: : 1) A talented musician comes to town. The theater has 100 seats. 200 people want to go. How should this scarce good be allocated?: If you remember my post, I stated that a currency system is not necessarily the evil that some socialists make it seem like, as it allows people to define their need themsdelves. Those who at the time have spent their money on other things have had more need for those than to listen to that musician. If the 200 people all still can afford it, I guess it must be resolved by the principle of "the quickest gets it".
I don't think that a random system is very fair. There may be one person who was willing to pay her entire savings to see the concert, but someone beats her to the box office, she loses to somebody who was willing to pay only the original price. And who would set that price? By what criteria?
: : 2) We need somebody to weld steel beams on a high suspension bridge. This job requires great skill and is very hazardous. Taking this job pays the same wages as a soft job in a public library. Who will take the job?
: A person qualified for it. Where I live, even though a 'soft library job' pays more than construction labor there are still people who take them. I guess that shows that some people prefer welding beams to sitting in a library.
This isn't always true. I hold a job which requires a lot of travel and long, unpridictible hours. A fair amount of education is alos needed. The only way my firm can get workers is to pay unusually high salaries. In America, the salaries of most schoolteachers are set by the government, at a fairly low level. Yes, there are *many* schoolteachers, but the quality is poor. The best students choose less demanding, more prestigious jobs.
Yes, your system will find us *somebody* to weld those beams, but it won't be the best person. The best person will be using his welding skills to create sculpture (see below)
: : 3) A skilled sculptor has a yearning for Beethoven concertos. He lives next door to an experienced violinist. He trades one of his beautiful sculptures for a month of free dinner music. Would you arrest him? If not, hasn't he increased his "wages" by getting a good (music) that nobody else can have?
: Yes he has, but that is not a reason to have him exiled to Sibiria. If he personally needs that music, there is no reason he shouldn't have it, and if he is willing to part with a sculpture for it that shows he does. The musician shows that he enjoys and needs the sculpture by offering to play for the sculptor, so there's nothing wrong with that.
Now let's consider people who aren't artists. The "worker's council" of the local diamond mine is having production problems. A skilled engineer can solve them, in fact, he can double the mine's output. He offers to work extra nights on a solution in return for 10% of the production increase...nearly $1 million in diamonds.
Would you jail the worker's and the engineer?
My point is that a system of currency is meaningless unless prices are free to change. Those who want more must be free to pay more, whether for goods of for labor. If prices are fixed and frozen, society's goods will never get to those who want them and society's labor will never be done by those who do it best.
- nat
None.
