|
Bravo Ed,
Did you learn that in college or from those old
folks? Let's have more essays from your
intelligence. This could get really good.
Ray
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2002 3:51
PM
Subject: Re: Vanishing into the
ether?
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
|
