Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site meccts.UUCP Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!stolaf!umn-cs!dicomed!meccts!mvs From: mvs@meccts.UUCP (Michael V. Stein) Newsgroups: net.politics.theory Subject: Re: Re: Re: Newsflash! [JoSH on Socialis Message-ID: <275@meccts.UUCP> Date: Sun, 24-Nov-85 22:00:57 EST Article-I.D.: meccts.275 Posted: Sun Nov 24 22:00:57 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 29-Nov-85 22:09:48 EST References: <876@water.UUCP> <28200245@inmet.UUCP> <233@gargoyle.UUCP> <266@meccts.UUCP> <11047@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> Reply-To: mvs@meccts.UUCP (Michael V. Stein) Organization: MECC Technical Services, St.Paul, MN Lines: 55 Keywords: property rights, justice Summary: I wrote >>It is a pretty fundamental theorem of Welfare Economics that given >>any initial property endowments, eventually the property will >>be distributed to those who are most efficient. In article <11047@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> tedrick@ernie.UUCP writes >The above is a nice model for certain purposes, but is too simplistic >for others. >The model seems to assume some form of fairness governing >the process of distributing wealth. If we are more realistic >and assume that a certain amount of corruption exists, wealth >will tend to accrue to not only the efficient producers, but >also to the efficient criminals. The more wealth one has, the >more power one has to manipulate and corrupt whatever system of >regulation is in place. The model assumes that there is a government that will enforce human rights (which of course include property rights). >The assumption that making a profit=producing social benefits >is not realistic in practice. For example, consider spillover >costs. If an oil refinery can produce petroleum products more >cheaply by polluting the environment the social costs of this >pollution are not necessarily reflected in the profits. Again you are only mentioning violations of property rights. (As has already been shown by others.) Naturally it is the job of the legal system to protect individuals from those who would violate their rights. >An unregulated market is really likely to result in concentration >of wealth in the hands of the most efficient, clever, lucky, ruthless, >brutal, unscrupulous, etc., individuals in the society. Laissez faire will lead to society being on the utility-possiblity curve. For this reason laissez faire is said to be efficient. I had hoped that a group called political theory wouldn't have to deal with concretes in the argument. Unfortunately this isn't the case I guess. Well then, if markets only lead to stagnation and concentration of wealth, consider this: Only two of the top ten corporations in 1909 were still in the top ten in 1958. Of the top 100 corporations in 1909 only 36 were left in 1958. The reason is simple, people who stop producing social benefits greater then their competiters will be out of business. The market is simply what results from the free choices by people free from government interference. For this reason Laissez Faire is more dynamic then any type of economy. -- Michael V. Stein Minnesota Educational Computing Corporation - Technical Services UUCP ihnp4!dicomed!meccts!mvs