Re: Blumenstock's Beef

[Hyman Blumenstock <hystock@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hyman says:  It may well be during the Agrarian era, that the thought
that productive capability of Food (there wasn't much else then to
produce) could never ever at least match human demand for Food.  Not to
cast stones too soon, an ingenuous attempt at philosophy about the human
desire for enough food in the face of coninual scarcity since time
began, would then merge the thought of a never to be fulfilled human
capacity to consume enough Food with the thought that human wants with
regard to getting enough Food might as well be infinite.

However, the sudden destruction of Food following the sudden realiztion
that enough Food could indeed be, and was produced that met demand,
indicates a no longer ingenuous thought, but a calculated venal attempt
to maintain the status quo of Have and Have-Not.  And with it the
maintenance of Social Problems and the continuation of a no longer
viable Social Science allegedly dedicated to resolving Social Problems.
What else can adequately explain that deliberately obfuscating
statement, "Human Wants Are Virtually Infinite," that really literally
means Finite, but with the false innuendo of Infinite?"

> Harry Veeder wrote:
>
> 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.

Would it not be more honest and accurate to state that at last the human
capacity to consume our Food supply had been met by our advancing Food
production technology -- a century ago?  Do you think the declaration,
"Human *Capacity to Consume or Use* (rather than "pie in the sky"
*wants*) is Virtually Infinite" makes any sense?  But the reality of it,
we can consume or use our GDP at perhaps at a level less than 100%,
maybe even at only 10% of our productive capability. That raises the
question then, just what is the usefulness of Doctrinire Economic
Philosophy of Scarcity under such conditions.  Does the problem really
boil down (I hate to say it) to morality?


> Hyman said:
> > 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.

Hyman says: Which of course would mean the complete dissolution of
Doctrinaire Economics, the Science of Scarcity, because "wants" have
never been the real issue, but productive capability to fulfill actual
"capacity to consume or use" which is infinitely less than infinite
unrealistic "wants."
>
> Harry said: 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.  > Yes, so why discuss "wants"?

Hyman says: I doubt that anyone can even find the time to think of such
unrealizable wants, like being able to fly like Superman, or for all the
gorgeous women in the world seeking his services, and he has, in his
imagination, a potency to cope with all of them in rapid sequence. Yet,
realizable wants beyond one's fondest dreams have been within our power
for the laat century, but for denial by the maintenance of Doctrinaire
philosophy.  That makes it distinctly an "economic" problem, the root of
the problem being sourced in the untenable philosophy now being avidly
taught in all our prestigious institutions of learning.
>
>
> The aim of all economic activity may be to supply products for
> consumption, but this is not the aim of all spritual activity.

But it is all connected.  If Doctrinaire Economics also took into
consideration "spiritual activity" it would have to look beyond its too
stilted focus only upon the Security threat of "earn a living" or
"die."  I presume what you mean by "spiritual activity" is what I would
term the pursuit of "Self Esteem."  See below.
>

> >Hyman said: .... and what rule of logic demands
> > we withhold from that unfortunate at least that value of "living?"
> >
Harry said:
> 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.

Hyman says: I think the "naivete" lies among the "withholders."  As
people physically are of one design that medical textbooks don't have to
be created on people who have pug noses rather than long noses, or have
different fingerprints, or different DNA.  It is all boiled down to a
profound generality such that people all have kidneys, etc.

What you are referring to is people's thinking, their mental
motivation.  It is apparent that the Social Sciences insist on
overcomplicating that factor, instead of creating a profound
simplification that covers everyone that ever existed, as physically
everyone has at least one kidney.  For 5 billion people, the Social
Sciences prefer to think that there are 5 billion different basic
philosophies. Wrong, and one of the reasons for continual failure to
ever resolve Social Problems, which I believe is exactly what the Social
Scientist wants all the rest of us to believe.  I could say, "No wonder,
Maslow is little regarded or discussed at all on Social Problems (a boon
to the Social Scientist). No wonder also that all alleged Social Science
"knowledge" is always proven, not by successful achievements, as is the
custom within the Real Sciences, but by referring to each other
incestuously as support for any alleged logic that one may come up with.

No.  The fallacy ought to be readily apparent to anyone not yet sold on
the "holy writ" of Doctrinaire philosophy.  Maslow left off with a five
or six level of human motivation that I've been able to reduce to just
ONE comprised of two distinct elements.  I suggested that extremely
simple equation, "Achievement is Proportional to Motivation and
Inversely Proportional to Frustration."  I believe that this is a first,
and I believe a vast improvement over Maslow, and I can refer to no one
else for support, except pure logic susceptible to better logic.

That Motivation is comprised of two elements, Security, the element
threatened by Doctrinaire Philosophy as a motivator, and Self Esteem, a
much more desirable motivator given that Security is assured from the
beginning of one's life until his death.

The "withholders" thought they have the power to withhold, are people
susceptible to this equation.  They either without logical thought just
follow accepted doctrine, or with logical, but venal thought, do
likewise.  Both Security is on their minds, being there on the threat
taken as a normal way of life of "earn" in any way, even stealing, or
lose Security, with Self Esteem having to created out of whole cloth,
such as just accumulating more Money than anyone else.  Understand the
specifics that now motivate the "withholders," and see that they are
satisfied without harming the Have-Nots any further.  If a "withholder"
wants more money, see that he gets it.  It is of no more meaning than a
kid having more baseball cards than anyone else.  They cannot make any
more of a dent in our stockpile of Real Wealth, no matter how much money
they may possess.  If their Self Esteem is suffering, then see that they
are trained and applied to some significant task that will enhance that
Self Esteem.

Hyman