Brett Knowlton wrote:
> I've decided to put in my 2 cents here. I think this is a little unfair to
> Max. There is nothing wrong with the concept of efficiency. If you have a
> certain amount of batter, its better to get 5 pancakes from it than only 3,
> keeping other things constant. It seems that this is really Max's point.
>
> I agree that the right uses "efficiency" as an excuse to ram its agenda
> down our throats - cutting welfare and social services generally, trying to
> privatize social security, etc.
>
> But just because they've usurped it for this purpose doesn't mean we should
> throw out the concept, does it? If capitalism is ever successfully
> replaced with something better, we should use efficiency as one criteria
> (among many, and not necessarily the most important criteria) in evaluating
> alternative economic visions.
>
> In fact, I've found that "efficiency" is usually one of the most common
> reasons given for opposing an alternative to capitalism. Capitalism is
> seen as somehow ruthlessly efficient, that the free market ensures every
> penny is spent "optimally," or "efficiently" (although most people can't
> really expound on what optimal or efficient mean). Capitalism has its
> flaws, they may admit, but everyone would be poor in YOUR society.
>
> In this sense I think its very important to 1) have an alternative vision,
> and 2) be able, in a broad sense, to make the argument that a) capitalism
> isn't as efficient as all the economist claim it to be, and b) that
> alternatives to capitalism could come close to or even surpass the level of
> economic efficiency we have now.
>
> Brett