Don Brayton wrote:
>
>I do not understand your bete noir of overproduction.  If th
>is arises from Chomsky, would you direct me to the text?

That's an interesting question, but I'll have to pass. You see I can't
afford to buy books and when I checked my local library I found they didn't
have any of Chomsky's work. So my only access to his writings is that on
the Internet. Even then I can't afford to spend too much time on-line, and
my old Mac has but 4 mb of RAM, so I lose the end off BIG files (over about
120K) that I download.

I don't have as much trouble with files e-mailed to me though (Eudora takes
up less memory), so if anyone finds the text Don speaks of - send it to me.

>Here is my quandry. If a thirsty man finds a plentiful supply
>of water, he may drink more than he needs, but that is for
>him to judge.  I will take that over a limited supply of equally
>tasty water any day.  I can deal with distributing the excess,
>and, one could assert,  without the social system, the
>product would not be avilable at all.

If you don't have any money the product is NOT available. So the problem is
not that there is too much, but that an excess cannot be profitably
distributed and is therefor not distributed at all. In my example above,
there is a plentiful supply of information but because of my relative
poverty it is not profitable to distribute it to me. We all suffer because
I can't answer your question.

As the old song 'The banks are made of marble goes:

        "I saw a miner scrubbing coal dust from his back,
        and I heard his children crying - got no coal to heat the shack."

>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