Re: Blumenstock's Beef

[Harry Veeder <aa361@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sat, 25 Oct 1997, Hyman Blumenstock wrote:

> Harry Veeder wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 25 Oct 1997, Hyman Blumenstock wrote:
> >
> > > Hyman says: Attack Economics 101, particularly for such a funny
> > > statement as "Human Wants Are VIRTUALLY Infinite" which has literally
> > > the identical meaning as "Human Wants Are Finite," but with the false
> > > innuendo of "Infinite," means attacking those once innocent students
> > > with impregnated minds now carrying forth the tradition of impregnating
> > > fresh new minds with "holy writ" to be passed on, ad infinitum.
> >
> > May be it would be best to simply leave out "human wants" and restate the
> > axiom like this:
> >
> >      Each person has a finite capacity to consume over their life time.
> >
> > Is that sufficently clear and unambiguous?
> >
> > Harry Veeder
> >
> I'm afraid that won't do at all.  It must be stated that human wants are
> finite at any instant of time, even if humans were granted immortality
> and could live forever.

A "want" is not the same thing as a "finite capacity to consume".
Perhaps, it should be stated like this instead:

      Each person has a finite capacity to consume over any given
      interval of time due to physical limitations.

I think the question of whether or not human wants are finite or infinite is a
spiritual question not an economic question, because in reality no matter
how much we wish to consume, there are important physical
limitations on how much we *can* consume over any given interval of time.

> The version you suggested would still allow for
> the fallacy of "infinite" wants of any individual, that would support
> fallacioua current economic logic.  Someone might declare that he wants
> the moon planted in his backyard.  That is a "want?"

Yes it is a "want". Politics is about deciding what are reasonable or
unreasonable "wants". Economics *should* confine itself to figuring out
the best means of satisfying those "wants" which have been deemed
to be socially and politically acceptable given known physical
limitations.

>  Children declare
> sometimes, "I want a million, trillion toys in my room."  That is a
> "want."  So "wants" per se can far exceed our capacity to supply, but
> even with that capacity, the crucial question is, can these "wants" ever
> be realistically consumed, if they were supplied?

No, the economic question is, does reality afford each person infinite
consumptive capacities? I say we can answer NO. Even if
individuals have infinite wants, because of the nature of physical
reality, they will either die or suffer intense disappointment
trying to satisfy ALL their wants.

>  Too much of today's
> philosophy refuses to accept the rationale that our production is
> faltering, marked by most visibly unemployment, because production has
> already exceeded the capacity to consume so much.  After a century of
> this being the case, when will the lesson become clear?

The aim of all economic activity may be to supply products for
consumption, but this is not the aim of all spritual activity.


>
> Capacity to consume is the critical point.

Yes, so why discuss "wants"?

>  Compare the actual,
> realistic consumption capabilities of any human being, even such a one
> as Gates with his $50 billion authority to consume $50 billion worth of
> product.  What is the dollar value of his actual capability to consume
> and use?  How much more is that value than that of the lowlist one of
> our poverty stricken to consume and use, and what rule of logic demands
> we withhold from that unfortunate at least that value of "living?"
>

I just don't know. You'll have to ask the "withholders". I think the
withholders have many reasons but I don't believe they are of one mind in
their reasoning. (All your criticism depends on the naive assumption that
they are of one mind.) I actually believe if each "withholder" was honest
and upfront about why they believe such action is necessary, as a group
their pernicious influence over society would gradually disappear because of
internal disagreement and conflicting agendas.

Harry Veeder