🚀 go-pugleaf

	 <EBE1yA.64o@midway.uchicago.edu> <EBF9oy.qr@midway.uchicago.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:

> Other than the naivette involved in "the Americans have each made a
> >personal commitment to do more with less " (if we all just make a
> personal commitment to always obey the law, we'll not need police and
> courts), the above is just bad economy.  Anything I consume is the
> fruit of somebodies labor.  When I consume less, somebody has less
> work.  Decrease over consumption by, say, 10% and you've the Great
> Depression all over again.
> 

                            ??
I know I'm butting in someone else's argument, but is this thread about
reduction in consumption levels or more equal redistribution of
resources?

Simplistic example: Mary sells buns for $5 /piece. John has $10, Abe has
$4. John buys two buns. Abe goes hungry. John is happy, Mary is happy,
Abe starves and dies.

Reduction in consumption level: John buys 1 bun. Mary makes $5 less, Abe
goes hungry, John thinks: "I'd have liked another bun". Nobody's happy.
The Great Depression hits and Abe & Mary starve to death. ( basically
what you're saying, Mr. Meron ?)

Redistribution of resources: John buys 2 buns, resells 1 to Abe for $4.
Mary is happy, Abe and John are reasonably happy (though they'd have
both liked another bun). (basically what Kirk was saying ?)

Given the average American mid-class WASP's antipathy towards welfare
(admittedly not without reason) and anything that remotely smells of
socialism or subsidy, I can imagine the second alternative may not
attract too many cheers from that quarter. It means a drop in their
consumption level. Higher taxes, work-more-keep-less, thou shalt give a
tenth unto the poor and all that, you know. Not neccessarily a drop in
production. 

I was under the impression, though, that the thread begun as a
consequence of the philosophical (did someone mumble "moral"?)
standpoint that the good from saving 75,000 people from starvation daily
supercedes even the frightful horrors that result from welfare,
handouts, subsidies, tax increases, and other satanic practices. And
that maybe
a closer look into how wealth, opportunities and resources can be better
distributed while minimising the negative effects of dependency, is
called for. After all, the status quo isn't perfect, is it? And with the
obvious preponderance of first class minds that the Usenet has, it
should be a piece of cake to create a world utopia.

-- 
------------ Elliott Oti ---------------
   ------------- http://www.fys.ruu.nl/~oti  ---------