Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ratex.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!ratex!mck
From: mck@ratex.UUCP (Daniel Kian Mc Kiernan)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Taylor's Plan -- Reply to Lupien
Message-ID: <886@ratex.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 18-Feb-85 19:48:56 EST
Article-I.D.: ratex.886
Posted: Mon Feb 18 19:48:56 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 21-Feb-85 06:35:25 EST
Organization: TMP
Lines: 28


Lines marked '>>' are from an earlier article of mine; lines marked '>' are
those of John Lupien.

>>     Given Martin Taylor's leisure-subsidy plan, the economically
>>efficacious thing for the worker to do is train for a profession which he
>>can expect to soon become obsolete.  Wonderful.

>No, although the above could be usefully construed as representing 
>an attempt at humor, it is not a fair assessment of Mr. Taylor's 
>plan. The *personally* efficacious thing might be as you say. However,
>what a person does is up to them. The *economically* efficacious path
>would be to work on a widget machine to produce more leasure oppor-
>tunities<HUMOR<attempt>>.

Next time that you are tempted to correct someone, consult a dictionary.
The word 'economic' means pertaining to management of resources.  Writing
in the English language (of which you obviously have a tenuous grasp), I
was making the claim that, given Taylor's scheme, the worker could maximize
his consumption of resources by 'train[ing] for a profession which he can
expect to soon become obsolete'.  I did not make the claim that Taylor
thought that the economy as a whole would be better off if workers took
such a course; what Taylor did was to fail to see that his scheme would
lead to workers taking such a route.  Once this realization is made,
Taylor's scheme is exposed as foolishness.

                                        Irked,
                                        Daniel Kian Mc Kiernan