From: kcalder@blueyonder.co.uk   
      
   In message <20031110215057590-0500@news.wplus.net>, j3r   
    writes   
   >In    
   >Sourcerer  wrote:   
   >> Ten years ago, in that thread, they thought the unemployment problem   
   >> was limited to people with 'low skill' levels, but now it is everybody.   
      
   >Indeed, the unemployment problem is that unemployment is a problem. The   
   >French caught onto this quickly (too quickly?), and decided to reduce   
   >the work week, this forcing their working populace to be less employed.   
      
   >The problem is, as long as we're stuck on this ball of rock, there will   
   >never be an end to scarcity.   
      
   Can't you partially attribute scarcity to inefficiency?  I thought that   
   the US produced all kinds of surpluses (grain, milk?) which just don't   
   seem to get   
   distributed.   
      
   Also, isn't it a feature of consumerist economies that they have to make   
   a virtue of consumption so that people will consume beyond their 'need'?   
   Doesn't this equate to an inefficiency in that resources needed to   
   produce stuff get squandered in producing useless stuff?  And doesn't   
   this lead to other scarcities, because of a resultant lack of   
   'production resources' for more valuable things?   
      
   I suppose what I'm trying to ask is, couldn't a big, strong economy like   
   the US distribute its resources more efficiently in terms of producing   
   the right amount of stuff that people need, and expend less energy   
   encouraging people to demand things that they don't?   
      
   ta,   
   --   
   Kevin Calder   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)