On Wed, June 18, 1997 at 11:27:01 (-0700) Wojtek Sokolowski writes: >While I share Bill's principle of honest and open debate, I also recognise >the limits of the rational discourse. ... There is a difference between visions of the future and myths. Myth is, in my book at least, always a lie and must always, therefore, be rejected in principle. Trying to shoehorn this into the rationality/maximization behavior of economic man does nothing to dissuade me from this conclusion. >The point I'm getting at is that most if not all commodities can be >distributed in many alternative ways, and those choices of venue will >determine not only the demand/supply structure for different goods, but also >the "private" or "public" nature of the goods themselves (thus public >subsidies). The choice of venue is a political one, and as such it must be >appealing to the population at large. It is, therefore, the "right" >combination of the politcal clout of the promoters and the popular appeal of >a given choice that determines the political and economic success of that >choice. Then it seems you greatly misunderstand the U.S. political system. Decisions made in the political system need only appeal to more than 0 people. If the vast majority stay home because there is no choice given except between Tweedledum and Tweedledee (both of whom are out to rip off the populace), or if no choice at all is given to the public, then the choice need not (obviously) appeal at all to the population at large. It can, in short, simply be foisted on people. Claiming that today, folks are fond of automobiles (while ignoring those who curse them daily) is just after-the-fact rationalization, in my view. Bill
