I believe I took the economics out of my example and yet the "problem" still existed, which means that the source of the problem must be something other than economics.
Here is another example: suppose I give you a gold brick. I want no money or service for this gold brick, I expect nothing from you. The "system" that requires you to be economically viable or even not economically inert is factored out: I merely give you the gold brick. The brick is in my apartment. All the problems you might have economically had prior to this moment to enable you to "become the owner of" a gold brick are gone, yet you still have two problems: acquisition of the brick, and management of the brick.
The gold brick is probably too heavy for you to come and get yourself, and even if you do come and get it yourself, you are still "spending" your energy (I use the term spending on purpose because I don't see any qualitative difference between spending money or energy or time). But likely you'll have to possess economic viability beyond my having given you the brick, merely to acquire the brick. Once you do acquire the brick, now you have to possess or buy management skills and knowledge skills in order to maximize your value of the gold brick. You must spend your time and resources to gain from the brick.
I have taken all the initial "economic system" out of this example, everything that requires you to be economically strong enough, smart enough or diligent enough to own a gold brick. If you want to describe the *subsequent problems* as problems with your own personal economic power I can accept that, but your original message branded the entire economic *system* as haphazardly fucked. You have merely cast such a wide and analytically lazy net as so allow *all problems*, even the physical problem of the atomic weight of gold, to be encapsulated in a "fucked economic system". That's nonsense. The system is just a tool to facilitate mutually agreeable trades. It enables a breadmaker who wants a turnip not to have to look everywhere for a breadless turnip farmer, nor engage in some long, time-consuming series of barters in order to finally acquire a turnip in exchange for bread. When it comes to the system, there is no difference between gold bricks and grain: there are physical realities beyond the scope of the economic model for which, sure, it is frustrating to watch and emotionally draining to bear, and tempting to assign blame to a more controllable ideology instead - but ultimately misanalyzed.
Your dismissal of transportation costs is also misguided. Even if you call the food free, there are many more costs besides fuel associated with sending big ass ships across the ocean. All the crew and ship maintenance costs are rolled into a shipping cost for the shipper. There are often export duties and in countries with no trade agreement, import duties. In the kinds of countries we are talking about, more often than not there are also "extra-judiciary" fees and then no garantee that the shipment to the people you want it to. All of that adds up. If you accept then that it costs the person donating free food a large amount of money to also help the recipient acquire the food - where do you think that money comes from? It gets subsidized by that seller's legitimate food sales, which drives the food prices up *for everybody else*. You help some people and harm others.
For some reason I want to launch into a long harangue about globalization but I think I am running close to the LJ character limit.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
dancing_serpent
(no subject)
Date: 2005-07-15 10:42 pm (UTC)Here is another example: suppose I give you a gold brick. I want no money or service for this gold brick, I expect nothing from you. The "system" that requires you to be economically viable or even not economically inert is factored out: I merely give you the gold brick. The brick is in my apartment. All the problems you might have economically had prior to this moment to enable you to "become the owner of" a gold brick are gone, yet you still have two problems: acquisition of the brick, and management of the brick.
The gold brick is probably too heavy for you to come and get yourself, and even if you do come and get it yourself, you are still "spending" your energy (I use the term spending on purpose because I don't see any qualitative difference between spending money or energy or time). But likely you'll have to possess economic viability beyond my having given you the brick, merely to acquire the brick. Once you do acquire the brick, now you have to possess or buy management skills and knowledge skills in order to maximize your value of the gold brick. You must spend your time and resources to gain from the brick.
I have taken all the initial "economic system" out of this example, everything that requires you to be economically strong enough, smart enough or diligent enough to own a gold brick. If you want to describe the *subsequent problems* as problems with your own personal economic power I can accept that, but your original message branded the entire economic *system* as haphazardly fucked. You have merely cast such a wide and analytically lazy net as so allow *all problems*, even the physical problem of the atomic weight of gold, to be encapsulated in a "fucked economic system". That's nonsense. The system is just a tool to facilitate mutually agreeable trades. It enables a breadmaker who wants a turnip not to have to look everywhere for a breadless turnip farmer, nor engage in some long, time-consuming series of barters in order to finally acquire a turnip in exchange for bread. When it comes to the system, there is no difference between gold bricks and grain: there are physical realities beyond the scope of the economic model for which, sure, it is frustrating to watch and emotionally draining to bear, and tempting to assign blame to a more controllable ideology instead - but ultimately misanalyzed.
Your dismissal of transportation costs is also misguided. Even if you call the food free, there are many more costs besides fuel associated with sending big ass ships across the ocean. All the crew and ship maintenance costs are rolled into a shipping cost for the shipper. There are often export duties and in countries with no trade agreement, import duties. In the kinds of countries we are talking about, more often than not there are also "extra-judiciary" fees and then no garantee that the shipment to the people you want it to. All of that adds up. If you accept then that it costs the person donating free food a large amount of money to also help the recipient acquire the food - where do you think that money comes from? It gets subsidized by that seller's legitimate food sales, which drives the food prices up *for everybody else*. You help some people and harm others.
For some reason I want to launch into a long harangue about globalization but I think I am running close to the LJ character limit.
(aw fuck, I still hit it)