Arthur, Will it become somehow more authentic if I cite?
I don't even make it easy for myself by saying "almost everyone" or "found in many humans". Every person is described by this Assumption.All you have to do is find an exception. You suggest that desires may not be satisfied in an economic context. Well, it doesn't matter, but I'm not sure what isn't within the purview of classical political economy, which deals with people in community. Modern economics may limit itself to the study of the "allocation of scarce resources among competing uses" but then it seems to have divorced itself from people. Particularly as the answer is immediate. The free market allocates far better than anything else in economics - and I suspect most economists would agree. However, whether they agree or not, money for economists is in the command control sector of the economy. Let's return to classical political economy with its concentration on people and how they act together. Then we'll remember that though food, clothing and shelter must be among the first desires, they are merely the beginning of a highway stretching for ever. And this leads to the conclusion that there cannot be involuntary unemployment. Harry --------------------------------------------------------------- Arthur wrote: >But the "unlimited desires" may not be those that are satisfied in an >economic context. Economics is about the allocation of scarce resources >among competing uses. > >I don't recall where this first assumption is to be found. So I ask: Just >where is this first Assumption of Classical Political Economy to be found. > >Arthur > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Harry Pollard >Subject: Re: not so fast! > > >Brad, > >The fist Assumption of Classical Political Economy is that: > >"People's desires are unlimited." > >This means that if we all worked 24 hours a day, we couldn't satisfy our >unlimited desires. > >So there cannot be involuntary unemployment - can there? > >It'll be a long time before we all have Romanee Conti wine in every glass >and a gold Patek-Philippe watch on every wrist, but when we do a long list >of unfulfilled desires will stretch before us. > >Harry >-------------------------------------------------------------- >Brad wrote: > > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > > Keith said, > > > > > > For stability (and, for goodness sake, a sufficient retention of >sufficient > > > natural wildernesses in the world) we could do with a population at >least > > > half of what we have now. > > > > > > And Cordell asks, > > > > > > Which half should we do without? > > > > >[snip] > > > >The half that's not yet born. The other half we are stuck > >with, unless we want to enlist the aid of "the four > >horsemen" (which aid they may well supply even > >unbidden, of course). > > > >Of course the hope of many is that continued population > >increase will enable the youth of the future to finance > >the retirement of the aged of the present without > >the youth having to feel "pinched". As long at there are > >10 workers for each retiree, things should be OK -- > >either fewer retirees or *ever* more workers.... > > > >But if the hope for retirement for many of us > >middle class Westerners is rapidly fading, why not just > >"bite the bullet", and make a noble crusade out > >of a pathetic necessity. > > > >There is a way that this can be moderated for the near > >future: The well-to-do should stop reproducing and > >adopt as meny of the children of the poor as they can afford. > >This would raise many persons' standard of living without > >producing more persons. "But the poor want their children...", > >someone says? You mean: "The poor want their children to be > >poor like them." How selfless of them! > > > >And, as unpopular as the sentiment may be, I still believe > >that even if infinite population (within the limits of > >gravitation pressing down on an ever thickening layer of > >human flesh covering the earth...) can be fed on > >soylent green, most of the finer things of this > >life are limited. There is simply so much beautiful > >landscape to go around, and, a fortiori, things > >like Romanee Conti wine (and, lest anyone misunderstand me > >here, let me note once again that one of the Dalai Lama's most > >prized possessions is a gold Patek-Philippe watch > >FDR gave to him -- if the Dalai Lama can have something > >better than a Timex, why not *Everyman*?) > > > >\brad mccormick ****************************** Harry Pollard Henry George School of LA Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 Tel: (818) 352-4141 Fax: (818) 353-2242 *******************************
