home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: sci.econ
- Path: sparky!uunet!destroyer!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!usenet.ucs.indiana.edu!silver.ucs.indiana.edu!jwales
- From: jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales)
- Subject: Re: Trade War?
- Message-ID: <Bxo7Fo.G8H@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>
- Sender: news@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu (USENET News System)
- Nntp-Posting-Host: silver.ucs.indiana.edu
- Organization: Indiana University
- References: <10416@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> <BxME7q.6pM@apollo.hp.com> <thompson.721676187@daphne.socsci.umn.edu>
- Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 19:57:23 GMT
- Lines: 20
-
- >> The bottom line, for the reasons I mentioned in another post
- >> is that a "level playing field" is a complete fantasy; it has
- >> never existed and never will exist, nor is it clear it even
- >> offers any lasting benefits.
- >
- >The benefits from an undistorted price system are quite clear (in
- >theory at least). One can easily make a case against the EC
- >agricultural policies on grounds of pure efficiency. You don't need
- >any notions of "fairness" or of "level playing field."
-
- This is a common, but unsupportable, presumption among economists.
-
- See, any notion of 'pure efficiency' contains within it some judgement
- about 'fairness'. Any question of efficiency must first answer the
- question 'efficient for what?' and the 'for what' part must include
- ethical judgements.
-
- --Jimbo
-
-
-