[FoRK] The bee sting theory of poverty
Stephen D. Williams
sdw at lig.net
Mon Jun 28 23:24:28 PDT 2010
On 6/28/10 10:53 PM, Jeff Bone wrote:
> On Jun 28, 2010, at 11:43 PM, "Stephen D. Williams"<sdw at lig.net> wrote:
>> In other words, proper participants could expect that the baseline could be obtained with a reasonable subset of their income and time in that community.
> I do notice an interesting new angle in your attempt to make sense of nonsense, here.
This isn't new, it is exactly what I stated as the main goal during that
> "Reasonable subset." Mmm hmm. Who gets to decide what's reasonable, here? Again, no reasonable preference-aggregating decision process is possible in the general case. Only fully distributed ones work, but that won't satisfy you.
The point of the discussion then was to design-in community efficiencies
so that things like rent, transportation, etc. weren't unnecessarily
large. There is no guarantee of percentages that has to be propped up
somehow, there would be only the recent performance efficiency
measurements. "Reasonable" is more efficient than it used to be.
>> And it isn't the Gov't providing this stuff, necessarily or preferentially.
> Who then gets to reallocate resources to ensure your "reasonable subset" condition is satisfied?
Depends on what you mean by "reallocate resources". Did the government
"reallocate resources" when they gave BP the go ahead to drill in the
Gulf which allowed them to make billions (or whatever) in profit?
The government and others can create changes just by setting standards,
defining frameworks, coming up with new ideas, etc. There is no need
for a comprehensive central planning and wealth redistribution committee
which you keep expecting, nor would it ever work at all.
The government can not provide anything substantial to every single
person. Drivers license, sure. Tax return processing, OK. Food,
housing, clothing, etc., forget it. Their job is, in limited ways, to
create and administer frameworks that allow others to efficiently
provide all of that: monetary system, mail, legal system, food safety, etc.
> If it walks like a duck...
> Now, really, I'm done beating this dead horse. Read the book, or not.
>> My point with that wording is that, as a baseline, people need clothes for at least:
>> * General protection from the elements / modesty
>> * Working / school formalities / uniforms
>> * Misc. which includes exercise/sports-compatible clothing.
> The latter just underscores the ludicrousness of this discussion.
More information about the FoRK