From: perez@mgr.hjf.org (Charles Perez)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
Subject: Re: Misguided Economics
Date: 19 Aug 92 20:06:32 GMT
Organization: HJF AIDS Research Project, Washington DC

In article <viking.713599487@vincent1.iastate.edu> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
>
> MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman) writes:
>
>>viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
>> 
>>And just like farm subsidies, the result is higher prices for cars, a drag
>>on the economy and poorer selection of available cars and technology.
>>Very good example.
>
>	It does point out that lowest cost is not always the way things
>should be run to best benefit the consumer.  A constant supply for the long
>term might be better than a small cost for the short term.

A constant demand in the free market will encourage a constant supply
without the government's thumb-fingered help, and a non-constant
demand is best served by either anticipatory or adapting supply, so
forcing a constant supply is not in anyone's best interests (assuming
they're productive members of society - parasites are an exception,
but in an ideal world, their interests don't count at all).

>You might wish
>to consider purchasing a Yugo now, since the cost is low.  That you cannot
>get replacement parts in two years because the manufacturer has quit
>production would emphasize the point I make.  I'd say food is much more
>important than car parts, and hence the government has gotten into the act.

So, the individual can't weigh a low price vs. availability of parts
for himself, eh? Let's treat everybody like children! (Except, of
course, for the people in charge - they know what's best for *all* of
us ;-> )

>
>>>        I did pass that class, pal, but perhaps this is the best you can
>>>come up with when economic theories disagree?  I'll be leaving for four
>> 
>>This is part of why I quit teaching ;-)
>
>	My condolances -- filling young minds full of mush with ideas and
>concepts is truly a worthwhile endeavor.  That the salaries of professors
>are subsidized by the taxpayer is to be noted, and generally agreed upon as
>a worthwhile payment.  No gratuitous slams here, but just showing how the
>idea of a subsidy or payment need not be detrimental in all cases.

The university format was not *started* by government, just usurped
by it. One problem with governmental services is that people forget
how private enterprise supplied them before *government* got into the
act.

>
>>>days, so you have plenty of time to come up with better attacks.  In the
>>>mean time, you might want to talk to an economist and find out the down
>>>side of a perfectly free market system.
>>>
>>Perhaps you would like to explain it to us? I can't think of any economist
>>in this country who favors a state-controlled economy- especially after
>>the fabulous sucess of state-controlled allocation in the late Soviet Union.
>
>	I never said the economy had to be state-run, but you'll note that
>the USSR had the lowest food prices of any nation on Earth.

Assuming you know what you are talking about, this is blatant
dishonesty. The average Soviet citizen could NOT buy food with rubles!
He needed ration stamps. He had to stand in line for hours. There was,
furthermore, NO guarantee that there *would* be food waiting for him
at the end of the line *after* he had "paid" for it.

I'm not talking about the black market. I don't know how many people
did not starve because of the black market.

>By your own
>admission this is the best for all concerned.  Yet, it failed.  Could it
>be that a totally free market might be just as bad given that we have a
>wide disparity in economic affluence,

If economic disparity is evil, remember that socialist states have it
in spades, and it's harder for anything to chip away at it, as this
disparity is politcally enforced. Quite different from "3 generations
from shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves", eh?

>and if we're going to give food
>stamps so the poor don't starve we should also give guarenteed payments
>to the people who grow that food so they don't quit growing it altogether?
>I can't see doing one without considering the other to be just as fair.

Who said all free-market advocates think there should be food stamps?


-- 
==========================================================================
That which is necessary is never evil. If an evil seems necessary, look
to your context; that's where its root lies.  - Charles Perez
==========================================================================
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct