Posted by non-ad hominem on October 23, 2000 at 20:04:16:
In Reply to: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Unions, Florida Phil, Seattle Audition posted by economist on October 23, 2000 at 10:48:47:
I apologize to the readers of the Tubenet for this off-topic sub-thread, but, in the best interests of economics here go I...
I'll say this once:
Supply and demand are schedules. You are talking about specific quantities demanded and specific quantities supplied. The quantity of musicians supplying their services is greater than the quantity demanded at the given market price. Hence there is a surplus of musicians offering their services at the given price.
With all due respect, this is a concept that is explained in detail in the opening chapters of introductory economics texts. When I encountered this fundamental flaw in your original exposition on the previous (union/FPO) thread, I forgave it as a colloquialism, but your second iteration makes me think it is not so. This is a concept basic to the microeconomics accepted by most, if not all, schools of economic thought, not to mention the neoclassical-Keynesian school that dominates economic instruction in the western world.
I never mentioned civic pride in my previous post. It is in the best interest of a profit-seeking firm to encourage those activities that differentiate their geographic location from that of their competitors', especially in so much as this involves subsidizing some activities that are considered positive externalities associated with working with Firm A as compared to Firm B. Local culture and arts, educational systems, urban renewal - these things are subsidized by corporations so that they can attract the best employees. The corporate decided by the preferences of their potential, and current, employees.
Unfortunately, as we have both noted, the FPO is, in our minds at least, not considered unique or irreplaceable like their better-known counterparts in Chicago, Cleveland, etc. I would hazard a guess that the members of the FPO and their Floridian followers would sorely miss the FPO. However, based on my Smithian fellow-feeling, I accept their view of the FPO in this regard, and it would appear that you do as well.
You wrote that playing for "the pure love of music" is outside of the market. It is not. It is the market facing the individual consumer, filled with budget lines, indifference curves, Hicks, Slutzky, etc. :) The decision to play just for the pure love of music is a rational one, based on evaluating the opportunity costs associated with such.