From: "William E. Elston" <william-e-AT-elston.net> To: puptcrit-AT-puptcrit.org Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 17:44:51 -0800 Subject: Re: [Puptcrit] Gift Economy Should these vandals be simply admonished with a frown and a stern word, or required to pay resitution and perform community service? In other words, what are our expectations with regard to goods and services which are, by virtue of the "gift economy", worthless/ priceless? And isn't the idea of a "gift economy" simply the obverse, on the demand side, of Milton Friedman's economic theories on the supply side? Isn't it better to organize an economic society based on known human behaviors, with incentives and disincentives, enticements and dis-enticements, with effective governing instruments to keep us from constantly punching ourselves in the face? Such a structure does not necessarily mean that those agents that are helpless to resolve their own needs and desires will be left to starve and die. They'll be integrated into the social fabric because we all fear the time when we ourselves are helpless. Such integration will be done pragmatically, based on circumstance and abilities, pretty much the same as it is done now. At times during the history of Japanese culture which were characterized by extreme poverty, old people would willingly go into the mountains to die, rather than continue to consume resources desperately needed by their children. This was a social expectation, and the timing was often determined by subtle coercion on the part of the younger members of the family. However the reality of the situation was the common agreement of all. Milton Friedman's theories were introduced into diverse political contexts (Chile, Argentina, Bolivia, etc.) with guns and disappearances serving, de facto, functions similar to price controls and market regulation. Consumers were not provided the same options to effect their needs and desires (guns, disappearances,) or a kind of symmetry and balance might have been achieved. I suspect that the attempt to institute a "gift economy" would have the same disastrous consequences as Chicago School economic theory has had in the contexts where it has been introduced. I see little in the "gift economy" idea to alter my belief that a mixed economy is best, i.e. aspects of capitalism, socialism, gift- giving, along with the requisite controls and enforcements effected by democratic will, with a pragmatic preference for what works. -Bill Elston On Nov 18, 2008, at 4:46 PM, Alan Cook wrote: > While we are talking abou gift economy, we need to consider the > recipients. > > Free to sit on bus benches, public parks, schoolgrounds are often > abused and vandalized. Recipients have responsibilities to not abuse > the gifts but care for them. > > > _______________________________________________ > List address: puptcrit-AT-puptcrit.org > Admin interface: http://lists.puptcrit.org/mailman/listinfo/puptcrit > Archives: http://www.driftline.org > _______________________________________________ List address: puptcrit-AT-puptcrit.org Admin interface: http://lists.puptcrit.org/mailman/listinfo/puptcrit Archives: http://www.driftline.org
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005