Raghu writes: >> Louis had it right: we can argue endlessly about whether a capitalist >> of socialist economy will allocate resources "more optimally". But >> that's entirely beside the point. I am perfectly willing to give up >> "optimality" in exchange for having a more sane and equitable world.
I understand that, but you are assuming the end and not explaining how you get there. You and Louis emphasize that you will give up optimality of resource allocation in exchange for a "sane and equitable world" or "peace, clean air and water, and social and economic equality," but you fail to explain what institutional arrangements will ensure the specific results that you desire. Jim Devine places his trust in democratic decision-making, but simply assumes that such a process will result in the ends you want. I see no inherent connection -- either in agreeent on ends or knowledge of how to achieve the ends even if there was agreement. David Shemano _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
