Randy writes:
> There was a tribe of protohumans in the valley. Protohuman Mac finds a nice
> chunk of chert (flint), hard to find in the valley. Previously, protohuman
> Joe had the only chunk of chert in the valley and he was going to trade it
> for the semi-rancid gazelle carcass that some other protohuman had found,
> and with that, he was going to lure that comely female protohuman Velma into
> the bushes, and thereby pass on his genes. But now, with his bigger chunk of
> chert, Mac gets to pass on his genes.
> Do you think Joe, if he were not able to get the chert himself, would have
> told Mac where it was? Velma womb is the limited resources here, ultimately.
This is a somewhat artificial example, because it only applies to Joe.
For most of the people in the valley, it would be beneficial for there
to be two flint owners rather than one. As it is they must go to Joe
to get flint, making it expensive. With two flint owners it will cost
much less due to the competition.
Since there are many more non flint owners than flint owners in the
valley in this example, most people by this argument should support
expanding the pool flint, even if someone else gets it.
In the more general case, if you have an economy with many forms of
wealth and you have a degree of specialization, only a minority will
have their wealth concentrated in any particular commodity. Adding more
of that commodity will be a net benefit for everyone except those who
have their wealth disproportionately concentrated in that commodity.
This will be a majority of the people.
Hal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:38:44 MDT