[snip]We have "solved" the production problem but can't seem to deal with the issue of distribution.
Might that be because, in lowering prices (solving the production problem...) we lowered wages to so that the workers can't afford to buy what they make? Didn't Ford pay workers $5 a day back in the 30s, in part, so that they could afford to buy Fords?
The law of unintended consequences says that things will go awry in ways we cannot expect (and most certainly do not desire!) except in the economy where he invisible hand sees to it that all unintended consequences are optimal, and that the only way to mess things up is to try to foresee and them and act to prevent the parts we don't want to happen.
The way I lok at it, it's kind of like a problem in geometry: You can start here or you can start there, and for each starting point different things will be "easy" but no matter where you start eventually you hit a wall. The free market and the managed economy each finds some things easy and eventually the road starts going uphill for all.... (Of course, some alternatives do seem more generally unlikely to succeed, e.g., if you start your trek by shooting yourself in the foot even though absolutely no one and no thing even suggested you do so.) In other words, there are no good alternatives but there most definitely are worser ones.
\brad mccormick
--
Let your light so shine before men,
that they may see your good works.... (Matt 5:16)Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thes 5:21)
<![%THINK;[SGML+APL]]> Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [EMAIL PROTECTED] ----------------------------------------------------------------- Visit my website ==> http://www.users.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/ _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
