Arthur,
I certainly mean no disrespect to your knowledge on
this. What I was referring to was the underlying mechanism of
the market and how and how much it is manipulated by private or public
interests.
As a metaphor I would cite "nature i.e.
wildness" versus a "garden" (classical control) on
this. American conservative economists are strange
because they claim to be "classical" but in the classical meaning of the term,
classical means asserting form over content and Laissez Faire is (as I
understand it) the opposite of that. If it has
an American tradition I would call it Deist in that they
are saying that the clock is wound up by Nature, God, or some other
external force, is perfect and if left alone will work as well as
Beaumarchais's pocket watch.
"Let it be" in ecology, is the radical
ecologist's belief in "wildness" and some inherent goodness in it.
I find that Laissez Faire economists transfer that same belief to the
market. Both seem to be a part of that Deist tradition.
Outside of the Wildness Vs. Control or "Romantic"
Vs "Classical", everything else, (with the exception of "gifting" economies
like my family, Indian people and Marcel Mauss described,) is just
some gradation between complete socialism (classical control) and complete
free market Laissez Faire (or Romantic freedom). This is the
"Sublime Duality" of critic Walter Sorell where the ideal is a balance between
the two. Sort of like using both hands to play the piano, both feet
to walk or both sides of the brain providing one has a CC. The
birth of Libertarianism (Individual Wildness) is too difficult to describe
since it is currently being revised and fought over by the conservatives and
anachists so I won't try.
I find it interesting that those who prefer
"development" and controlled parks are believers in the "wisdom" of the
marketplace while the "let it be" radical ecologists tend to be more
socialistically inclined. That was what I was referring to.
Yours in faith in linguistic purity or is it
parity. Who knows?
Ray Evans Harrell
----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2002 10:11
AM
Subject: RE: More Porkie Pies?
> state in theprovision of public goods. Goods which benefit most but where
> the benefits (profits) can't be privately appropriated. We tend to
> underproduce public goods.
>
> Private goods-- where profits can be privately appropriated-- are best done
> in a competitive market, or in a regulated monopoly.
>
> arthur
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ray Evans Harrell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2002 9:50 AM
> To: Cordell, Arthur: ECOM; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: More Porkie Pies?
>
>
> Arthur,
>
> You're making the same argument that ecologists make about the environment.
>
> Ray
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2002 8:37 AM
> Subject: RE: More Porkie Pies?
>
>
> > Ahhh, if it were only that simple. Nationalization seemed to be the
> answer.
> > But a takeover of private assets led to killing the "golden goose" in case
> > after case. The market seems to be the way to harness greed and turn it
> > into productivity. When the state runs things " for the people" , -- in
> > most cases-- it doesn't work.
> >
> > arthur cordell
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 6:05 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: More Porkie Pies?
> >
> >
> > On Fri, 12 Jul 2002, Arthur Cordell wrote:
> > > That is the challenge. How to distribute the incredible wealth of our
> > > economy. The communists/socialists had an ideology for a time when
> goods
> > > could potentially be free, but had no viable economic system to get to
> > that
> > > state. The "capitalists" seem to have solved the production problem but
> > > have no ideology of what to do next, of how to distribute goods when
> they
> > > are plentiful.
> >
> > Well, if it's that simple, why not "serialize" the two?:
> > First let capitalism solve the production problem (=provide the viable
> > economic system that the socialists lacked), and then let the socialists
> > tell them how to distribute goods when they are plentiful (=the ideology
> > of what to do next that the capitalists lacked).
> >
> > ;-)
> > Chris
> >
