. . . suggests you mean eminent (rather than
imminent) domain . . .
What he wrote first was immanent, which makes
more obvious sense than either of the above. ;)
--
Anton Sherwood, http://www.ogre.nu/
Kevin Carson wrote:
From: Bryan Caplan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
First, the roads and airports are already here, so there would not be
much of a decentralizing effect of cutting off subsidies and eminent
domain now.
But because of the effect of subsidies in distorting the market price link
I think you're underestimating the massive effects of state capitalist
intervention not only individuallly, but the synergy between them.
Regarding transportation subsidies alone, Tibor Machan wrote a good article
for The Freeman (August 99, I think) against not only transportation
Kevin Carson wrote:
I would argue that the rise of transnational corporations is a bad thing
because they are products of state capitalism. Giant corporations, from the
late 19th century on, have been statist institutions, and the plutocrats
associated with them have been rent-seekers. Do
Bryan Caplan wrote:
A lot of regulations only kick in if you have more than 50 or 100
employees.
Some explicitly kick out, though. I dimly remember one concerning
visas, that said roughly If the HR department says the firm needs this
alien employee, and the firm has N employees, we (the INS)
--- Kevin Carson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The chief failing of the mainstream
antiglobalization movement is, IMO, they fail to
recognize the extent that the global corporate economy
rests on state intervention.
What does IMO mean?
-jsh
__
Do You
I ordered it from Amazon...was then told it was a poor publishers me-too
rival to Naomi Klein...would be amused to hear other views...meanwhile I
would have thought Stiglitz Globalization and its Discontents should be
nearer this list's essence (again a provocation to tell me how wrong I am)
than voters. but she's not very convincing on why this is necessarily
a bad thing, in my opinion.
etb
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
chris macrae
Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 11:03 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Silent
