[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

This is interesting. How often is it necessary to allocate resources ineffeciently to acheive suitable levels of education, health, lack of violence, freedom, and/or cultrual acheivments. Could you give me an example?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's difficult to say because resource allocation is far easier to quantify than these other aspects. I'm not sure what sort of example you want (practical or theoretical), but I would support subsidizing education, subsidizing public health, subsidizing the poor, etc

[/ QUOTE ]

Your making the claim apparently that sometimes resources have to be allocated ineffeciently to acheive suitable levels of education among other things. If that's the case I would think that you could provide some reasoning behind that. Give me a hypothetical.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think we may be speaking past one another. The reallocation of resources is always inefficient because you pay people to do things that create no wealth (manage the allocation). I believe this reallocation is necessary. Do you disagree or not?

[/ QUOTE ]

Whoa, whoa I'm trying to understand the basis of this statment you made:

[ QUOTE ]
There seems to me to be an implicit assumption that efficiency is very important. Clearly it is important, but only one of many factors that is used to take the measure of society. Even if government funded research is less efficient somehow, that isn't necessarily the be all and end all of the situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is stating that a less effecient allocation is at least sometimes desirable to a more effecient one because other factors are more important than effeciency:

I responded with:

[ QUOTE ]
Out of curiosity, what are the other factors?

[/ QUOTE ]

To which you responded:

[ QUOTE ]
Levels of education, levels of health, lack of violence, freedom, cultural acheivements.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you're asserting here that these factors can at least sometimes be more readily acheived by choosing a less effecient solution over a more effecient one.

To which I responded:

[ QUOTE ]
This is interesting. How often is it necessary to allocate resources ineffeciently to acheive suitable levels of education, health, lack of violence, freedom, and/or cultrual acheivments. Could you give me an example?


[/ QUOTE ]

Ok since you make this assertion I assume you have at least an example that you can provide about how deciding to be less effecient is preferable to acheiving the things that you mentioned.

[ QUOTE ]
That's difficult to say because resource allocation is far easier to quantify than these other aspects. I'm not sure what sort of example you want (practical or theoretical), but I would support subsidizing education, subsidizing public health, subsidizing the poor, etc

[/ QUOTE ]

Going back to your original claim, you're asserting that ineffecient allocation can be more desirable to acheive something like suitable levels of education. But that's all you've done is make the claim. You haven't backed it up in the least. I thought you had something specific in mind. So I responded:

[ QUOTE ]
Your making the claim apparently that sometimes resources have to be allocated ineffeciently to acheive suitable levels of education among other things. If that's the case I would think that you could provide some reasoning behind that. Give me a hypothetical.

[/ QUOTE ]

No reasoning at this point, just making a claim.

[ QUOTE ]
I think we may be speaking past one another. The reallocation of resources is always inefficient because you pay people to do things that create no wealth (manage the allocation). I believe this reallocation is necessary. Do you disagree or not?

[/ QUOTE ]

Now you've changed the subject. Your original assertion was that at least sometimes a less sufficient allocation was preferable to more effecient allocation acheiving certain desirable outcomes. Your last post doesn't address that.

I understand now that it's just an opinion you hold and not something that you've thought about all that much.