Bill,

First, let me see if I understand the theory of overproduction.

If a community develops  a medium of exchange (hereinafter
referred to as money ) which is possible to have accumulate,
individuals will develop various types of pockets into which
it may be accumulated.  In the modern context, this varies
widely: from mattresses to checking and savings accounts
to instruments of investment.  Accumulated money, like the
potential energy of gasoline in a tractor, may be better
controlled than immediate barter, like the use of horses.
One who has had the will and ability to do the accumulation
now holds an advantage over those who must act ad hoc
with their efforts because he can use time and reason to
plan its expenditure.  Most likely, the plan will have the
objective of fulfilling a need in the market, an accumulated
scarcity, as it were, which is merely people with a willingness
and ability to pay for a product or service. Underproduction
occurs when the planning results in a quantity which does
not fulfill  the need.   Overproduction occurs when the
planning succeeds in fulfilling the need so that the
willingness to buy goes away (I might add that the latter
occurs most often when an unexpected and significant
advance in technology occurs serendipitously or when the
planning provided for research to develop such an advance).

I realize that this scenario emphasizes the benign and avoids
the malignant side of what you might call overproduction.
Lets get into that after you comment on the above.

Don

On Sun, 29 Jun 1997 18:12:02 +1100 Bill Bartlett
<[log in to unmask]> writes:

<clip>
>
>>Overproduction sounds
>>like a "spin" word fabricated to support a political agenda
>>item.
>
>That may be true, but it is nevertheless a real problem. Do you
>disagree
>with the theory, and if so why?
>
>Bill Bartlett
>Bracknell Tasmania
>