Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 SMI; site sun.uucp
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!qantel!hplabs!pesnta!amd!amdcad!decwrl!sun!rdh
From: rdh@sun.uucp (Robert Hartman)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Hunger and the Free Market: re to Cramer
Message-ID: <2554@sun.uucp>
Date: Fri, 2-Aug-85 18:20:18 EDT
Article-I.D.: sun.2554
Posted: Fri Aug  2 18:20:18 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 4-Aug-85 10:44:43 EDT
References: <446@qantel.UUCP> <454@qantel.UUCP> <293@kontron.UUCP>
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Lines: 28

> 
> What makes you think "free markets" would have "reasonable distribution"
> of the sort that would prevent starvation?
> -- 

Actually, speaking in terms of what the economists who actually influence 
the market's infrastructure (big word for policies that preserve free-market
appearances) are taught, a central tenet of Public Interest Economics is:

	If a transaction or policy benefits some, but not others, and the total 
	value of the transaction is a net aggregate gain, the  transaction or
	policy should be carried out, whether or not the winners actually can 
	or do compensate the losers.

Given this, it follows that not only is there no guarantee that the so-called
free markets now in practice will lead to even or wide distribution, but 
rather, to just the opposite.  

Theoretically, of course, Public Interest Economics is contrary to the free
market.  Both because it gives government a rationale to meddle, and because it
allows collective decisions to alter the competitive positions of individual
players.  Still, without some basis for justifying a decision, how do you get 
roads, courts, and currency?  

Note that I don't think that the above rationale is proper.  I feel that 
whenever the government interferes with the market (even for its own good), 
it should consider the distributional effects of its actions and 
counterbalance them. -bob.