. . . in the best sense, the sense of living simply.
(No, not “living simply that others may simply live,” which is a saying used for anticapitalist purposes that reflects the false image of the economy as a static pie, rather than a bakery that can make as many pies as it likes, in the wildest and most wonderful of ways, and in every flavor.
But at the level of running a household, spending money for its own sake is rather silly, and there is much to be enjoyed that doesn’t require huge cash outlays—particularly when it comes to food.)
; ?>/images/user.png)
; ?>/images/email.png)
; ?>/images/feed.png)
{ 1 trackback }
{ 6 comments… read them below or add one }
C’mon, though, while the bakery CAN make a number of pies, in a great variety of flavors, it’s not true that it can make infinite pies, nor that it has access to infinite supplies with which to make pies, nor that those pies will be made available equally to all persons desirous of pie.
In other words, the supply of pie is finite and the cost of the pie is relevant.
It’s an abundant planet, to be sure, and sometimes the pie is poorly distributed due to individual acts of evil (warlords, profiteers…).
But sometimes it’s simply the market forces in capitalism that dictate that the pie will be out of the price range of a consumer, or unavailable in his neighborhood, or culturally defined as not for people like him. Too often, people who want pie don’t have any, or don’t have much, or have to sacrifice unfairly in order to get some pie. (Or, say, health care.)
If those of us who have plenty of pie reduced our sometimes excess and cavalier consumption, there would in fact be more of the non-infinite pie to share around. Perhaps for free, perhaps at a discount. In any case, more pie.
mmmmm, pie!
There is no space smaller than the imagination of a socialist. Stop oogling my pie and go bake your own. You can eat that pie or give it away–your choice. Brother Malthus lies a-mouldering in his grave. . . The imagination of capitalism pulled the necessary ingredients out of a hat, and billions of pies rolled from the conveyor ovens. And Russia went from the breadbasket of Europe to a nation of beggars looking for a handout.
Rin, if the bakery is having trouble keeping up the demand, open a little establishment across the street and offer creme brulee and chocolate mousse–I’m sure some will prefer that anyway.
The fact is, capitalism–despite all its flaws–has a long track record of bringing people out of poverty; look at what has happened in India in our lifetimes. Socialism has a long track record of bringing people death.
The state can set ground rules for free enterprise, but it should not run companies, nor pick winners. If there are genuine shortages that supply and demand aren’t addressing, such as in wartime, it can create rationing–but the better thing to do is let the market address that shortage: if wheat flour is hard to come by, some bakers will pay a premium for it, and some will do amazing things with corn and rice flours.
That is why the Malthusians lost the bet, and no longer care to make these wagers: someone can always figure out a workaround if a particular resource is too dear.
Not everyone has the start-up capital for a new competing bakery, and too often small business loans get poached by big corporations (like for a new Subway franchise).
And even if someone is able to open a competing bakery with lower prices, some will still be unable to afford to shop there.
The government has not been doing an especially good job lately of providing ground rules to make sure that companies compete fairly (as opposed to secret monopolies, price-fixing, price-gouging…) or that even the poorest get some day-old bread.
Your metaphor of the bakery assumes profit margins, competition, and customers.
My point (and it’s not a socialist one) is that profit margins can be too great, bakeries can boost their profit margins at the expense of poorly paid workers, competition can be rigged, and some would-be customers can afford little or nothing, despite the number of bakeries.
Maybe a bakery offering free or low-cost or subsidized goods, not a fancy one perhaps but decent and healthy, would be a fair form of justice for the poorest shopper — and a spur to competition and even compassion from those bakeries operating at the top of the market. And while no one would be glad to see a given shopper relegated to the profferings of the subsidized bakery forever, in the short term bread must be had, while shifting that shopper to a better income and therefore a better class of baked goods.
There’s a joke to be made here about leavening capitalism with social justice, but I have to run.
Do you have an oven? You’re half-way there then. Except for the barriers thrown up by government that makes you have to grease the brother-in-laws to get a business license and health inspection permit.
Any business that makes “an abnormal” profit becomes the target for every other
person that is aware of it. Barring obstacles thrown in the way, the increased competition will lower that profit until it returns to the norm. It happens automatically. It happens overnight. Free markets do more before breakfast that all the smartest people in the room do in their lifetimes.
Social justice. Economic justice. Secret monopolies? Do you ever gag on your thoughts or words? Or do these packaged concepts just obviate the need to actually think? If everyone in the “pie-production” chain made $50, 000/year, a pie would cost $200 even if profits were zero. The government would have to buy all the production. Easy to do when they can empty our wallets. We would long for the days of the $7 pies with those enormous profit margins. And bake our own pies.
So, there’s no price-fixing or colluding in corporate America? Do we not need anti-trust laws and close scrutiny of monopolies anymore? Since the legal definition of a corporation is an entity that exists to maximize its own profits, can we really trust them to act otherwise, to spend more than they want to on safety or wages or environmental protection? Why would they, if not forced to?
When one or two companies control 80 0r 90% of a market, they are effectively stifling competition, and can then set their own prices. This happens in insurance, in gas and power companies, in agriculture and manufacturing…. Suppliers and laborers are effectively prevented from competing for better wages, while consumers are effectively prevented from choosing a better or cheaper product. And new companies are kept out or driven out by corporate price-fixing (as when WalMart drops prices temporarily to drive a supplier’s price-point down or to drive a new competitor out of business).
As for your comment about how ridiculous it would be if everyone in the pie-production chain made $50,000…. So, you’re simply accepting that most workers will be poor, with bad wages, to boost profits for a few owners? Um, hmmmm. Something wrong there. Not a very attractive world-view, nor a terribly compassionate one.
Full-time at minimum wage is less than $17,000 a year. Is it really ok with you that an honest day’s work produces only a poverty-level wage? How much hard work, how many hours over 40, seems reasonable to you?
How quickly will that worker amass the capital with which to open his own bakery? How much pie can he afford in the free market you speak so highly of?
If America respects labor so much, and is a land of untold abundance and justice, how come those who work the hardest live on ramen?