Not to gainsay your distinction about a distinction about a distinction, Jim, the form of my observation was meant only to emphasize a parallel in construction, not to pretend to be the last word in definition.
It's fascinating to me how quickly a thread originally referring to a unique, radical and particular policy proposal disposes of the proposed topic (by side-stepping it) and soars into hair-splitting and belly-button link picking about the relationship between abstract "wealth" and abstract"value" etc. etc. Perhaps this is why CarpeDiem thinks there is a "missing" $10 trillion that needs to be made good by working harder. The Baker proposal -- as challenging as it may be to implement and enforce -- at least dealt with a concrete policy response to a concrete social need. Beam me up, Scotty. On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 9:33 AM, Jim Devine <[email protected]> wrote: > Doug Henwood wrote: >>> So studies of the effects of >>> housing wealth on consumption are looking at an imperfect proxy for >>> something, not the thing itself. > > Sandwichman wrote: >> Isn't also the holding of cash an "imperfect proxy" for something >> else, namely the (subjective) "utility" provided by the goods or >> services that the money can buy? > > isn't cash (or other wealth) a _means_ for attaining utility in a > market society, rather than a proxy? > -- Sandwichman _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
