From: jafitv@termo.unit.no (Jan Arne Fagertun)
Subject: Re: Business (was Re: Immigrants and employment)
Reply-To: jafitv@termo.unit.no (Jan Arne Fagertun)
Organization: SINTEF, Norwegian Institute of Technology
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 07:39:50 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.220157.1@abo.fi>, jmarttila@abo.fi (Fast-Eddie Felson) writes:
|>  
|> >Are you joking ?
|> >Does it work fine "because the demand always defines the supply" ?
|>  
|> Yes, if the demand is about a carrot, the production must work to supply a 
|> carrot. To supply a carrot the production needs capital to invest to a hoe, 
|> a carrot seed (raw-material) and someone to use the hoe, to sow the seed 
|> and to give water to it. Finally we have a carrot which fulfils the need.


There are many ways to define, and to find the "need", you know. And
please don't bring up the capitalistic one again - I know that in
capitalism there is only one way - ability to buy.


|>  
|> In a command-controlled economy the central government tells the production 
|> what the need is. The next five years we need this amount of carrots and 
|> that amount of tomatoes. However, the consumers might need that amount of 
|> potatoes instead of tomatoes and the supply doesn't meet the demand. The 
|> central government simply can't know what the millions and yet again 
|> millions of people actually need.


What has this to do with me and what I've said ?


|>  
|>> What about the millions of people in Africa starving to death
|>> nowadays - don't they have any demands or needs for food and water ?
|>>Or aren't they people ?
 
|> I think I quite clearly explained this in my last previk}rus posting,
|> but obviously reading thru these long messages is difficult O:)

|>  
|> No capital, no raw-materials and not enough labor to do it.


Where ?


|> I don't have any doubts about the supply meeting the demand, but the supply 
|> is just too little for the demand. In my argumentation I don't remember 
|> saying anything about supply and demand matching in volume - where did you 
|> find that?


?


|>  
|> >(Some quite sensitive remarks about the Soviet system deleted -
|> >sensitive, but not very interesting.)                      
|>  
|> Of couse you might tell us as well what so sensitive did you find in it?
|> I like seeing people commenting my postings and I don't mind at all to see 
|> people disagreeing with me, but I would also like to see some reasoning 
|> instead of some meaningless flames O:)


Maybe I used the wrong word ? I meant they made sense :-)


|>  
|> >> In a pure market economy the supply always meets the demand so there will
|> >> be no wasted efforts on any ring of this chain. 
|>  
|> >I repeat - are you joking ?
|>  
|> >> Now here we get to my original statement, that there must be a need
|> >> for the labor, before the labor can be employed - not so that the
|> >> society has to create production to fulfil the labor's need to work. 
|> >> Which was to be proved O:)
|>  
|> >Poor mathematics - you still avoid defining the need!
|>  
|> Now in those quite sensitive but not very interesting remarks it was quite 
|> clearly stated that the need cannot be defined by anyone in particular. 
|> One's need is defined by oneself. The government doesn't know your needs 
|> and it can't say "Jan, today you need 5 potatoes, 4 sausages and a six-pack",

I don't smoke...

|> you can tell your needs only by yourself. You can get what you need by 
|> demanding it, you say "I'll give 20 kronor to get 30 carrots" and if 
|> someone thinks 20 kronor is worth giving you the carrots, you'll get them.
|> In the command-control economy the central government tries to define your 
|> need.


Maybe, but what's the connection to what I've written before ? Have I
said I want a "command-control economy" ?


|>  
|> >>>Don't people starve in large areas of the world ?
|>  
|> >> Yes, to keep in the terms of my previous argumentation, the demand
|> >> of food can't reach the supply because there are not enough
|> >> resources to make enough supply. This is mainly caused the natural
|> >> conditions that are not suitable for agriculture, the source of
|> >> food. This is, however, another important question, but has nothing
|> >> to do with employment.
|>  
|> >According to your argumentation the people of all cities/towns all over
|> >the world should starve ! "This is mainly caused (by?) the natural
|> >conditions that are not suitable for agriculture, the source of food."
|>  
|> Of course in the cities the conditions are suitable for transportation O:)
|> Probably you yourself understand this without saying, but still you have 
|> the *need* to disagree O;)


Maybe it could be possible to feed starving people with food from other
parts of the world, then ?
I mean, if "the conditions are suitable for transportation" ?


|>  
|> You seem frequently to forget some of the basic facts concerning the 
|> society. The businesses *are* the people, the society *is* the people, so 
|> if the businesses make profit, it's good for the people. If the society has 
|> to pay someone for something it means that all the people pay that and all 
|> the businesses pay that since they are just formed by people. 


Yeah, but the society and the people can't just "forget" the unemployed
and the disabled like the businesses can. The society is, whether you
believe it or not, much more than the businesses.


|>  
|> The society is no warm, loving and caring god who takes care of the people 
|> and the businesses are no devils who want to torture people for their own 
|> good.      


Did I say that ?


|>         
|> If the worker is worth more, another business will pay a bit more to employ 
|> the worker because the cost is lower than the benefit for the business. 
|>  
|> >No, the businesses don't pay what a worker is worth - they just try to
|> >minimize the payment.
|>  
|> Is it a sin to try not to pay more than needed? Why don't you pay double 


Did I say that ?


|> price of everything you buy? O:)
|> Workers also try to maximize their wages and that's as natural as what 
|> the businesses do.


Yes, of course.


|>  
|> >>> Joking is too serious to make jokes about .-)
|>   
|> >> Oh, but I was not joking O;) 
|>  
|> >Neither did I :-)
|>  
|> Oh I was kind of hoping you were just joking, because it's hard to believe 
|> you could seriouly want to argue about things that are clearly explained
|> without reasoning your own statements. Most of your statements could be 
|> regarded as plain flames. Maybe you want to destroy the capitalistic world
|> by blocking the networks with these postings? O;) (That was a joke - now I 
|> was joking O:P)
|>  
|>        Greetings,
|>   
|>        Jouni 
--

+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Jan Arne Fagertun, Research Engineer, SINTEF Division Thermodynamics|
| E-mail: Jan.A.Fagertun@termo.unit.no                                |
| Phone : +47 7 596890                            Fax  : +47 7 944513 |
| Mail  : SINTEF/Varmeteknikk, 7034 Trondheim, Norway                 |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: soc.culture.nordic