Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site psuvax1.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!rochester!cmu-cs-pt!cadre!psuvax1!berman
From: berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Re: Health Care, Wonderful Market fo
Message-ID: <1808@psuvax1.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 20-Sep-85 17:34:53 EDT
Article-I.D.: psuvax1.1808
Posted: Fri Sep 20 17:34:53 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 25-Sep-85 12:04:45 EDT
References: <1764@psuvax1.UUCP> <10300@ucbvax.ARPA> <1774@psuvax1.UUCP> <10355@ucbvax.ARPA> <1231@ihlpg.UUCP> <10417@ucbvax.ARPA>
Organization: Pennsylvania State Univ.
Lines: 104

> 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.  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.)
and their level of satisfaction with the current availability.
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.

> 
> >	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 :-)

> >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.

> >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.

> And, second, things which can't be
> quantified don't exist, at least for the purposes of rational discussion.
> Until we can define this commodity in a way we can measure it -- so we can
> talk about facts, instead of opinions -- then we're just flaming.  And
> definitions that depend on plebiscites are a guarantee of flaming.
> 
You used information as commodity, well, may be you can measure it.
One can measure it by asking: how much do you want to spend on it,
one by asking: what do you want to know.  None of these methods 
captures the whole picture.
I remember vaguely a libertarian talking about dignity and freedom.
How you measure it?  Facts, not opinions please.  Or were he just
flaming?

> 						-- Rick.
Piotr