X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 12 Nov 1992 17:05:16 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: buffing out the primer...pt.3 of 3, whew
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

...
>When my local as-close-to-omniscient-as-a-guy-with-a-lot-of-books-can-be
>libertarian librarian points me toward the venerable tome that contains
>accurate figures on this, rest assured, I will post them. B)

        Okay, I'll wait. :)

>>>>       I'd be more than glad to give up the extra cars and TVs if it means
>>>>Mexican workers are earning enough to buy GM cars and Zenith TVs.
>>
>>>Being in the upper tax bracket you would likely not be called upon to make
>>>that sacrifice, at least not until hundreds of thousands of other people
>>>were asked to give up little comforts like food, clothing and shelter.
>
>>       I fail to see how you arrive at such a statement.  People would not
>>lack for those things in a thriving economy.
>
>You provide the thriving economy and we'll talk. B) Depends on what you call

        I will teleport you to 1983...

>a thriving economy; the economy under Reagan was not thriving by my standards.

        Hmmm.

>The loss of those high wage jobs in industry and the accelerated failure
>of farms and small businesses do not indicate "thriving" to me. It seems
>to me that exporting more of these jobs to places that pay less without
>having a plan to create more high wage jobs here is a bad idea.

        Both are examples of outdated business sectors undergoing a shakeout.
Large subsidies and inflation and loose money helped inefficient farms survive
for inordinate amounts of time.  When the shakeout came, it came all at once.
And if the number of farms being lost is bad, why are yields continuing to go
up?  We still produce far more than we need.  It looks like we still have
excess prodcution propped up by the false demand of subsidies.

        And there is no mythical "high wage" job.  People are paid what the
market will bear, except where institutions (government, unions, speculation)
have kept prices high.  Those people are in for a far greater shock when the
real worlds slaps them awake.  Why should we pay someone $17/hour when someone
else will work for $7/hour?
        No specifics, you have person 1 wanting $17 and person 2 wanting $7.
Why should we be *forced* to pay $17 to person 1?

>>>       Supply side did not bring us those things.  It brought jobs,
 decreasing
>>>deficits (as a % of GNP), etc.  The only social stratification I have seen is
>>>by those promoting class warfare (ie, progressive income taxes).
>>
>>Well feel free to pop by sometime, I can arrange a tour for you...B)
>>
>>About this "warfare" thing, I am not interested in penalizing the wealthy,
>>only in having them carry their fair share of the load.
>
>>       Okay, define "fair".
>
>You might start with my comment in a previous post in this series regarding
>economic activities paying a fair price for the resources (physical and human)
>that they exploit to make profit.

        The suppliers are in control there.  Notice how the diamond suppliers
have set up a system so that only about 1/10 the actual supply is up for sale
at any one time.
        Of course if diamond seller 2 comes by and floods the market, are we to
keep prices propped up so that poor diamond seller 1 doesn't go out of
business?  What if they were selling grain?
        I do not agree that we all own the world's resources collectively.
Whoever wants to pay for them will own them.  If you want them badly enough,
you will buy them.  I can't think of a "fairer" way, as otherwise you are
apportioning resources to people who may hold them worthless.

>No doubt we could have fun arguing this by itself... B)

        Heh.
        I always add that there is nothing stopping people from going out and
getting an asteroid (making them the richest person on Earth).  However,
claiming that you already own part of it and that they'll wait for someone else
to do the hard part is a bit selfish.
        I mean, why not lay claim to 1/5 billionth of my wealth?

Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU