In my last post, the concept of an optimum distribution of wealth was introduced with only a hint of the difficulty of defining what should be optimized. Defining the goal is often a major difficulty in making decisions. Once we know what it is that we want to optimize, the mechanics of working out an implementation are reasonably straightforward. Since we are all humans, we tend to gravitate toward easier tasks and so work on details such as how to balance the federal budget while society thrashes about since solving societal problems is difficult and ill-defined. Balancing a budget is much easier (although seemingly impossible for our government as currently constituted) than deciding what is an optimum distribution of wealth and then implementing appropriate measures subject to balancing the budget in the process.
When I taught at the university, I would ask students, “What is the optimum percent of children to be sexually molested in a society?” This is an obviously provocative question meant to draw out the immediate and unthinking response, “None — the optimum number of raped children is none.” Then I would ask them to define a realistic society in which we could absolutely guarantee no molestation (without genetically altering humans or other impractical methods) and then tell me if they want to live in that society. In otherwise boring classes, that introduction could generate energetic discussion. Then I would ask what is the optimum permitted number of insect parts in pepper? That would draw some blank stares. So I would show them the FDA permitted maximum number of insect parts in various commodities. Why not simply say no insect parts permitted?
All this would lead to a much more boring discussion of partial differential equations and asymptotic approaches to goals. As an instructor, I hated the separation of classroom learning from reality. Forgive me my idiosyncratic behavior in communicating that.
While using hypothetical child molestation to get students’ attention might seem an overreach, I actually got more angry response from asking what is the purpose of a market, and could they give an example of a free market. Reader Bern responded to my last post by favoring a free market response to determining the optimum distribution of wealth. One problem with this is that I have no idea what a free market optimizes, but in some sense that is not important because there is no such thing as a free market in practice, and we probably would not like if it did exist.
For instance, a free market requires a large (essentially infinite) number of both buyers and sellers and instantaneous distribution of all information relative to the transactions. No insider trading here! Maybe wheat sales would be close to this ideal, but for the government regulations. Profits as normally defined are driven to zero in a free market (see above examples for comparison).
Who votes in a free market? Our future descendants do not get a vote on what we contribute to global warming right now. People who are at the sustenance level do not vote on the style of Mercedes that goes to market. Go to Google Earth and look at the island of Hispaniola, which is shared by Haiti and the Dominican Republic. There is an artificial line down the middle with barren hills on the west where Haiti sits, and lush forests on the Dominican Republic’s side of the island in the east. The devastation in the west was due to decisions made by poor people in what approximates a free market. Are the Haitians better off for those decisions?
Finally, there is the problem of playing poker. Poker is simpler to analyze than government or wealth. Analysis shows that under realistic assumptions, the person who starts with the most money wins it all; everyone else loses. Is there a lesson in that?