Re: OT to the extreme

Ron Garret <rNOSPAMon@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Patrick May <pjm@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > That doesn't change the fact that there is nothing
> > "artificial" about the price of labor being subject to supply and
> > demand.
>
> Hogwash. Money is a human invention. Saying that there is nothing
> artificial about the law of supply and demand is like saying that
> there is nothing artificial about traffic jams.

Money is an optimization to make exchange easier. Supply and
demand are objective phenomena that exist independently of money. If
people used barter exclusively, supply and demand would still be
issues.

> > Your implicit assumption, and that of many who oppose free
> > markets, is that economics is a zero-sum game. It most definitely
> > is not. Wealth is _created_, especially when people are able to
> > reap the rewards of doing so.
>
> Not at all. I am a capitalist, but I believe that some markets need
> to be regulated for the common good.

"Capitalist" is an almost meaningless term. It typically is used
by people in favor of using force against other people. Those in
favor of using force are often described as "communist", "socialist",
or "fascist" (no, I'm not conflating the three); by giving those who
oppose the use of force a name ending in "ist", they suggest that
those who advocate force are morally equivalent to those who do not.

A more useful distinction is between those who support free
markets and those who do not. Free markets are what result from a
more general respect for and protection of individual liberty.
"Regulations" on markets are in direct conflict with liberty.

> There are ways of dealing with an oversupply or oranges (like
> turning the excess into fertilizer) that most people would not want
> to see applied to an oversupply of labor. To paraphrase Soylent
> Green (since you brought it up), lassez-faire capitalists seem to
> lose sight of the fact that LABOR IS PEOPLE. You shouldn't treat
> labor as a commodity not because there aren't sound economic reasons
> to do so, but because treating *people* as a commodity has all kinds
> of consequences that people find distasteful. An excess orange
> lying in the street is not a problem; most people would not say that
> about an excess laborer in the same predicament.

I agree with you. I suspect that we share many of the same
social goals. Where we differ is on the means to achieve those
goals. Government regulations always have negative consequences.
Government social programs are always inefficient and frequently
counterproductive. Government protection of the environment is for
sale to the highest bidder, both in terms of money and votes.
Government never creates wealth.

Freedom is not just an absolute good in and of itself. Freedom
_works_. Private charities get people out of poverty. Private land
owners (including organizations like the Sierra Club) have a vested
interest in protecting their part of the environment. Wealth is
created only by individuals and organizations who are subject to the
feedback of the free market, and that wealth increases the standard of
living for everyone.

Is this a perfect solution? Of course not. It is, however, the
best possible solution available. Individual liberty, and the free
markets that result, can be messy, confusing, loud, crude, and
thoroughly confusing. The closer we get to the ideal, the better off
we all are.

Regards,

Patrick

------------------------------------------------------------------------
S P Engineering, Inc. | The experts in large scale distributed OO
| systems design and implementation.
pjm@xxxxxxx | (C++, Java, Common Lisp, Jini, CORBA, UML)
.

Quantcast