Hang on. Is your point basically that the aim of the society should not be maximum resource allocation but that it would be good to sacrifice some resource allocation if it makes the poorest people better off? I mean, it doesn't sound like an issue of economics, it sounds like an issue of goals.
Economics is the study of human resource allocations, so allocation goals are a valid economic concern.
IMO the most efficient allocation of resources would involve giving access to a reasonable standard of living for all. Poverty is very costly to society as a whole, because it keeps people from living up to their fullest potential.
I think everyone -- fan of free markets or not -- agrees it sucks to be poor and that increases in the prices of necessities are worse on the poor than the rich.
But not everyone would agree that the market system makes some people poor by amplifying existing disadvantages. I see the market as a way for the rich to grab from the poor in an environment of conceptual "legitimacy."
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2005-10-05 04:47 pm (UTC)Economics is the study of human resource allocations, so allocation goals are a valid economic concern.
IMO the most efficient allocation of resources would involve giving access to a reasonable standard of living for all. Poverty is very costly to society as a whole, because it keeps people from living up to their fullest potential.
I think everyone -- fan of free markets or not -- agrees it sucks to be poor and that increases in the prices of necessities are worse on the poor than the rich.
But not everyone would agree that the market system makes some people poor by amplifying existing disadvantages. I see the market as a way for the rich to grab from the poor in an environment of conceptual "legitimacy."