Do you think it might be useful to discuss how we might go in the direction of figuring out how to get the mechanisms and ideology to do so?
I would start by asking about the value system that underlies the socialization process and the way the schools pit children against each other and teach the values of 'performance', 'success', 'power' and 'glory' above creativity and humanity. Recently there has been a flurry of interest in the way bullying results in shootings and the way girls abuse each other in order to be 'respected'? what? to have power? Maybe these issues could act as wedges by way of which we might examine the deeper values they manifest. I don't know. It's just a thought but I think there are places here and there where people are beginning to realize that our value system needs to be changed. I hope it's not just wishful thinking on my part but even if it is that's no excuse not to explore what might be possible of we at least start talking about it. Selma It just occurred to me that it may not be clear how this connects to the scarcity issue. If it is not, I would be more than happy to explain. Selma ----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 9:13 PM Subject: RE: FW: To survive or not to survive. > We used to use the example of air and water as non-scarce resources that > could not be called economic goods. However we now see that clean air and > clean water are scarce (witness everybody drinking bottled water) and so are > subject to the market. > > I think one of the limits to wide scale development is ground water. As one > scientist said (who may or may not know what he was talking about)...there > is not enough ground water in India to provide flush toilets for the > population. > > Food is grown in an energy intensive manner (there are people on this list > who can drown us in data). So it is not cheap. It also needs chemicals and > GM foods are entering the markets, so those who want their food "pure and > organic" have to pay a premium. > > In contrast to the above, I have said on this list that in capitalist > countries, the production problem has been , by and large, solved. And > scarcity is mostly artificial consisting of holding back the amazingly > productive system that has been created by those who came before us. While > the production problem has been solved, the distribution problem remains. > We don't have the mechanisms or ideology to distribute "free goods." > > arthur > > -----Original Message----- > From: Selma Singer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 8:19 PM > To: Brad McCormick, Ed.D.; Cordell, Arthur: ECOM > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: FW: To survive or not to survive. > > > I am curious as to whether this list has ever discussed the fact that it is > no longer true that certain important resources are scarce. For example: > food. It is my understanding, and I cannot point to the specific studies > involved without doing some research, that there is enough food to feed > everyone on the planet if we were to have the will to distribute it with > that end in mind. > > Likewise, I have read that our existing technology is adequate to provide > housing and medical care and education for every person on the planet if we > had the will to work out a distribution system that would allow that to > happen. > > I bring this up, not in the context of whether we are basically selfish, > mean, greedy, power-hungry, etc. as vs. whatever you would like to call the > alternative, but in response to the persistent fallacy that economics is > about the allocation of scarce resources. > > Selma > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Brad McCormick, Ed.D." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 6:28 PM > Subject: Re: FW: To survive or not to survive. > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > > Economics is about the allocation of scarce resources among competing > uses. > > [snip] > > > > This sounds to me like it could be the subject of > > serious fully linguistic conversation among the citizens of the polis, > > to decide among themselves the shape of their shared social life, > > rather than the content of an impoverished less-than-conversation > > between "buyers" and "sellers", with only one word in its > > language: "$", where the shape of shared social > > life is formed by the "cunning of the price mechanism which > > takes place behind the persons' backs" likw qw have in > > our "formal democracy" where the most important issues are > > excluded from political discussion and relegated to > > the hidden machanations of CxOs and Directors of > > corporate boards (as has been pointed out many times, > > some large "private" corporations are bigger than > > many "sovereign nations"). > > > > So "economics" could be a discipline which studied in a > > disciplined way the ways persons decide how to > > shape their shared social world, e.g., how and why some of > > them abnegate genuine responsibility and let > > the quasi-natural force of "The Invisible Hand" > > made the decisions instead. > > > > A secondary part of economics, of course, would be > > calculating the various alternatives that are available > > for the citizens of the polis to choosae among. For instance, > > the economists might determine that the citizens of > > the polid afford both an Anti Ballistic Missile shield and > > also have resources left over to preserve the > > books in their libraries, or even to protect themselves from > > terrorists in dinghies loaded with fertilizer-based > > explosives. > > > > \brad mccormick > > > > -- > > Let your light so shine before men, > > that they may see your good works.... (Matt 5:16) > > > > Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thes 5:21) > > > > <![%THINK;[SGML+APL]]> Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > Visit my website ==> http://www.users.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/
