From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Mon Jun 10 2002 - 00:36:32 MDT
Dossy wrote:
> On 2002.06.09, Harvey Newstrom <mail@HarveyNewstrom.com> wrote:
>
>
> I happen to think that charity work (done properly) is very extropian
> yet capitalism doesn't reward charity work -- I might even be inclined
> to argue that it deters people from doing such things.
Well, how can it do that? I won't have as much money if I do
charity but money isn't everything that is of value. I don't
see how capitalism can force anyone to agree that it is. In
practice it certainly tends to be the case that a lot of people
start acting if that is true.
>
> A free market capitalist system rewards those who are the best at
> maximizing price while minimizing cost within the tolerances that the
> market will bear. In other words, getting less while paying more.
I thing you mean getting more while paying less from the
producers point of view. This is all to the good generally as
it raises efficient of use of energy and resources. From the
consumer's point of view, they pay (ideally) only as much as the
item is worth to them. If that is more than the producer can
produce it for then everyone is happy.
> Sometimes, we look and say, "Gee, that's not true. McDonalds offers
> a really great hamburger for a low price!" don't you think if they
> thought people would pay more for the same burger, they would have
> priced it higher originally? Or, if they thought people would pay
> for a lower quality burger, they would have sold even worse food?
>
McDonald's offers krap at whatever price they charge. <sorry,
didn't resist> Of course they will charge more if the customers
value it more highly. Why shouldn't they? They know how to
produce something for a much cheaper price than it is valued
for. Why shouldn't the profit from that?
On the other hand, there is a problem here. As technology
increases the real cost of producing a great number of old and
new things drops precipitously. Many business people apparently
will look at this situation with their own widgets and conclude
that the people are willing to pay X% of income for this widget
this year so next year's price can also be X%, even if that
involves an actual rise in price, without impacting people's
perception of the cost. This tends to stagnate any real
increase in wealth. It sounds screwy as any competitor could
come along and charge less. Yet in practice our real useable
wealth does not appear to be increasing proportional to our more
advanced manufacturing and other capabilities hardly at all.
Some even believe it is deteriorating. Clearly this cannot lead
us to a more extropian future.
> Others might argue that "you don't go to McDonalds for the food --
> you go for the fast food and the bright smiles -- the service."
People go there because they are too lazy or too frantic in the
scramble of their lives to get some decent food together for
themselves and their children. They don't go for the food or
the service.
> Fine, now we're moving away from the view of a product-driven
> economy to a service-driven one. This is good, because this is
> closer to reality ...
>
> So, if we accept that as consumers we hardly buy products but
> instead really buy services -- we don't reward people who offer
> better service for less cost. The better the service, generally,
> the more people will accept a higher cost: so, why would you ever
> price the service lower than what the market will bear?
>
You would not if everyone else is out to get absolutely top
dollar out of your hide. There is a lock-step effect. Everyone
I buy from keeps their prices up, so I keep mine up in order to
afford theirs and they keep theirs up in part to afford mine.
And we all spin our little hamster cages ever faster going
nowhere but with more glitter.
> In the end, it's not the entire market that will bear that price,
> only the majority (or, whatever percentage of it that you are
> targeting). In the end, you're segregating the population into
> Us and Them, the Haves and the Have Nots -- your customers who
> can afford your service ... and everyone else.
>
Dunno about this one. If I can only perform the service and pay
my various suppliers by charging at least $X then that some
can't pay $X who would like to have my services is simply
reality. I may chose to provide my services to some of them on
a reduced rate or pro bono if I have an interested in their
situation or what they are into or room to be otherwise
generous. But that is up to my own disgression and should be.
Even in a totally moneyless, hyper-abundant economy some things
like time, and energy of real entities (like myself) are not
infinitely divisible. There will be some mechanism for
apportioning that which is not infinitely divisible and
avaialable. Just because I believe in making plenty of room for
real abundance does not mean I claim everything will be in
effectively infinite supply.
> My opinion is that extropy isn't something that can be selectively
> increased for specific individuals. It's a measure of "something"
> of the population as a whole. Free market capitalism certainly
> increases "something" but I say whatever that "something" is,
> isn't extropy.
Sure. But that does not mean that all things and services, even
the ones not infinitely divisible and replicatable, can be had
in any quantity desired by all who may desire them. There are
still facts of reality to consider. It is unlikely, for
instance, that even in a world of fully free and available
information and processing power that the amount of actual
highly trained intelligence would be greater than the demand. It
is like the amount of creativity would not be greater than the
demand. The amount of beach front property in Hawaii is not
infinitely growable (although with MNT one could grow just as
good or better).
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:42 MST