Max, I agree with your characterization of Smith. I see the populists as being like the Ricardian socialists in England in the mid 19th Century. In both cases, they saw themselves as believing in markets. Regulations were required to undue the damage created by people or corporations that were not playing fair. They did not see their demands as being opposed to markets at all. They just wanted to make markets work fairly.
"Max B. Sawicky" wrote: > > mbs: Nader's focus is not on the state but on the political > parties which run the state, which is the right one IMO. > > The distinction from Smith is that Smith expects a great deal > of social good to come from competitive markets (to be sure, > with a limited state to enforce contracts and the like), > whereas populists expect a great need for remedies to > markets from the state, acting in the name of "the whole people." > You could say populists, not being marxists, saw markets as > something sullied by outside forces -- monopolists, sharp > operators, etc. -- but that is not the thing as being > deluded as to the possibility of marked-based economic > justice. > > mbs -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
