Adam: I disagree with your characterization somewhat. It's the inverse: The morality is what makes people think it's "economical" but this is short-sited and in no wise economic reasoning at its core. What do I mean?
The "morality" part comes in when we posit (as these days we do) that a capitalist has a "moral right" to the cheapest cost, and in fact that the provider of the cheapest cost is at least implicitly "more moral" than one who charges a higher price. This is Adam Smith's Invisible Hand butchered by modern academics to say "that which was no part of his intention". (My original Samualson's text book literally cut out entire meaningful phrases from that passage that fundamentally altered its meaning without even bothering to indicate an '...' (elipse) where they did the editorial axing of his original words...I'll post them side by side later if you like, it will shock you.) In reality free trade is _killing_ the US economically---destroying our capital base, forcing us into debt, and ultimately tearing our social fabric. It's doing all of this quite economically---because we think the lowest price is somehow "more moral", not because it really is economically beneficial. The invisible hand of smith was the innate preference for domestic over foreign industry that he observed in wealthy countries after spending 300 pages explaining why domestic production for domestic consumption is by far the most efficient use of the same quantity of capital over its other potential employments. In his mind this was a happy coincidence (perhaps the work of God) because that preference gave that society an edge in preventing the ill use of capital for the purpose of creating national wealth. Modern (libertine) morality has effectively chopped that hand off---now the preference is for cheaper, as if more expensive means lazy, inefficient--in a word, immoral. Partly this is what egoists like Ayn Rand who glorify greed as a virtue have achieved; it's also a function of our education system, which only seems to get worse the more we spend on it. (hmm maybe more expensive IS immoral after all! ;-) ) So in any case all I'm saying is the relationship between morality and economics is somewhat more profound than you seem to want to suggest. It's no mistake that Smith's only other book besides the "Wealth of Nations" was "The THeory of Moral Sentiments" and that by trade he was a theologian before he was ever an economist. Anyhoo... gotta jam. Real work, and all that... Take care, - Bob On Monday, May 28, 2007, at 12:48PM, "Adam Buckland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Sorry but in the US of A morality and economics are joined at the hip, there >is no moral question if the economics stack up. Hence why the jobs are in >India, Calcutta rather than India Falls. > >::a > >-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Arnold > > > >Fine, but I'm not talking about shopping or wages, I'm talking about >right and wrong, the implications of being wrong, and how to set things >right. > > >No virus found in this outgoing message. >Checked by AVG Free Edition. >Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.0/821 - Release Date: 27/05/2007 15:05 > > > [excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
