Here is another example of how little economics has taught. Demand and supply are abstract concepts to economists. They are more abstract to reporters. They are even more abstract to newspaper readers.
Demand and supply have no meaning to the public. Until this changes, the welfare state will thrive.
Here is a good movie review. I read a multitude of film reviews for my History of Film class. There is a difference between a well-written and thought-provoking review and a mindless summary. Criticism should teach as well as criticize. Good criticism stands on its own. It transcends what it is criticizing.
Is art about fun? My Dad says the purpose of a movie is to make you forget life for two hours. I have never accepted this purpose. Good art is interactive. It is not about forgetting but remembering and thinking.
2 comments:
My grievance is the author implies market failure. People read the article and see a problem.
But there is no problem. The market is working. The higher prices (what you call shortages) are driving business to produce more organics. Agriculture Departments are telling farmers how to get into organics.
The author does not tell how an increase in supply (correcting the shortage) will cause current profits to decrease. Prices will come down. The reporter does not discuss the law of unintendend consequences.
The majority of people will read this article and not think about unintended consequences. They will not think about how organics decrease overall production. They will not make the connection between decreased production and starving Africans.
Economics teaches us life is complicated. This article does not say that.
Again we are arguing philosophy.
The article clearly meets its purpose. It was published.
I am questioning what should be the article's purpose. I think there should be greater depth in the article.
This is where you misunderstand me. The article is fine given today's constraints. But I think we should relax today's constraints by better informing the public.
Post a Comment