Posted by
voice_of_reason on Monday, July 23, 2007 1:18:27 AM
Defining sacrifice: it is the exchange of something of value for something of lesser value. A parent who drives an old, beat-up car so that s/he can send a child to a good private school is
not sacrificing.
Why?
Because s/he values the kid's education more than the 'new car smell'.
If s/he valued the new car
more than the kid's education then it
would be a sacrifice.
Incidentally, this is more than just a linguistic or semantic point. It is the basis of the inverted, Leftist world-view that values sacrifice over self-interest. In fact, the road to socialism begins with the acceptance of sacrifice as an unlimited virtue.
When sacrifice is accepted as an unlimited virtue, one person's need becomes a blank-check that has to be cashed by a person of ability. Whether that need is food, shelter or medical care, productive people are instructed to sacrifice their money or their time to fulfil that need.
Let's apply the terminology of economics to the issue. Borrowing freely from WIki:
The law of supply states that quantity supplied is related to price. It is often depicted as directly proportional to price: the higher the price of the product, the more the producer will supply. The law of demand is normally depicted as an inverse relation of quantity demanded and price: the higher the price of the product, the less the consumer will demand. The price of the product acts as a messenger between consumer and supplier - each plays their role without intervention or external control.
The laws of supply and demand state that the equilibrium market price and quantity of a commodity is at the intersection of consumer demand and producer supply. Here, the quantity supplied equals the quantity demanded (as in the Figure), that is, there is an equilibrium that is created without any external intervention.
In the topsy-turvy
Leftist world, people accept the proposition that "sacrifice is an unlimited virtue". Suddenly, the "needs" of consumers become an unlimited blank-check drawn on the suppliers. The more something costs, the higher the demand for it. For example, as Health Care costs rise, so does the demand. The demand curve (Price vs. Quantity) shows a direct proportionality instead of the usual inverse relationship!
If an equilibrium exists at all, it must be
at a higher price than before due to the change in the demand curve.
What happens to the "suppliers"? To mitigate the price increase caused by a 'need-based' demand curve, Leftists typically require suppliers to continue to deliver their products and services at 'fixed' prices, irrespective of their own self-interest, and much below the equilibrium level. The 'fixed' price will cause some suppliers to stop producing - but others may continue to produce as long as someone (Govt = single payer) can pay the higher prices. It is axiomatic that taxes must go up to pay for the increased prices.
The result of this intervention is that there will be a scarcity of commodities - although no such scarcity existed previously, when suppliers and consumers reached an equilibrium of price and quantity.