I suspect that most of us already knew what money was, even the
entrepreneurially-challenged who still think it is possible and desirable to
provide a public service that does not link access to the quantity of
"convenient units of exchange" in the punter's pocket. How does charging for
best-sellers "deal with poverty" other than by making it a little more
burdensome - or is that the idea?
Aran Lewis.
-----Original Message-----
From: SINTO <[log in to unmask]>
To: 'lis-pub-libs' <[log in to unmask]>
Date: 27 June 2000 16:49
Subject: RE: Bestsellers
>With respect to John's Mum, isn't it possible to have a socially equitable
society which still has the concept that people can pay more for
>an enhanced service because for them it has a higher value? I pay more to
get a best seller quickly because reading the latest Jeffry Archer
>is important to me while you pay more to do something different. Money in
this case is just a convenient unit of exchange.
>The problems come when some people don't have enough of this unit to make
the choices they want to. I am not sure that doing away with
>charges is the solution. Not everyone can afford bread, do you make bread
free for those who are poor or try to deal with the poverty?
>
>PS John. You will never match your colleague's Library Entrepeneur of the
Year Award with that attitude :-)
>
>Carl Clayton
>SINTO
>[log in to unmask]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|