inventor of the dialysis >> machine in the 1940s, told me he was shocked to learn of the >> high cost dialysis machinery being used on an experimental basis >> in the United States when he immigrated here in 1950. Intent on >> altering this situation, Dr. Kolff continuously pushed to reduce >> costs. By 1968 he had modified Maytag washing machines into >> dialysis machines at a fraction of the cost of machines then in >> use. The same year, he sent 21 people home with machines and >> two months worth of supplies for a total cost of $360 per >> patient. >> >> Or consider how the system stifles equipment innovations. >> Kidney-machine inventor Dr. Kolff has now developed a portable >> dialysis machine that would enable patients to travel, work more >> easily, and generally lead more productive, normal lives. But >> Kolff told me that he is unable to get any American >> manufacturers interested in making the machine. >> >> The problem is uncertain demand. Prototypes have been made for >> $6000 each -- the same cost as American machines used in >> dialysis centers when purchased in volume. Although Kolff's >> machine could provide dialysis patients with more-satisfying >> lifestyles, neither nephrologists, equipment makers, nor >> facility operators have much incentive to introduce their >> patients to the machines, since it is not clear how they would >> fit in to ESRD reimbursement provisions. So Kolff has gone to a >> Japanese manufacturer to supply him with prototypes. >> [Reason Magazine, August 1984] > >I suspect that there is as much reason in Reason Magazine as there is >truth in Plain Truth (a fundamentalist monthly, which makes feats like >explaining the election results in Australia with quotes from the >Scripture). That's nice. What you SUSPECT, and what you are willing to back up with (say) history from some other source would seem to be two different things. In the meantime, you'll find that sleazy rhetoric linking "Reason" with "Plain Truth" is mostly self-defeating. >The numbers presented here do not add up. First, Kolff makes a dialysis >machines Maytag washers and sends patients home with machines and two >months worth of supplies for a total cost of $360 per patient. >I would like to see Maytag washing machines that cheap (and what >about supplies, were they ordinary detergents?). Tsk! I would love to see 1968 dollars (360 of which were spent per patient) available now. READ what the other person writes, and apply just a little thought before replying, Piotr. You'll humiliate yourself a little less that way. To be specific: it's clear from the quote above that we're talking $360 in *1968*. One 1967 dollar (which I hope you will agree was about the same as a 1968 dollar) is worth about 3.06 1984 dollars (source, Information Please Almanac, 1985) for "all items", or about 3.73 1984 dollars (for medical expenses). This would make the 360 dollars into about $1080 1984 dollars. Looking in my 1985 Consumer Reports Buying Guide, I find that a cheap washing machine costs about $450. (pp 70). The only Maytag listed is a little more -- about $565 (it was, by the way, the top scorer). Assuming that the motors (or whatever) in they Maytag were used, and that the only new mechanical implements were the bags shown in the article (as well as filtering equipment), I think that the inventor of the dialysis machine could come in under budget. Of course, we don't know what a washing machine cost then, but I invite you to do just a little research before replying. >Then portable machine (portable washing machine?) that would cost less >than $6k. If they would be that cheap, there would be enough of wealthy >patients who would like to have them. That would create sufficient >market. Would it? Sufficient for what? Who knows about this? Would such machines be legal? Would even a fairly wealthy user buy a somewhat better service if the government will give a service to him free? Only if his marginal gain is greater than his marginal cost. Put it another way: would you put in your own pool if the government put up an acceptable one next to you and charged very low for its use? Only those who would MUCH prefer the private one would do so. >It is standard that the inventor is very optimistic about his design. >If this optimism is not shared by profit oriented manufacturers, the >chances are that they were right. On the other hand, the Japanese firm HAS built the prototypes. In fact, the article goes on to say that that Maytag refused to sell more machines to the inventor because of the uncertainty surrounding the question of Maytag's liability in the case of a failure. >Another flower of reason from Reason Magazine. Have you ever read it? Are you prepared to challenge it's text with anything but wind? >> "But Popeo, the son of a working-class family, was offended by his cases >> at Interior. Handed the responsibility for enforcing health and safety >> regulations often capricious and petty in nature, he found that his >> opponents in court were often struggling entrepreneurs. The last straw, >> Popeo related in a recent interview, was when he found himself seeking a >> court injunction to 'close down a one-man mine operation because the >> owner didn't have a two-way radio to talk to himself, or a stretcher to carry >> himself out of the mine if injured.'". [Reason Magazine, Sept., 1985, pp 48]. > >So the proposal is to make it legal to operate an underground mine >without any safety measures? You've neatly excised the motivating quote from above. The argument was that courts looked at the intent of law and were very reasonable at the federal level. Not true. To reply to your question, however, it would indeed be legal to operate an underground mine without any safety measures. Just as it is now legal to eat ground glass or attempt to drink the atlantic ocean. >What if it would be two-men mine? >Are you proposing to abolish all safety regulations? Is the cheaper >coal worth additional deaths? Oho! Quite a question: I would put it up to the owners of the lives at risk. You feel that the government knows better than they what risks they "should" take? Remember, I don't object to the government saying: "This is risky, you shouldn't do it" -- I don't object to their neighbors saying "fellas: what you're doing is stupid and we won't sell you any more blasting powder until you fix things up". All I am saying is that the owner of a life should be able to decide, without force or fraud, how he wishes to risk it. >Possibly, work related accidents would >help to eliminate unemployement in Libertaria. I suppose so -- by causing companies to hire safety experts, more careful inspectors, arbiters (in the cases of fraud), doctors, and, (though not as often as in our society where the government gets off scott-free after allowing people to breathe asbestos dust) morticians. >Again about dialysis. Suppose we cut the government funding. > >> And would thousands die? One doesn't hear about it in the case of >> hemophiliacs: >> >> The effect of these portrayals [dramatic appeals to the US >> congress about kidney failure] should not be minimized. There >> are, after all, other catastrophic disabilities that affect as >> many people and cost as much to treat as kidney failure but >> don't lure as much government money. Richard Rettig, professor >> of social sciences at the Illinois Institute of Technology, >> notes that the taxpayers are not footing the bill, for example, >> to treat hemophiliacs, whose numbers exceed those with kidney >> failure. The central symptom of hemophilia is serious bleeding, >> and Rettig figures that a quarter of all hemophiliacs "require >> continuous replacement of fresh whole blood, plasma, and >> clotting concentrates," a therapy at least as expensive as >> dialysis. >> >So what happens to uninsured hemofiliacs? Presumably, thousands die. Well? Anything to back up your presumption? Some reason to think that the people who've seen their children die from such conditions would not contribute (later, when they are able to) to funds that would help them? >But this issue is not disscussed in the quote (from Reason Magazine?). >The real problem however is that we cannot support all terapies which >are technologically available. Thus only the cheaper are selected >(cheaper does not mean cheap). This is certainly true if the GOVERNMENT controls things. Private individuals will see varying trade-offs between side-effects and money, and (of course) be able to support varying trade offs. Governments (or in the case of libertaria) private charities, will opt for the cheapest therapy, given their own notions of acceptability. >Will we be able to support hemophiliacs, >there will be another group. Does it mean that saving lives is not >recommended in any case. It means that if you think something should be done about disease, poverty, pain, and loss, then one should do something about it, but one has no right to FORCE a neighbor to do what one thinks is the best thing. >> >And besides, government's not a bad market, either, if it operates a >> >proper bidding process. >> >> That is a pretty big "if", O mighty evaluator of markets. In the >> particular case of ESRD aid, the government offers a fixed fee for dialysis, >> regardless of what costs were. The result? It's very profitable indeed to >> run dialysis outfits, and new technology is not evaluated properly because of >> the uncertainty of how the government will treat it. >> >> In fact, I've answered this last statement of yours as if you'd said >> "the government doesn't do too badly at the market, either, if it operates >> a proper bidding process." To answer what you actually wrote (which >> I believe to be a mis-phrasing) the government is an AWFUL market -- one >> of the reasons why it's hard find anyone who still believes in the government >> setting all prices. The problem is that a government doesn't have available >> the information to set prices correctly, which results in >> incorrect prices, which results in misproduction. >> Very socialist economies tend to set their prices to reflect politics, not >> engineering reality, which is one reason why they have to make it illegal >> (for example) to feed bread to cattle (the price of bread is lower than >> that of the corresponding amount of grain). >> >> >Then the lowest price competitors get to sell >> >to government, and if there's competition, prices will go down. >> >> This would be true enough, but what has happened in this case is that >> the government offers a fixed price, so there is no pressure to >> charge the government less, so prices stay just where they are. >> This ties in nicely with the recent discussion in net.politics of the >> increasingly more complex specifications for airplanes -- the government >> has indeed put things out for bid, but the specs often limit competition, as >> do political requirements (I'm told that the Soviet rifle has much better >> performance when dirty than does the American, but do can you see >> the American government buying, say, knock-offs of that design?) >> >Rifle example shows that government may work better or worse. >Sometimes it does it pretty bad. However, there is no way one >can introduce market principles everywhere. >As rifle example shows, Soviet military tends to have lower costs. >According to the market reasoning (unblemished by petty political >requirements), we should hire the Soviet Red Army for our defence, >with tremendous savings. Tsk! The rifle example shows that ONE government may work better or worse than another. READ before you reply, O dense one! >In a pure market system everything is a commodity. Health is a >commodity, personal safety is a commodity, elementary education >is a commodity, freedom of speech is a commodity. Granted, >wealth should have its rewards. Having wealth, I may afford >superior health care, good protection, my voice is better heard. >But how large should be the penalties for lacking wealth? >Third-world-like medicine? Substandard education? What else? >What would be the force keeping the fabric of society together? > It's been pointed out time and time again that people in a libertarian society are just as dependent on each other as people in other societies, and that libertarians would not have it otherwise. The penalty for not having wealth in a libertarian society is that you may be dependent on the voluntary charity of others before you can work your way up in a society full of opportunity. >> >>>I agree with Piotr. I'd rather believe in people than believe in >> >>>libertaria anytime. >> >>> >> >> >> >>That's quite a statment for someone who seems to be advocating the >> >>welfare state..... Do you believe in people, or do you believe in >> >>people with the right chains on them? >> > >> >In the absence of decent moral education, I believe in people with the >> >right chains on them. >> > >> >Tony Wuersch >> >{amd,amdcad}!cae780!ubvax!tonyw >> >/* End of text from inmet:net.politics.t */ >> >> That last sentence was so priceless that I thought I'd leave your >> signature right next to it. It's so nice to know that you'd like to >> give people a "decent moral education". The thought of my (hypothetical) >> child getting one of which you'd approve gives me the shudders. > >When convenient, you prefer not to see the sarcasm. I saw no smiley face ":-)" which would have indicated sarcasm. Nor did Tony's comment strike me as sarcastic. >On the other hand, >what is your morality? You believe in a society where the ill have nots >have two choices: be pleasant to the haves (they may give me some >charitable help), or die. This is quite far off the mark. As I pointed out, there's plenty of reason to believe that even the hard-to-help would be helped in Libertaria, if only by people who'd had friends and relatives who were similarly afflicted and understood the need. It IS true that libertarian society enforces a certain degree of pleasantness on those who wish help from others. Denied the option of stealing from people via the state, you must be more pleasant to deal with than alternative forms of charity, but this doesn't mean the actual objects of charity (schizophrenics, say) must make the pitch. Some people can survive without most human contact, and thus may become as unpleasant as they wish. I don't care, for example, how pleasant the fellow is who owns a vending machine I patronize -- so long as the candy is fresh, and I lose no money. I don't care how unpleasant the fellow is who is ringing the bell for the Salvation Army -- so long as he doesn't actually make it difficult, I give. >No government intervention in this interaction. >Let market forces teach the poor to be pleasant. Look, Piotr, try, just try, and understand what the other fellow is saying. The poor need not be pleasant -- people who are concerned about the poor must be, or the people who wish to give must understand. No more than that.
mcgeer@ucbvax.ARPA (Rick McGeer) (09/08/85)
>/* Written 1:20 am Sep 4, 1985 by psuvax1!berman in inmet:net.politics.t */ >/* ---------- "Re: Health Care, Wonderful Market f" ---------- */ >Warning: may be boring. No, just wrong. >Market forces indeed. More schizofrenics, >obviously, will cause more people to care about schizophrenics. >Why? Because in the economics course they teach that demand increases >supply. What about another economical law - supply generates demand. >More charitable contributions - more schizofrenics (another way of >cutting unemployement in Libertaria). If you meant "economics" rather than economical -- in which case I don't know what you're talking about -- then it occurs to me that Samuelson, Hirshlifer and Addison were all remarkably reticent about this supposed "law". Offhand, I can't think of *any* economics text which states this "law", and I can't think why demand should rise to meet supply; nor can I think of any instance in which demand has arisen in response to a supply. I can think of instances where the consumption of certain products has risen when their supply curves moved leftward and down, but the demand for the product already existed. The consumption of small computers is an excellent example: the demand for their product, information, existed and was largely unmet -- as witness the (then- existing) demand for a host of substitute products. In contrast we can find in abundance many goods for which there is no demand whatever -- toxic chemicals and sand are two that spring to mind immediately. Piotr, I suggest a good freshman or sophomore economics course. If "PSU" is a university, I am sure that they have one or two to offer. However, if the reading list includes anything at all by noted nitwits such as Galbraith, go take a course at a reputable university. -- Rick.
berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) (09/09/85)
> >/* Written 1:20 am Sep 4, 1985 by psuvax1!berman in inmet:net.politics.t */ > >/* ---------- "Re: Health Care, Wonderful Market f" ---------- */ > >Warning: may be boring. > > No, just wrong. > > >Market forces indeed. More schizofrenics, > >obviously, will cause more people to care about schizophrenics. > >Why? Because in the economics course they teach that demand increases > >supply. What about another economical law - supply generates demand. > >More charitable contributions - more schizofrenics (another way of > >cutting unemployement in Libertaria). > > If you meant "economics" rather than economical -- in which case I don't know > what you're talking about -- then it occurs to me that Samuelson, Hirshlifer > and Addison were all remarkably reticent about this supposed "law". Offhand, > I can't think of *any* economics text which states this "law", and I can't > think why demand should rise to meet supply; nor can I think of any instance ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > in which demand has arisen in response to a supply. I can think of instances ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > where the consumption of certain products has risen when their supply curves > moved leftward and down, but the demand for the product already existed. The > consumption of small computers is an excellent example: the demand for their > product, information, existed and was largely unmet -- as witness the (then- > existing) demand for a host of substitute products. In contrast we can find in > abundance many goods for which there is no demand whatever -- toxic chemicals > and sand are two that spring to mind immediately. > > Piotr, I suggest a good freshman or sophomore economics course. If "PSU" > is a university, I am sure that they have one or two to offer. However, if > the reading list includes anything at all by noted nitwits such as Galbraith, > go take a course at a reputable university. > > -- Rick. > I happen to have a course in economics + I have read several books. As Rick duly quoted, the "law" of demand increasing to meet suply was formulated (by Say, if I remember), otherwise Samuelson, Hirshlifer and Addison could not be > remarkably reticent about this supposed "law". This law, although flawed, was not altogether irrational. The problem is that ALL economical have limits on their application. The law of markets says that if an abundance of a product emerges, then new uses are found, and hereby the market for the product increases. Rick cannot think of an instance in which demand has arisen in response to a supply. ************************************************************************ *Since my reading list includes noted nitwits such as Galbraith, * *I can think, unlike others, who are learned in reputable schools. * *Notabene, I was listening to my nitwits in MIT, not PSU. Regretfully * *enough, I rely more on disreputable sources like history books, Wall * *Street Journal and Fortune than on textbooks of economics. * ************************************************************************ As an example, if an abundance of small computers emerges, one uses them instead of typewriters, calculators, file cabinets etc. One may even invent uses, were never heard about, like flaming on net, electronic billboards, programing as a pasttime etc. Sugar, coffe, tea etc. were initially used as medicines and spices, once abundance of those products appeared, they became staples. Before their abundance, the need for sweetening everything or adding foreign substances to water one drinks was barely existent. Currently, the law of markets is quoted as an example of limited scope of economical laws, and that was exactly the reason I quoted the existence of this law. But you pulled my remarks out of context quite mercilessly. The argument which I opposed was as follows: if there is a need (like helping schisophrenics), free market (if unhibited) will supply help. The claim was that the law of supply and demand applies here. I claim it to be nonsense. But instead to argue with that, you prefer to advise me to repeat my sophomore education. Since you are closer (I presume, sorry if not true) to your sophomore year, may you please explain how this law will apply here? Perhaps the price of a schisophrenic will go down? Seriously, that was a classical solution of this problem: shisophrenics were werehoused in quite inexpensive, if not inhuman, fashion. That may be a "free market solution", but I do not buy it as a preferred one. Now you say that these were the abuses of the state monopoly on psychiatric care for the not wealthy. There is major flaw in applying the laws of economy to society in general. The most general law is that the market has a tendency toward equilibrium: the demand stimulates the prices up, the supply stimulates the prices down. Increase of prices may stimulate the production, decrease may stimulate removing marginal producers from the market. The real problem is that the equilibrium does not imply superior fulfillment of social needs. Consider an example. Imagine that hiking, picknicking, hunting and fishing increase in popularity in Libertaria. The owners of forests, streams and mountains invest in building roads, trails, picknic areas etc. The prices (especially in attractive areas) increse. The value of the land in the attractive areas increases, and so the costs for the new providers of the outdoor recreation. As the result, the fees for the use of streams, paths, picknic tables, parking etc. go up. Finally, only the more wealthy 50% of population may engage in outdoor activities. Currently, by a statist mistake, majority of the attractive areas for outdoor activities is public. Thus the fees are either not existent, or small (like fishing licences). Everybody may engage in his/her favorite form of outdoors. Since the land in question is public, it is not a subject of trade, so the costs cannot be influenced by the demand. Let us compare the outcomes of two processes: free market and state regulated. In free market, the portion of GNP related to outdoor recreation would go up considerably, thus the economic indicators would measure an increase in satisfying social needs. In the current statist model, GNP barely suggest that public lands satisfy a major social need. However, not 50% but 100% has the ability of participation. As a student, I was very happy that I could hike in Boston Blue Hills or NH White Mountains without a charge. Similarly, not wealthy farmers and workers of my part of Pennsylvania are quite happy with the state beaches, hunting grounds, streams etc. I doubt that they long to a pure market model. Paraphrasing my libertarian friends "they believe in a Ponzi scam, they payed taxes for those things and now they are deluded to think that they got something for nothing". In fact, most of those people never had sophomore course in economics. They just do not believe that everything should cost money.
mcgeer@ucbvax.ARPA (Rick McGeer) (09/11/85)
In article <1774@psuvax1.UUCP> berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) writes: >> >/* Written 1:20 am Sep 4, 1985 by psuvax1!berman in inmet:net.politics.t */ >> >/* ---------- "Re: Health Care, Wonderful Market f" ---------- */ >> >Warning: may be boring. >> >> No, just wrong. >> >> >Market forces indeed. More schizofrenics, >> >obviously, will cause more people to care about schizophrenics. >> >Why? Because in the economics course they teach that demand increases >> >supply. What about another economical law - supply generates demand. >> >More charitable contributions - more schizofrenics (another way of >> >cutting unemployement in Libertaria). >> >> If you meant "economics" rather than economical -- in which case I don't know >> what you're talking about -- then it occurs to me that Samuelson, Hirshlifer >> and Addison were all remarkably reticent about this supposed "law". Offhand, >> I can't think of *any* economics text which states this "law", and I can't >> think why demand should rise to meet supply; nor can I think of any instance > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> in which demand has arisen in response to a supply. I can think of instances > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> where the consumption of certain products has risen when their supply curves >> moved leftward and down, but the demand for the product already existed. The >> consumption of small computers is an excellent example: the demand for their >> product, information, existed and was largely unmet -- as witness the (then- >> existing) demand for a host of substitute products. In contrast we can find in >> abundance many goods for which there is no demand whatever -- toxic chemicals >> and sand are two that spring to mind immediately. >> >> Piotr, I suggest a good freshman or sophomore economics course. If "PSU" >> is a university, I am sure that they have one or two to offer. However, if >> the reading list includes anything at all by noted nitwits such as Galbraith, >> go take a course at a reputable university. >> >> -- Rick. >> > >I happen to have a course in economics + I have read several books. As Rick >duly quoted, the "law" of demand increasing to meet suply was formulated (by >Say, if I remember), otherwise Samuelson, Hirshlifer and Addison could not be >> remarkably reticent about this supposed "law". Sorry, no mention at all in Kennedy, Hirshleifer or Lispey, Sparks & Steiner. Couldn't find my copies of Alchian & Allen or Samuelson. Can you give me a reference? >This law, although flawed, was not altogether irrational. The problem is >that ALL economical have limits on their application. The law of markets >says that if an abundance of a product emerges, then new uses are found, >and hereby the market for the product increases. That is a very different thing. In this case, the product is adapted to meet previously unmet demands. The difference is subtle enough that I can understand how someone could make this sort of mistake. Demands exist for abstract quantities: things that we group collectively as "the quality of life". Demands arise for products as they meet one or more aspects of that abstraction. What's the difference between that and Piotr's formulation? In practical terms, very little: however, Piotr's formulation carries with it an often-heard, and quite incorrect, implication about producers generating demands for their product, which in turn implies that consumers behave irrationally. And that is very wrong. >Rick cannot think of an instance in which demand has arisen in response >to a supply. >************************************************************************ >*Since my reading list includes noted nitwits such as Galbraith, * >*I can think, unlike others, who are learned in reputable schools. * >*Notabene, I was listening to my nitwits in MIT, not PSU. Regretfully * >*enough, I rely more on disreputable sources like history books, Wall * >*Street Journal and Fortune than on textbooks of economics. * >************************************************************************ If you believe a word of the garbage that Galbraith pumps out (unquantified theories, no mathematical models, lots of hand-waving) then you haven't thought about it much. Read Friedman On Galbraith for a point-by-point summary on the experiments done to test Galbraith's theories. History books? Fortune or the WSJ? Popularizers like Galbraith? These are truly not reputable sources, at least for economics. Suppose I told you that I relied on Carl Sagan, Popular Mechanics and Omni for my scientific information, as opposed to physics texts? What would you then think of the physical theories I presented in my postings? >As an example, if an abundance of small computers emerges, one uses >them instead of typewriters, calculators, file cabinets etc. Again, the demand for computers is merely an instance of a demand for information -- that demand was always there. Computers currently are the best tools for meeting it. >One may even invent uses, were never heard about, like flaming on net, >electronic billboards, programing as a pasttime etc. >Sugar, coffe, tea etc. were initially used as medicines and spices, once >abundance of those products appeared, they became staples. >Before their abundance, the need for sweetening everything or adding >foreign substances to water one drinks was barely existent. But the demand for sweets is in our genes -- it dates from the time when pre-men learned that sweet berries were safe and bitter berries weren't (they're either not ripe of poisonous -- in either case they'll make you sick). Again, THE DEMAND WAS THERE -- it just hadn't been met yet. >Currently, the law of markets is quoted as an example of limited scope >of economical laws, and that was exactly the reason I quoted the existence >of this law. Indeed. The limits of economic law are well-known: one cannot determine what people's motivations are, one can only deduce them, partially, from their behavior. >But you pulled my remarks out of context quite mercilessly. If I have, I apologize. But the article is there, for everyone to read. >The argument which I opposed was as follows: if there is a need (like >helping schisophrenics), free market (if unhibited) will supply help. >The claim was that the law of supply and demand applies here. >I claim it to be nonsense. But instead to argue with that, you prefer >to advise me to repeat my sophomore education. Since you are closer >(I presume, sorry if not true) to your sophomore year, may you please >explain how this law will apply here? Perhaps the price of a schisophrenic >will go down? Certainly. If there are a large number of untreated schizophrenics around (note spelling, Piotr), one presumes that they or their friends and relatives will desire that they be treated: cured if possible, controlled if not. Even strangers can be relied upon for generosity: each year, I contribute in the neighborhood of $1000 for the research and treatment of disease, none of which I or any acquaintance have, and most of which I will almost certainly never get (Parkinson's, Huntington's Chorea, Alzheimer's, MD...). Indeed, the private foundations for the research and treatment of the various genetic diseases (which in previous generations would have killed their sufferers at birth) are an excellent study in exactly how this occurs. >Seriously, that was a classical solution of this problem: shisophrenics >were werehoused in quite inexpensive, if not inhuman, fashion. That may >be a "free market solution", but I do not buy it as a preferred one. >Now you say that these were the abuses of the state monopoly on >psychiatric care for the not wealthy. I didn't say that. But remember the time. Neither the technology nor the societal wealth was there to do much better. Do we, now, do better by our unfortunates, given the wealth we have? If you think we do, come look at the streets of Berkeley sometime. >There is major flaw in applying the laws of economy to society >in general. Sorry, I don't buy that. Dr. David Friedman defines economics as the study of human behavior that begins with the presumption that people have objectives and behave rationally in an attempt to achieve their objectives. If you accept that definition, as I do, then you're forced to agree that economics is the study of a much broader field than the flow of commodities. If you don't, then you should be prepared to describe which aspects of human behavior economics predicts inadequately. I can give you a hand there, but as it happens I tend to believe that those areas beyond the obit of economics are as fundamentally unknowable as those beyond the obit of physics. And if the answer to some question is fundamentally unknowable, then I really don't care what the answer is. >The most general law is that the market has a tendency >toward equilibrium: the demand stimulates the prices up, the supply >stimulates the prices down. Increase of prices may stimulate the >production, decrease may stimulate removing marginal producers from >the market. The real problem is that the equilibrium does not imply >superior fulfillment of social needs. This is a common statement of leftwingers, and it is completely meaningless. What are "social needs"? Who sets them? Why are the demands met by the market not an adequate reflection of the generalized demands of society, if such things in fact exist? And how do you propose to measure how well or badly any system of organizing society meets "social needs"? When, or if, you can answer these questions, then we'll have something to talk about. Until then, you're just flaming. >Consider an example. Imagine that hiking, picknicking, hunting and fishing >increase in popularity in Libertaria. The owners of forests, streams >and mountains invest in building roads, trails, picknic areas etc. >The prices (especially in attractive areas) increse. The value of the >land in the attractive areas increases, and so the costs for the new >providers of the outdoor recreation. As the result, the fees for the >use of streams, paths, picknic tables, parking etc. go up. >Finally, only the more wealthy 50% of population may engage in outdoor >activities. Actually, this is a good example. You see, there's no particular reason that the costs of operating a park are in any realtion to the value of the land -- but then, you must know that price is only very indirectly related to cost. Actually, price is regulated by the interactions of supply and demand. What you'd see in Libertaria is that prices would rise, due to the increased popularity of ther activity. But then land would be diverted from other uses to outdoor recreational activity. The sum total would be that considerably more land would be used for outdoor activities, there would be more options for the backpacker, fisherman and hunter, and prices would probably rise slightly. However, if only the wealthy 50% could afford backpacking, I could set up a nice little business in offering cheap backpacking and camping trips. >Currently, by a statist mistake, majority of the attractive areas for >outdoor activities is public. Thus the fees are either not existent, >or small (like fishing licences). Everybody may engage in his/her >favorite form of outdoors. Since the land in question is public, >it is not a subject of trade, so the costs cannot be influenced by >the demand. Baloney. The cost of using anything is determined by the demand. The price may not be monetary, but it's there: as witness the hours people spend in line trying to get into Yosemite Valley. The real problem is that the price is not reflected in revenue to the supplier, which retards his incentive to provide more lands. Indeed, at the height of the backpacking craze, James Watt wanted to retrench the supply of public lands devoted to that activity, the better to put strip-mines in. Don't flame at Watt -- he was appointed by an elected President and confirmed by an elected Senate. The point is that in a command system, the guy who gets to give the orders can give any he likes, whether that has anything to with what people really want. Think about it. >Let us compare the outcomes of two processes: free market and state >regulated. In free market, the portion of GNP related to outdoor >recreation would go up considerably, thus the economic indicators >would measure an increase in satisfying social needs. As I mentioned above, I don't believe in "social needs". People have needs. Society doesn't. And I don't think that economic indicators as aggregate as GNP (or the Dow, for that matter) measure anything very interesting. >In the current statist model, GNP barely suggest that public lands >satisfy a major social need. However, not 50% but 100% has the >ability of participation. Wrong, wrong, wrong. If you think that 100% of our population can use our public lands, think again. In the first place, what happens when everybody decides to go there at once? (And if you think this is impossible, just try Muir Woods any weekend, or Yosemite Memorial Day, the 4th of July or Labor Day). And in the second place, almost all the activities you mention require transportation to the park, and equipment when you get there. If we take downhill skiing as the example of an outdoor activity that is practiced on almost exclusively private property, we note that the cost of the lift is rivalled by equipment and lodging costs. In fact, a quick survey of the people that I meet in our national parks shows that the majority are very yuppy -- I don't think that I've ever met a poor individual in a national park. Come now, Piotr. This is yet another diversion of the upper and middle class subsidized by the state. One can say what one likes about Marie Antoinette, but at least she never had the crust to argue that the state should subsidize her pleasures on the grounds that the poor could then participate. On the whole, I prefer a thief who admits that he's stealing. >As a student, I was very happy that >I could hike in Boston Blue Hills or NH White Mountains without a >charge. Similarly, not wealthy farmers and workers of my part >of Pennsylvania are quite happy with the state beaches, hunting >grounds, streams etc. I doubt that they long to a pure market >model. Paraphrasing my libertarian friends "they believe in a >Ponzi scam, they payed taxes for those things and now they are >deluded to think that they got something for nothing". In fact, >most of those people never had sophomore course in economics. >They just do not believe that everything should cost money. "Most of these people never had a sophomore course in physics: they just believe that water should run uphill and teakettles should boil when set on a cake of ice." Everything does cost money: TANSTAAFL! Only fools, children and leftists believe otherwise. What you really mean is that "They believe that their pleasures should be paid for by everyone else". Hell, I agree. It's a terrific deal, if you can get it. I just don't have the stomach or the gall to demand it. -- Rick.
tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) (09/12/85)
> >[Piotr Berman] > >The most general law is that the market has a tendency > >toward equilibrium: the demand stimulates the prices up, the supply > >stimulates the prices down. Increase of prices may stimulate the > >production, decrease may stimulate removing marginal producers from > >the market. The real problem is that the equilibrium does not imply > >superior fulfillment of social needs. ------- > [Rick McGeer] > This is a common statement of leftwingers, and it is completely meaningless. > What are "social needs"? Who sets them? Why are the demands met by the market > not an adequate reflection of the generalized demands of society, if such > things in fact exist? And how do you propose to measure how well or badly > any system of organizing society meets "social needs"? When, or if, you > can answer these questions, then we'll have something to talk about. Until > then, you're just flaming. -------- Unbelievabe. First, there is the unwarranted ad-hominem characterization of Piotr Berman as a leftwinger, because he thinks there are social needs. By that standard, even Ronald Reagan is a left-winger. Now, about "social needs". How about starting with adequate food, clothing and shelter for all? Almost every non-libertarian would agree with these. Conservatives might stop there, liberals might add a few more, while social democrats would add a lot more. Who decides? Why, the electorate, through its elected representatives, of course. Since social needs are not defined in Libertarian economics, they clearly don't exist. Right, Rick? Market demand may very well be an adequate reflection of the demands of the society. But my demand for food won't give me a supply in Libertaria if I have no money and no job. Guess I will have to hit you over the head and steal yours. Such is Libertaria. -- Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
mcgeer@ucbvax.ARPA (Rick McGeer) (09/18/85)
In article <1231@ihlpg.UUCP> tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) writes: >> >[Piotr Berman] >> >The most general law is that the market has a tendency >> >toward equilibrium: the demand stimulates the prices up, the supply >> >stimulates the prices down. Increase of prices may stimulate the >> >production, decrease may stimulate removing marginal producers from >> >the market. The real problem is that the equilibrium does not imply >> >superior fulfillment of social needs. >------- >> [Rick McGeer] >> This is a common statement of leftwingers, and it is completely meaningless. >> What are "social needs"? Who sets them? Why are the demands met by the market >> not an adequate reflection of the generalized demands of society, if such >> things in fact exist? And how do you propose to measure how well or badly >> any system of organizing society meets "social needs"? When, or if, you >> can answer these questions, then we'll have something to talk about. Until >> then, you're just flaming. >-------- >Unbelievabe. First, there is the unwarranted ad-hominem characterization >of Piotr Berman as a leftwinger, because he thinks there are social needs. >By that standard, even Ronald Reagan is a left-winger. C'mon. I hardly think Piotr is terribly upset at being called a leftwinger, for two reasons: (1) I didn't (saying that man makes "a common statement [made by] leftwingers" is *not* the same as saying that he is a leftwinger, though I guess the implication is clear, if not directly intended; and (2) since Piotr has been making the case for social welfarism for about the last eight months, the characterization is hardly unfair. But so what? The line merely indicated that I'd heard this one before, and didn't believe it then and don't believe it now. It's an opinion most often heard from lefties: "social needs" rarely comes trippingly to the Tory's tongue. > Now, about "social needs". How about starting with adequate food, >clothing and shelter for all? I'll agree that each person needs these things: I won't agree that that makes them "social needs". Can anyone define this beast for me, as opposed to giving me examples? >Almost every non-libertarian would agree with >these. Evidence? >Conservatives might stop there, liberals might add a few more, while >social democrats would add a lot more. Who decides? Why, the electorate, >through its elected representatives, of course. Well, the Southern electorate through the first half of the 19th century decided that slaves were a social need. Then they decided that the social needs of blacks were a hell of a lot less than the social needs of whites. The Germans decided in the thirties that glomming onto most of Europe was a social need, but that Jews definitely weren't. The history of democracies makes me less than sanguine about their future: I'm more than a little inclined to agree with the New York State Judge who said that "No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session". Few candidates in this nation call for sacrifice for the common good. Most promise their constituents plunder at the expense of their non-constituents. >Since social needs >are not defined in Libertarian economics, they clearly don't exist. First, there is only economics, not Libertarian economics, or Marxist economics, or socialist economics. And, second, things which can't be quantified don't exist, at least for the purposes of rational discussion. Until we can define this commodity in a way we can measure it -- so we can talk about facts, instead of opinions -- then we're just flaming. And definitions that depend on plebiscites are a guarantee of flaming. > Market demand may very well be an adequate reflection of the demands >of the society. But my demand for food won't give me a supply in >Libertaria if I have no money and no job. Guess I will have to hit you >over the head and steal yours. Such is Libertaria. The notion that charity would be dead in Libertaria is amusing and entirely without foundation. Most of the major charitable organizations in this country started during the late 19th Century, when there was no welfare. Even now, with ruinous taxation sapping people's incomes, charitable giving is very high. Do you honestly believe that your fellowman is so selfish that he won't contribute to help those in need? And if you do, then why do you trust his nobility at the ballot box? The implications of your note seem to be that man is inherently selfish on his own, inherently just and generous en masse. I know of no evidence for this claim, nor any reason why it should be true. Can you offer me either of these? -- Rick.
laura@l5.uucp (Laura Creighton) (09/20/85)
In article <1231@ihlpg.UUCP> tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) writes: > Now, about "social needs". How about starting with adequate food, >clothing and shelter for all? Almost every non-libertarian would agree with >these. Wrong-o. William F. Buckley Jr., for instance, who takes great pains to make sure that he is identified as conservative, and not one of those libertarians would not buy this one. Neither will a good many people involved in work in the third world because they believe that the population will always expand so that ehre will always be a level of ``poor'' who are malnourished and unhoused. If you dump more money into the problem, then people who are currently dying of starvation (and therefore do not need housing) will survive and form a new level of poor to be a problem. If you feed and house them another layer will be found, so unless you implement strict birth control you will never be able to fix this one. Note that I am not saying that this view is necessarily correct -- what I am saying is that it is wrong to assume that all non-libertarians think that food and shelter should be provided for all. The other thing that is wrong with this view is that the libertarian objection is not with the ``providing food and shelter'' but with the TAXING of people in order to provide food and shelter. > Conservatives might stop there, liberals might add a few more, while >social democrats would add a lot more. Who decides? Why, the electorate, >through its elected representatives, of course. Since social needs >are not defined in Libertarian economics, they clearly don't exist. >Right, Rick? social needs are not defined by any economic system, except in that certain systems are likely to produce a certain type of problem whereas others will avoid this one. Feudalism gave every lord the obligation to provide shelter for his vassals and serfs, so there was no particular need for shelter that was not being met. However, there was a 70+% infant mortality rate and a lot of malnutrition. The industrial revolution made farming a lot easier and made it easier to stay alive -- teh infant mortality rate dropped to about 30% in industrialised countries. Now, of course, the population grew at an unprecedented rate and bingo -- there is a housing problem. If you simply killed 40% of children outright, you could stop the housing problem, but this is not how people want to solve it. Libertarians do not claim that social needs do not exist -- just that the state should not be trying to solve social problems and that the people who are paying to have social ills remedied should get to choose which ills they are interested in fixing and by which means, and when are they going to be considered fixed. > Market demand may very well be an adequate reflection of the demands >of the society. But my demand for food won't give me a supply in >Libertaria if I have no money and no job. Guess I will have to hit you >over the head and steal yours. Such is Libertaria. >-- >Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan If you have no money anbd no job right now you may be reduced to this. Or you may have set aside a fund with fellow-workers in order to provide with this contingency. Or you may have friends or relatives who can lend you money. Or you may go to charitable organisations. Incidentally, if most people really do want people to be fed and clothed an sheltered then the YMCA and Goodwill and such should have a heap of funds in libertaria since people will be donating like crazy. What makes you think that the state can do a better job then the Salvation Army? -- Laura Creighton (note new address!) sun!l5!laura (that is ell-five, not fifteen) l5!laura@lll-crg.arpa
berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) (09/21/85)
> In article <1231@ihlpg.UUCP> tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) writes: > >> >[Piotr Berman] > >> >The most general law is that the market has a tendency > >> >toward equilibrium: the demand stimulates the prices up, the supply > >> >stimulates the prices down. Increase of prices may stimulate the > >> >production, decrease may stimulate removing marginal producers from > >> >the market. The real problem is that the equilibrium does not imply > >> >superior fulfillment of social needs. > >------- > >> [Rick McGeer] > >> This is a common statement of leftwingers, and it is completely > >> meaningless. What are "social needs"? Who sets them? > >> Why are the demands met by the market > >> not an adequate reflection of the generalized demands of society, if such > >> things in fact exist? And how do you propose to measure how well or badly > >> any system of organizing society meets "social needs"? When, or if, you > >> can answer these questions, then we'll have something to talk about. Until > >> then, you're just flaming. > >-------- > >Unbelievabe. First, there is the unwarranted ad-hominem characterization > >of Piotr Berman as a leftwinger, because he thinks there are social needs. > >By that standard, even Ronald Reagan is a left-winger. > > C'mon. I hardly think Piotr is terribly upset at being called a leftwinger, > for two reasons: ............... 1. I am not offended to be called "leftwinger" by Rick. Seems that it means that I am not "to the right of Attilla the Hun", which indeed is the case. As far as "social needs" are concerned, these are simply needs of people, period. Skip "social" and read the sentence again. In fact, in one of your postings you wrote The consumption of small computers is an excellent example: the demand for their product, information, existed and was largely unmet -- as witness the (then- existing) demand for a host of substitute products. I am using the word "need", you say "demand". (The purpose of this quote is to show how demand is use in respect to an abstract notion which is not easily quantified, like information.) You prefer to discuss demand and measure it in amount of money that people are ready to offer. I prefer to talk about needs and measure it in the number of people who desire it (it may be recreation, health care etc.) and their level of satisfaction with the current availability. You claim that your method is scientific, while my is not. In fact, in terms of sociology, needs are as easily definable and quantifiable as the demand in economics. > > > Now, about "social needs". How about starting with adequate food, > >clothing and shelter for all? > > I'll agree that each person needs these things: I won't agree that that makes > them "social needs". Can anyone define this beast for me, as opposed to giving > me examples? > > >Almost every non-libertarian would agree with > >these. > > Evidence? > You are right Rick, Attilla the Hun would disagree for sure :-) > >Conservatives might stop there, liberals might add a few more, while > >social democrats would add a lot more. Who decides? Why, the electorate, > >through its elected representatives, of course. > > Well, the Southern electorate through the first half of the 19th century > decided that slaves were a social need. First, blacks were excluded from the electorate, that makes a little difference. Second, without the electorate will, blacks will be slaves even today. > The Germans decided in the thirties that glomming onto most of Europe was a > social need, but that Jews definitely weren't. The history of democracies > makes me less than sanguine about their future > Inexpensive shot, I must say. Socialists are bad because they starved Kulaks. Democrats are bad because they elected Hitler. Free-marketeers are bad because they starved Irish. Nobody is perfect. > >Since social needs > >are not defined in Libertarian economics, they clearly don't exist. > > First, there is only economics, not Libertarian economics, or Marxist > economics, or socialist economics. There is also sociology, you know. > And, second, things which can't be > quantified don't exist, at least for the purposes of rational discussion. > Until we can define this commodity in a way we can measure it -- so we can > talk about facts, instead of opinions -- then we're just flaming. And > definitions that depend on plebiscites are a guarantee of flaming. > You used information as commodity, well, may be you can measure it. One can measure it by asking: how much do you want to spend on it, one by asking: what do you want to know. None of these methods captures the whole picture. I remember vaguely a libertarian talking about dignity and freedom. How you measure it? Facts, not opinions please. Or were he just flaming? > -- Rick. Piotr
CJC@psuvm.BITNET (09/21/85)
>The notion that charity would be dead in Libertaria is amusing and entirely >without foundation. Most of the major charitable organizations in this country >started during the late 19th Century, when there was no welfare. Even now, >with ruinous taxation sapping people's incomes, charitable giving is very high. >Do you honestly believe that your fellowman is so selfish that he won't >contribute to help those in need? But when and where were private charities adequate? Every culture I have ever read of 1) is in a hunter-gatherer, mostly communal stage (eg. Eskimos, Bushmen) 2) Has governmentally-regulated welfare, or 3) Has severe poverty including beggars in the streets. Category 3 includes all European (and European-decended) cultures I know of until quite recent times. Taxation and governmental regulation were both low in the latter 19th and early 20th century here in the U.S. and many people worked for bare subsistence wages or, without work, starved. Private charities sent food to Ireland in the famine years - but it wasn't nearly enough. Maybe you prefer a culture in which the 'incompetent' (ie. those who aren't successful, for whatever reason) starve to death thereby leaving fewer descendants; in that case say so. But if you are sure that private charities are sufficient to prevent severe hardship, give some real-world examples.
tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) (09/22/85)
> [Laura Creighton] > Libertarians do not claim that social needs do not exist -- just that the > state should not be trying to solve social problems and that the people who > are paying to have social ills remedied should get to choose which ills they > are interested in fixing and by which means, and when are they going to be > considered fixed. ---- I agree. If the taxpayers don't like feeding poor people, they can vote for candidates who will eliminate government assistance. We do have elections, you know. ---- > >[Me] > > Market demand may very well be an adequate reflection of the demands > >of the society. But my demand for food won't give me a supply in > >Libertaria if I have no money and no job. Guess I will have to hit you > >over the head and steal yours. Such is Libertaria. ---- > If you have no money and no job right now you may be reduced to this. ---- Why, when I can get government assistance? ---- > Incidentally, if most people really > do want people to be fed and clothed an sheltered then the YMCA and Goodwill > and such should have a heap of funds in libertaria since people will be donating > like crazy. ------ Why? With no income taxes in Libertaria, contributors would not have tax deductions for contributions. The major charities are all strongly opposed to cutting marginal tax rates in the higher brackets because they are afraid it would cut contributions. ------ > What makes you think that the state can do a better job then the Salvation > Army? ------ What makes you think that the Salvation Army ALONE can do a better job than the state and the Salvation Army together? Private charity is not confined to Libertaria. -- Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
janw@inmet.UUCP (09/25/85)
[Piotr Berman] > 1. I am not offended to be called "leftwinger" by Rick. Seems that it > means that I am not "to the right of Attilla the Hun", which indeed is > the case. Why do so many people libel Attila by calling him a right-winger ? He was a progressive third-world leader who redistributed some of the ill-gotten wealth of imperialistic Rome. (In spite of which, I much prefer you, Piotr). Jan Wasilewsky
janw@inmet.UUCP (10/01/85)
[mcgeer@ucbvax] > I really don't know much about sociology, since the only college course on > the subject that I attended began with the instructor saying that you had > to be a Marxist to be a sociologist. Well, that was that. I didn't hear > the rest of the lecture. Marxism is like smallpox: the only thing you want to > learn about it is how to stamp it out. Anyway... Well... if you dipped deeper you might find some truth in it. There is Marxist ideology; there is also Marxist method - far from infallible, but sometimes enlightening. Consider this: what is the basic tenet of Marxist sociology ? It is that ideology is an expression of class interest. Applied to statist ideology, *including modern Marxism*, this reads : it is the express- ion of self-interest of the New Class of bureaucracy and allied social groups (of which your jackass instructor was one of the lowliest representatives). In other words: they play Good Shepherd, and they *believe it*, but they are really out to fleece you. Taxes are not collected to pay for "social needs": "social needs" are discovered to justify taxes. True or false, this is what the Marxist method leads to. (The term "New Class" in the above sense was coined by Milovan Djilas in a book by the same title . The author is a Marxist, but ex-Communist ; he used to be the leading theoretician of Com- munist Yugoslavia, then became one of its convicts). Unfortunately, few Marxists read Marx; they don't suspect, for instance, that the main propositions of the 1st volume of Das Ka- pital (on which their whole case is built) are retracted in the 3d volume. Your smallpox comparison is uncannily apt: the vaccine is made of the *same bug that causes the disease*. Jan Wasilewsky
mcgeer@ucbvax.ARPA (Rick McGeer) (10/05/85)
In article <28200136@inmet.UUCP> janw@inmet.UUCP writes: > Your smallpox comparison is uncannily apt: the vaccine is made >of the *same bug that causes the disease*. > > Jan Wasilewsky Perhaps. Let us hope that the vaccination takes before the disease spreads further. Many, many millions have already suffered far too much, and some (the Afghan, the Hmong, the Kulaks and the gentle people of Kampuchea) are now gone forever. Marxism is a very nasty disease. -- Rick.
janw@inmet.UUCP (10/08/85)
[carnes@gargoyle] > In article <28200136@inmet.UUCP> janw@inmet.UUCP writes: > > Unfortunately, few Marxists read Marx; they don't suspect, for > >instance, that the main propositions of the 1st volume of Das Ka- > >pital (on which their whole case is built) are retracted in the > >3d volume. > Not really. One must recall that Vol. III was written first, so if > there were any retractions, it was the other way round. The way I've learned it was that Marx kept working on Vol. III till his death. Then Engels edited it, using Marx's drafts. Vol.I had been completed and published by Marx long since. Anyway, chronological order of writing is unimportant, since the reader is not obligated to know the author's private life. If, in the next paragraph, I disavow this one - are you supposed to investigate which was typed first ? > But most apparent discrepancies are explained by the fact that > Marx is using different *models* of the capitalist economy in the > two volumes. For example, in Vol. I he assumes that prices are > directly proportional to labor values, stating that this is only > a temporary simplification that will later be dropped, as it is > in Vol. III. Admittedly Marx does not make all this clear as a > bell. This is just what I mean. The Vol.I model is what most popular Marxism was based on - but it is grossly untrue. Vol.III model describes facts better, but does not lend itself easily to Marxist conclusions. > I strongly recommend a reading of Vol. I to > net.politics.theoreticians, not merely because it is good for > your soul but also because you will enjoy it. If you start with > Chapter 4 and save Chapter 1 for last, you may find that it is > much more readable than you think. Chapters 2, 3, 13-22, and 26 > of Vol. I are all skippable. These are valuable tips; I wish someone had told me this when I read the damn thing (I was in my teens, MANY long years ago). I would especially join you in the advice to skip Chapter 1. Lenin wrote once that to understand it, one had to study first *all* of Hegel's Logic (his emphasis). Slightly exaggerated, maybe ... But, underneath its philosophical profundity, that chapter is pure rot. It says, really, that labor theory of value has got to be true, because, if you strip from any goodies their specific qualities - what else is left, but the labor invested; and if you strip this labor of *its* specifics - what else is left but the labor time. So, values *must* be reducible to man-hours. No other chapter is as silly as that; and many of them, as you say, make good reading. Marx has a very high idea/byte rate. > I agree with Jan that Marxist insights can be very useful for the > critique of "actually existing socialism." Besides Djilas, one might > mention some books by Roy Medvedev, Charles Bettelheim, Leszek > Kolakowski, Rudolf Bahro, Svetozar Stojanovic, and others. > Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes Thank you. This was my main point. (Even though the quoted words aren't mine). But, Richard, what about Marx's *positive* insight - his vision of a stateless, anarchic, libertarian future ? Nothing worth retaining there, eh ? Jan Wasilewsky
walker@oberon.UUCP (Mike Walker) (10/28/85)
>Unbelievabe. First, there is the unwarranted ad-hominem characterization >of Piotr Berman as a leftwinger, because he thinks there are social needs. >By that standard, even Ronald Reagan is a left-winger. If leftwinger means the same as collectivist then RR is leftwing. Generally the left to right political scale is irrational; what is the scale graduated in? > Now, about "social needs". How about starting with adequate food, >clothing and shelter for all? Almost every non-libertarian would agree with >these. Conservatives might stop there, liberals might add a few more, while >social democrats would add a lot more. Who decides? Why, the electorate, >through its elected representatives, of course. Since social needs >are not defined in Libertarian economics, they clearly don't exist. Many libertarians (small l for nonparty) would say they don't other than as the sum of all individual needs. This abstracts the needs (desires, ends) from their owners. This way the politically powerful can walk all over the needs of the politically weak while they persue the common (Read 'their own') welfare. First, abstract interests from the individual so as to destroy the idea that individual needs (desires, ends) are significant. Second, define the common good to be the ends that the power elite want to persue. Its a beautiful of hiding the fact that they're harming one person to benefit another person. > Market demand may very well be an adequate reflection of the demands >of the society. But my demand for food won't give me a supply in >Libertaria if I have no money and no job. Guess I will have to hit you >over the head and steal yours. Such is Libertaria. >-- >Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan Ah! But in social-democracia you don't have to hit someone over the head to take their money; the government does it for you and people "hardly feel it." No need to get your hands dirty with theft, just send a letter to your representative and he will see that IRS goons do the rest. At least most robbers have the self honesty to admit they're hurting their victims but only a politician has the nerve to tell his victims that its for their own good. :-( -- Michael D. Walker (Mike) Arpa: walker@oberon.ARPA Uucp: {the (mostly unknown) world}!ihnp4!sdcrdcf!oberon!walker {several select chunks}!sdcrdcf!oberon!walker
tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) (10/31/85)
> >[Me] > > Market demand may very well be an adequate reflection of the demands > >of the society. But my demand for food won't give me a supply in > >Libertaria if I have no money and no job. Guess I will have to hit you > >over the head and steal yours. Such is Libertaria. ------ > [Michael D. Walker (Mike)] > Ah! But in social-democracia you don't have to hit someone over the head > to take their money; the government does it for you and people "hardly feel > it." No need to get your hands dirty with theft, just send a letter to your > representative and he will see that IRS goons do the rest. ------ Personally, I would rather pay taxes to feed the poor than have them try to kill me to get my possessions. You apparently feel otherwise. Pretty extreme position, even for a libertarian. -- Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan