>According to you there has never been laissez-faire in the real world, so what
>are you defending it for ?
My electronic dictionary says:
laissez faire
1. The doctrine that government should not interfere in commercial affairs
Sounds good enough for me. That existed in the real world, notably between Britain
and white countries.
But is this how you would qualify colonial exploitation in which surplus (or not-so-
surplus, as the famines seem to indicate) is extracted in a manner similar to the one
of feudal lords? True, Indian tariffs were low and at one point brought down to zero,
but what's the significance of that when 20% of India's exports pay the tribute, 30%
pay for interests and services, and another 50% pay for British imports, a good
portion of which the government is responsible for. Note that the UK's share of
world exports was 15% but her share of India's imports was 75% while her share of
China's imports was 20%... sounds like laissez faire? (Of course, these are all very
rough figures. I'm for example averaging across time without trying to adjust for
exchange rate variations and inflation.)
I'm not defending laissez-faire, just fighting [censored] propaganda. What for? I
don't want to manipulate anyone. I guess I never grew up and am still influenced by
chivalrious ideals.
But tell me: where do you got the idea that I was defending laissez-faire? Did you
imagine that because I was not badmouthing it?
If you really want to badmouth laissez faire, why don't you put the responsibility for
the holocaust on it? You know, Hitler got in power because of those economic
problems caused by laissez faire blah blah blah.
Juliem
_______________________________________________
CrashList website: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
