From: brian@norton.com (Brian Yoder)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.misc,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Economy
Date: 14 Apr 92 08:29:36 GMT
Organization: Symantec / Peter Norton

In comp.sys.next.misc article <1992Apr10.225013.9413@stb.info.com> 
michael@stb.info.com (Michael Gersten) wrote:
> In article <1992Mar20.110353.16614@yang.earlham.edu> andrewh@yang.earlham.edu writes:

> >No one really knows what the "best" system is.  The point is we all better 
> >stop our ideological idololatry and foolish demagogery before too long, or 
> >we'll have a real disaster on our hands, environmental or otherwise. 

So what you are saying is that ideology AS SUCH is to blame for all of our problems?  I think that it is IRRATIONAL ideologies that claim to be able to
produce a free lunch for everyone (or anyone) that are the cause of the 
problems (eg. socialist ideologies, religious ideologies, pragmatist ideologies, nihilist ideologies), not ideologies as such.

> Actually, we do know what the best system is. It is defined by the 
> following:

May I translate?

> 1. Free entry and exit into/from markets

"Free Lunch"

> 2. No hidden costs

Either...
"No fraud" (something I approve of)
or perhaps...
"No non-omniscient participants" (something I think is laughable)

> 3. Commodity goods -- No brand names, all sizes standardized/exchangable

"No responsibility, no innovation, and no creativity"

> 4. Free information

"Free Lunch"

> 5. No one has so much of an item for sale that they can cause a major
> 	effect on the market by themself.

"Big Brother must be watching, and HE must be allowed to brutalize anyone who becomes too successful"

(BTW, I believe the word you were searching for there was "himself" not "themself".)

> At least, those are the textbook definitions. You also need

> 6. Market based buying/selling(obvious)

"No Big Brothers allowed"

> 7. Rational consumers (not so obvious).

"Only Gods need apply"
 
> Then, you get the best for SOCIETY. This is very different than the best
> for the individual members of society.

Sure, as long as you can create the "free lunch" and the goods which will be traded by gods under your authoritarian scheme which disallows innovation and 
success.  As long as you can do that you'll be fine.

> Whats the difference? Compare two plans. Under 1, A makes $50. Under 2,
> A loses $50, but B gains $200. Since under 2, B could pay A $100, and still
> be $100 ahead, 2 is a better plan for society. Except that A will not be
> paid the compensation, and will hate the result.

What does this have to do with a free market?  Who created the $200?  Or do
you consider production an unimportant aspect of economics?
 
> So who said that a free market was the best possible solution?

I have said so many times, and so have others.  What makes you think that 
your "system" of god-like traders, big brother, and free lunch falls under
the category of "possible"?  If you consider that "possible" the I would say
that the best "possible" system of economics would be one in which all our 
economic desires would be granted by magic.  Wouldn't that be "better"?  
 
> A better question: Just what is the question that all the various
> economies are trying to solve? (This is not a trivial question).

Actually, various politico-economic system is trying to solve a different 
question.  These range from "How can we generate enough money to defeat
our enemies to the north/south/east/west?" to "How can we most effectively 
organize ourselves to serve Allah/Jesus/Gaia?" to "How can we organize 
ourselves to maximize justice and happiness?" to "What is the desire of 
the fearless leader?".  I suppose the only connection between all of these is 
that they are theories which specify how the production and consumption of 
goods and services ought to be organized.  The way they differ is in regard to the ends to which they attach importance, and whether the commonly 
recognized approaches in fact achieve the desired ends.  The last difference 
is whether these ends are in fact good or not, and that requires an essay on 
morality which will have to wait till the next posting.
 

-- 
-- Brian K. Yoder (brian@norton.com) - Maier's Law:                          --
-- Peter Norton Computing Group      - If the facts do not fit the theory,   --
-- Symantec Corporation              - they must be disposed of.             --
-- NeXT Mail Accepted (preferred!)   -                                       --
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.misc