Re: Old High School

[Dale Goble <gobled@uidaho.edu>]

On Wed, 8 Jul 1998, Briana LeClaire wrote:

> If the investment were to be maximized by the building of entryways
> for disabled people, it would be done so by the private sector. 
> Disabled people can vote with their dollars, too.  If I want the
> maximum number of people to visit my store, swimming pool, etc., I
> will make it handicapped accessible.

The point, of course, was that one dollar one vote might well produce a
different result than one person one vote.

AND if there are few disabled people or they are poor, it might well be
that it is not economically efficient to spend the additional sum to
produce the marginal revenue.

> 
> See above reply, and my previous posting about the unselfishness of
> the entrepreneur.

You are giving the word "unselfish" a highly unusual definition: "somebody
who is willing to do anything for a buck" is not the usual definition
since the entrepreneur's goal is completely selfish: to increase her
income.

> Economics lesson:  if there were all these people out there (women,
> minorities) who were going unhired for irrational reasons (e.g. racism
> and sexism) they'd be inexpensive to hire (they'd have to take what
> they could get.)  Companies with shareholders would be obligated to
> snatch them up in order to increase their profits.  Privately held
> companies would take them, too, to become more competitive. 
> Eventually, wages would balance out.


Briana: I understand economics; I do not, however, BELIEVE in economics --
particularly the libertarian strand in which you believe.  The above
paragraph is an perfect example of the divergence between libertarian
theory and reality.

Dale Goble
Moscow