Gee, this got through. I'll try sending my scathing missive to Harry
again.
Ed Weick 577 Melbourne Ave. Ottawa, ON, K2A
1W7 Canada Phone (613) 728 4630 Fax (613)
728 9382
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2002 3:06
PM
Subject: Vanishing into the ether?
Where do things go? I wrote an absolutely burning, scathing
response to Harry Pollard, letting him know that he had, at best, a 15th
Century understanding of economics, and it disappeared into thin air. I
tried sending it several times, and it still didn't appear. It's rather
sad because I spent all of half an hour on it. If anyone out there finds
it, please kick in the general direction of the futurework server.
I see I'm not the only one who's been affected by strange
disappearances. It seems that some of Ray's messages have not got
through either. Aliens?
Ed
Ed Weick 577 Melbourne Ave. Ottawa, ON, K2A
1W7 Canada Phone (613) 728 4630 Fax
(613) 728 9382
Subject: Re: Privatizing the Public: Whose agenda?: At What Cost?
Thanks for the lesson in economics, Harry. However, I would suggest that your
version of economics is rather too firmly rooted in the 19th Century for my
liking. It does seem to leave out a number of things that economists and others
have picked up on since then, such as the struggle among social classes (also a
19th Century concept), the notion that even in a competitive market some firms
will attempt to dominate (e.g. Joan Robinson's notion of imperfect competition),
the nature and significance of the trade cycle (Keynes and others) and the
tremendous impact of the media and advertising which various people such as
Chomsky and Galbraith have picked up on.
Given all that, I would seriously question your statement that the "object of
market place competition is to provide people with the best possible service.
And it does." The primary objective of a large corporation, such as the
Ford Motor Company is to yield a positive return to its shareholders by making
cars as cheaply as possible and persuading consumers to buy them at the highest
price they can charge. Another objective is to enlarge market share by
persuading consumers that their product is not necessarily better, but certainly
more prestigious, than their competitors. I don't see this as competition in the
sense that 19th Century economists used the term.
Perhaps the automotive industry was competitive at one time. Back in the
1920s, there were hundreds of different makes of automobiles manufactured in the
United States and Canada. Now all are manufactured by the "Big Three" plus a few
foreign interlopers. What this, and what has happened in many other industries,
suggests is a trend toward increasing concentration in an originally competitive
market and the ultimate domination by a few large firms. There are still local
markets that are competitive - men and women that sell vegetables from stalls,
etc. - but wherever it's important little competition in the sense that the
Classicists intended prevails. Anti-combines legislation does try to prevent
complete market dominance, a la Microsoft, and collusion among firms, but it is
slow in its application and probably not too significant in its overall effect.
There are many ways of dominating and colluding without appearing to do so
within the letter of the law.
I would suggest that there are three broad sets of interests at play in the
modern economy. Business interests, which own the productive capital, represent
one set. Workers represent another, and consumers represent a third. There is a
continuous game going on among these three. Business works to manipulate
consumers into buying its product in amounts well beyond those needed for
comforable survival (an expensive gas guzzling SUV instead of a small car).
Workers strive to maintain their income by collective bargaining and,
increasingly, because collective bargaining no longer works very well, by
becoming specialized and thus raising their scarcity value. And consumers? I
would guess their function is to carry the whole thing along on the paychecks
they earn as workers and the dividends they get as shareholders. The
circular flow remains, but it's not like it was 150 years ago.
I'm not
suggesting that this is an immoral or cynical game. It's probably quite natural.
However, there are somethings I personally do not want to see as being part of
it. One is the education of our children. They deserve better than to be tossed
about by market forces. Another is health. Others are the environment and arts
and culture. In my opinion, these things belong to societies as a whole, not
particular interests within societies. They are important to us as non-economic
beings, not only as participants in the market economy.
There you have it, Harry. I see the modern economic world as being far
removed from the Classicists. I didn't mean to write an essay, but you got me
going.
Ed
Ed Weick 577 Melbourne Ave. Ottawa, ON, K2A 1W7 Canada Phone
(613) 728 4630 Fax (613) 728 9382
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2002 4:32
AM
Subject: Re: Privatizing the Public:
Whose agenda?: At What Cost?
Ed,
I'm glad you like my economics.
However, you seem to have been looking at someone else's discipline - perhaps
the neo-Classicals.
Here I am, suggesting through the three basic
assumptions that the world is full of an humanity who approach life through a
veritable torrent of differing and extensive desires, agog with curiosity as
they search for better ways of doing things, yet you say my Political Economy
is mechanical and two dimensional.
Then you make the mistake that is
constantly bruited about by the left. Competition is a war in which some win,
but most lose.
To remind you, competition in the market place brings to
us all better quality at cheaper prices.
The object of market place
competition is to provide people with the best possible service.
And it
does.
We are blessed in the US with an economy in which competition is
allowed over a large part of the economy. Wherever competition exists,
products are good and cheap. Whenever, government interferes with the market,
an ever increasing problem, prices rise and/or quality drops.
You
say:
ED: "Beyond those
of competition, there are no principles, and certainly no passions concerning
justice and equality for all. There are no people in it, just
self-interested robots. And certainly no politics. Politics would
spoil its perfect rhythms."
Ed, Political Economy deals with people,
not aggregates, in which I fear lies the interest of the neo-Classicals.
Aggregates probably deal with robots, for surely they have nothing to do with
people. There is no such thing as an "average" person - but there may be an
"average" robot. You would know.
Classical Political Economy is the
study of the Nature, the Production, and the Distribution of
Wealth.
Distribution refers to the distribution of the final product to
Land, Labor, and Capital. The Classicals had analyzed the distribution of
Wealth - and had found it wanting long before the neo-Classicals had begun
confusing themselves with mathematics. (Now, there's a passionate
subject.)
I think you are a bit loose with "justice and equality for
all". Of course it depends on how you use he terms, but they appear to mean
about the same thing.
The Classicals are a little more accurate in
their definitions. I want "Liberty and Justice for All".
Freedom means
you can do anything you like. But, in community that freedom is
tempered.
I like Leonard Read's maxim: "Do what you wish but harm
no-one." That's not bad.
Liberty means freedom under the law. Justice
means the law applies equally to everyone. (There are a few other qualities
that make a good law - but crucially, it must apply equally to all.
Not
very passionate, I suppose.
Passion should be reserved for
stirring the blood when one sees injustice. It is useful also when you are
trying to end that injustice. But in between the two, one must think. If you
let passion interfere with your thinking, the result won't be very
good.
As is noticeable with many people who profess to be
reformers.
That's all for the moment.
More
later,
Harry
|