> So what label would you use?
> Fabio
I would avoid using the labels "capitalism" and "socialism".
Substitutes for capitalism:
1) private enterprise
2) free market; free enterprise; pure market
3) market economy
4) interventionism
5) mixed economy
Substitutes for socialism:
1) forced redistr
I agree that it's more effective to avoid loaded phrases like "capitalism"
and "socialism."
"Socialism" has become to the Right of our generation what "laissez-faire"
became to the left of the 1930s--just a swear-word--and thus generates much more
heat than light. I'd also avoid "private ente
In a message dated 6/17/03 11:05:51 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>On Tue, Jun 17, 2003 at 07:41:45PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> Socialism developed in the early and mid-19th century as a rejection
>of
>
>> classical liberalism,
>
>Wrong. You seem to confuse the concept of socialism wit
Jeffrey Rous wrote:
> When I was in grad school, my wife's health insurance policy through
> work allowed an employee to add a spouse for $1000 per year (I cannot
> remember the exact numbers, but these are close) or add a spouse and
> children for $2000 per year. And it didn't matter whether you h
Actually, they support state capitalism under the name of "progressivism" or
"putting people first" or some equally inane goo-goo slogan. Just about
every part of the Progressive/New Deal agenda reflected the interests of big
business in cartelizing and stabilizing the corporate economy; it wa
"Socialism" is a historical term whose use has evolved over time. I believe
it first appeared in an Owenite periodical, the London Cooperative Journal,
in 1829 or 1830.
The beginning of the classical socialist movement was the Ricardian
socialist movement. They were inspired by two arguments
I'd say just the opposite, that SS is an important component of state
capitalism; and like most regulations and "welfare" spending, it serves to
cartelize the economy.
By acting through the state to organize pension programs, the large
corporations effectively function as a state-enforced carte
Kevin Carson wrote:
I'd say just the opposite, that SS is an important component of state
capitalism; and like most regulations and "welfare" spending, it serves
to cartelize the economy.
By acting through the state to organize pension programs, the large
corporations effectively function as
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> You seem to confuse the concept of subordinating the individual to
> a greater human collective to subordinating the individual to the will of
> the tyrant.
But does not the practice of the subordination of the individual to the
collective go back to ancient times, i
Of course I meant to say that labor supply elasticity is near-zero, not
near-infinte. Thanks to Alex for pointing it out.
--
Prof. Bryan Caplan
Department of Economics George Mason University
http://www.bcaplan.com [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> labor supply elasticity is near-zero...
> Prof. Bryan Caplan
Does this take into account when workers can choose to work overtime, take
more or less vacation, retire earlier or later, have a second household
worker employed or not, have a second job or not, take time off without pay
or not?
Kevin Carson's remarks on Kolko reminded me that I recently reread Kolko
and had some comments to share.
Just for background: Kolko's *Triumph of Conservatism* was written
largely as a left-wing attack on mainstream liberalism. Kolko's message
was that most of the regulations and government in
But in areas where the supply of labor is relatively inelastic, such as
scientific-technical workers, the state steps in by socializing the cost of
education and training. For example, that program so beloved of
"progressives" who await the second coming of FDR: the G.I. Bill.
In a partially
In a message dated 6/18/03 2:03:39 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>But does not the practice of the subordination of the individual to the
>collective go back to ancient times, indeed to pre-historical tribal
>practice and belief?
>Fred Foldvar
in the ancient world we clearly have a good deal o
From: Bryan Caplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Kevin Carson wrote:
I'd say just the opposite, that SS is an important component of state
capitalism; and like most regulations and "welfare" spending, it serves to
cartelize the economy.
By acting through the state to organize pension programs, the larg
Post-modern liberalism didn't spring full-blown into being like Athena from
the forehead of Zeus. It evolved rather over time from classical liberalism
through several fairly-distinct phases.
In the earliest stages of "progressivism" people still by and large believed
in free markets and priva
16 matches
Mail list logo
