Path: utzoo!hoptoad!pacbell!ames!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!mit-eddie!bbn!rochester!PT.CS.CMU.EDU!THEORY.CS.CMU.EDU!tsf
From: tsf@THEORY.CS.CMU.EDU (Timothy Freeman)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Economics and Individualism (Too Long)
Keywords: consumption individual economy
Message-ID: <1349@PT.CS.CMU.EDU>
Date: 7 Apr 88 23:09:33 GMT
References: <3714@dasys1.UUCP>
Sender: netnews@PT.CS.CMU.EDU
Distribution: alt
Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI
Lines: 106

In article <3714@dasys1.UUCP> gf@dasys1.UUCP (G Fitch) writes:
>
>The economy we live in is driven by consumption.  

I'm not sure what "is driven by" means.  The actual production is
determined by both the demand and the supply.  The supply for
automobiles in the middle ages was zilch, so (surprise!) no
production happened.  Thus the desire to consume is not the only thing
that determines the behavior of the economy.

>The desire to
>acquire products and services is what encourages people to work
>and invest, thereby making possible the production of surplus
>labor value which, as capital, feeds further expansion of the
>economy.

Yes, but the ability to produce products and services is, in some
sense, more important, because without any production, consumption is
impossible.  "In some sense" makes this a fuzzy statement, but it is
no more fuzzy than yours.

By the way, what is the difference between "surplus labor value" and
"non-surplus labor value"?  Realize that if the "surplus labor value"
does not wind up in the hands of the person who did the labor, then
that person will eventually become smart enough to decide not to
produce that labor.

>Since most players on the economic field are directed by a desire
>to increase the "bottom line", they fall into conformity with the
>prevailing system, that is, the expansion of consumption.

Run this by me again.  Whose bottom line is increased when who expands
consumption?  It seems that for me to increase my consumption helps
your bottom line, so this "prevailing system" has nothing to do with
how selfish people will behave.

>Consumption can be made most efficient, thereby growing at the
>fastest rate, if the worker-consumers are all alike.  

Yes.  Unfortunately for this argument production requires specialized
skills, so if we make everyone the same, our ability to produce will
fall apart, so consumption will stop.

>For example, if workers are attached to large families living in 
>particular towns, it will be difficult to move them around to meet
>business needs.  Similarly, if the potential market for a type of
>product is divided into many segments with strong and differing
>preferences, the market will be fragmented, and production and
>distribution will be unable to achieve economies of scale.

You started out by saying the consumer is the most important person,
but now you are trying to sacrafice his freedoms to a higher goal,
which seems to be to maximize the total consumption.  The purpose of a
group is to benefit its members (in the judgement of its members), not
to maximize its consumption.

>Individualism is always portrayed as something at odds with group
>membership, although in fact it is membership in groups which provides
>persons with their strongest and most effective means of being
>particular.

This does not fit with my experience.  If, to do something unique, I
have to obtain permission from a group, this decreases my chances of
doing it.  

You seem to be assuming here that if a bunch of people are subjected
to the same environment, then they will all tend to become the same,
and that groups are the only way to eliminate the sameness.  If people
have personal freedom then this isn't necessarily so, since people
will adapt their environment to themselves given the chance.

>When everyone is completely individualized, on the other hand, entirely
>"free" of obligation and relationship, that is, when the social fabric
>is completely atomized, then everyone is in every practical sense the
>same.

Their desires to consume will be different, and their abilities to
produce will be different.  So what do you mean by "in every practical
sense the same"?

>And, to the extent that persons differ, they are more vulnerable
>to pressures from the system as a whole, since there are no intervening
>or supporting institutions.

The only pressure from the system as a whole would be, in an ideal
world, for each person's production to have at least as much value as
his consumption.  I want to keep this pressure, otherwise the species
starts devolving.  More constraining pressures that reduce personal
freedom are generated by the intervening and supporting institutions
themselves.

>These leaders profess individualism while they practice self-
>standardization.  The illusion is complete.

Well, I don't watch TV, and I don't drink Coke or Pepsi or 7-up, so
the kind of self-standardization you are talking about hasn't happend
to me. 

>G Fitch

Tim Freeman
-- 
Tim Freeman

Arpanet: tsf@theory.cs.cmu.edu
Uucp:    ...!seismo.css.gov!theory.cs.cmu.edu!tsf