jln wrote:
>
> >Is it possible that you are mistaken about Nicholas economical position?
> >
> >-------------
> >Gabriel Ash
> >Notre-Dame
> >-------------
>
> Yes, though I am not sure to which point you are referring. Nicholas can
> you give me a hand. I know you think idealized cpaitalism is the place to
> start to move towards socialism. But I recall you saying the profit and
> property are necessary either in a capitalist system and a socialist
> sysytem. You also seem to think that there are free loaders and that
That's free *riders*. Geez!
> unions do not encourage good work habits (though you may have been
> sarcastic here, I was absent from line the day sarcastic detectors were
> distributed). Are there details you would like added in here? What are
> they?
> Here's another question, if idealized capitalism is the place to start to
> move toward sopcialism, do you think we should move toward socialism? Oh,
> yes, I rmember you said something about an egalitarin distribution being
> the right idea, but by this, I think, you meant equal opportunity, vis a
> vis the market.
Any society would do well by itself to maintain an equitable distribution
of goods, but it should only do so with an understanding of the trade-offs involved
and it should retain some emphasis on incentives in its public policy.
> I disagree about equal oppurtunity. The market does not allow equal
> opportunity because not everyone's desires have an equal chance of being
> fulfilled.
Not everyone wants the same "thing," and not all desires require the
same amount of resources. But, yes, some people have only 50 (insert national
currency here) to spend a week on food, and others have so much (national currency)
that they (pity them) have to hire someone to count it for them.
Knowledge/information is important in the market. Businessmen whose
situation falls short of ideal (see: they don't have a monopoly) use information
to attempt to create a de facto monopoly. People budget themselves (or should)
according to how much they expect to learn in the future. How does information
fit in with your evaluation of the role of the market in frustrating desire.
> Further, because the market determines the values for goods,
> not everyone can have the same level of satsifaction of goods.
Do not understand. Cannot process. Click. Whirr. Bfffpt. Pop!
Nicholas X-12 requests that you reformat your proposition so that it is
compatible with his internal drive.
Thanking you in advance.
Nicholas X-12
>
> >Is it possible that you are mistaken about Nicholas economical position?
> >
> >-------------
> >Gabriel Ash
> >Notre-Dame
> >-------------
>
> Yes, though I am not sure to which point you are referring. Nicholas can
> you give me a hand. I know you think idealized cpaitalism is the place to
> start to move towards socialism. But I recall you saying the profit and
> property are necessary either in a capitalist system and a socialist
> sysytem. You also seem to think that there are free loaders and that
That's free *riders*. Geez!
> unions do not encourage good work habits (though you may have been
> sarcastic here, I was absent from line the day sarcastic detectors were
> distributed). Are there details you would like added in here? What are
> they?
> Here's another question, if idealized capitalism is the place to start to
> move toward sopcialism, do you think we should move toward socialism? Oh,
> yes, I rmember you said something about an egalitarin distribution being
> the right idea, but by this, I think, you meant equal opportunity, vis a
> vis the market.
Any society would do well by itself to maintain an equitable distribution
of goods, but it should only do so with an understanding of the trade-offs involved
and it should retain some emphasis on incentives in its public policy.
> I disagree about equal oppurtunity. The market does not allow equal
> opportunity because not everyone's desires have an equal chance of being
> fulfilled.
Not everyone wants the same "thing," and not all desires require the
same amount of resources. But, yes, some people have only 50 (insert national
currency here) to spend a week on food, and others have so much (national currency)
that they (pity them) have to hire someone to count it for them.
Knowledge/information is important in the market. Businessmen whose
situation falls short of ideal (see: they don't have a monopoly) use information
to attempt to create a de facto monopoly. People budget themselves (or should)
according to how much they expect to learn in the future. How does information
fit in with your evaluation of the role of the market in frustrating desire.
> Further, because the market determines the values for goods,
> not everyone can have the same level of satsifaction of goods.
Do not understand. Cannot process. Click. Whirr. Bfffpt. Pop!
Nicholas X-12 requests that you reformat your proposition so that it is
compatible with his internal drive.
Thanking you in advance.
Nicholas X-12