Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.ARPA Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!mcgeer From: mcgeer@ucbvax.ARPA (Rick McGeer) Newsgroups: net.politics.theory Subject: Re: Re: Health Care, Wonderful Market fo Message-ID: <10482@ucbvax.ARPA> Date: Wed, 31-Dec-69 18:59:59 EDT Article-I.D.: ucbvax.10482 Posted: Wed Dec 31 18:59:59 1969 Date-Received: Sat, 28-Sep-85 08:46:36 EDT References: <1764@psuvax1.UUCP> <10300@ucbvax.ARPA> <1774@psuvax1.UUCP> <10355@ucbvax.ARPA> <1231@ihlpg.UUCP> <10417@ucbvax.ARPA> <1808@psuvax1.UUCP> Reply-To: mcgeer@ucbvax.UUCP (Rick McGeer) Organization: University of California at Berkeley Lines: 148 In article <1808@psuvax1.UUCP> berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) writes: >> In article <1231@ihlpg.UUCP> tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) writes: >> >> >[Piotr Berman] >> >> >The most general law is that the market has a tendency >> >> >toward equilibrium: the demand stimulates the prices up, the supply >> >> >stimulates the prices down. Increase of prices may stimulate the >> >> >production, decrease may stimulate removing marginal producers from >> >> >the market. The real problem is that the equilibrium does not imply >> >> >superior fulfillment of social needs. >> >------- >> >> [Rick McGeer] >> >> This is a common statement of leftwingers, and it is completely >> >> meaningless. What are "social needs"? Who sets them? >> >> Why are the demands met by the market >> >> not an adequate reflection of the generalized demands of society, if such >> >> things in fact exist? And how do you propose to measure how well or badly >> >> any system of organizing society meets "social needs"? When, or if, you >> >> can answer these questions, then we'll have something to talk about. Until >> >> then, you're just flaming. >> >-------- >> >Unbelievabe. First, there is the unwarranted ad-hominem characterization >> >of Piotr Berman as a leftwinger, because he thinks there are social needs. >> >By that standard, even Ronald Reagan is a left-winger. >> >> C'mon. I hardly think Piotr is terribly upset at being called a leftwinger, >> for two reasons: ............... > >1. I am not offended to be called "leftwinger" by Rick. Seems that it >means that I am not "to the right of Attilla the Hun", which indeed is >the case. Cheap shot? Actually, Attila, Hitler, Napoleon, Stalin, and Mao all look pretty much alike to me -- statists prepared to justify any crime in the name of their cause. Or, better put, Attila was a leftwinger. Indeed, the only true righty in all of history was Old Tom Jefferson, a man who realized that you have to jump on the state with both feet and beat on it. >As far as "social needs" are concerned, these are simply needs >of people, period. Skip "social" and read the sentence again. >In fact, in one of your postings you wrote > The consumption of small computers is an excellent example: > the demand for their product, information, existed and was > largely unmet -- as witness the (then- existing) demand for > a host of substitute products. >I am using the word "need", you say "demand". (The purpose of this >quote is to show how demand is use in respect to an abstract notion >which is not easily quantified, like information.) You prefer to >discuss demand and measure it in amount of money that people are >ready to offer. I prefer to talk about needs and measure it in the >number of people who desire it (it may be recreation, health care etc.) Sorry, this really is flaming. My needs involve a large harem, a massive estate, a truly spectacular collection of wines, original editions of all the great philosophical works. You going to provide them? >and their level of satisfaction with the current availability. I ain't satisfied. >You claim that your method is scientific, while my is not. In fact, >in terms of sociology, needs are as easily definable and quantifiable >as the demand in economics. I really don't know much about sociology, since the only college course on the subject that I attended began with the instructor saying that you had to be a Marxist to be a sociologist. Well, that was that. I didn't hear the rest of the lecture. Marxism is like smallpox: the only thing you want to learn about it is how to stamp it out. Anyway... The trouble with your "needs" is that someone has to decide which are valid, and which are not -- which in turn involves cultural value judgements. The great thing about demand as a measure is that you don't make judgements on the relative worth of A's vs B's demand -- it all comes out in the wash. More to the point, demand measure may be optimized automatically without examining the nature of the demand, whereas -- by definition -- that's not true of "needs". Finally, whether you call them "needs" or "demands", you're still talking about the allocation of scarce resources...which is done optimally in a free market. Your concern seems to be that such allocation is inequitable. But that word itself is almost meaningless, since I think that any means of organizing the world in any way where I don't get what I want is inequitable. And you know damned well that that's a pretty universal definition of inequity. So who decides, Piotr? And, better put, who prevents the market from acting as it will? When needs are allocated "so that the poor can receive them" -- as, for example, certain "staple" foods are in Mexico, or as almost everything is in the USSR -- the inevitable result is black markets and shortages. *The market reality always makes itself felt*; when you try to prevent the market from working -- and I'll concede your motives -- all you manage to do is bollix things up terribly and hurt the people you were trying to help. > >> >> > Now, about "social needs". How about starting with adequate food, >> >clothing and shelter for all? >> >> I'll agree that each person needs these things: I won't agree that that makes >> them "social needs". Can anyone define this beast for me, as opposed to giving >> me examples? >> >> >Almost every non-libertarian would agree with >> >these. >> >> Evidence? >> >You are right Rick, Attilla the Hun would disagree for sure :-) In short, you don't have any. > >> >Conservatives might stop there, liberals might add a few more, while >> >social democrats would add a lot more. Who decides? Why, the electorate, >> >through its elected representatives, of course. >> >> Well, the Southern electorate through the first half of the 19th century >> decided that slaves were a social need. > >First, blacks were excluded from the electorate, that makes a little >difference. Second, without the electorate will, blacks will be >slaves even today. > >> The Germans decided in the thirties that glomming onto most of Europe was a >> social need, but that Jews definitely weren't. The history of democracies >> makes me less than sanguine about their future >> >Inexpensive shot, I must say. Socialists are bad because they starved >Kulaks. Democrats are bad because they elected Hitler. Free-marketeers >are bad because they starved Irish. Nobody is perfect. The first two statements are pretty close: as for the third, someone's going to have to go after this nonsense. As I dimly recall, Ireland in the 19th Century was pretty much a colonial feudal aristocracy, which is close enough to socialism that a simple hacker like me can't really tell the difference. ANyone want to correct me? > >> >Since social needs >> >are not defined in Libertarian economics, they clearly don't exist. >> >> First, there is only economics, not Libertarian economics, or Marxist >> economics, or socialist economics. > >There is also sociology, you know. > I try to ignore it. Seriously, I will, for your sake, Piotr, try to at least glance over the basic points. Standard sophomore text in the subject? -- Rick.