Title: RE: [PEN-L:33442] Re: Re: The Economist considers Karl Marx new ref # 33417
Joanna writes:
But take my word for it, [in the US] there is a level of anxiety, of unrelenting fear and mistrust, the likes of which I have not encountered anywhere else on earth.
Michael Moore's BOWLING
Title: RE: [PEN-L:33297] Re: RE: The Economist considers Karl Marx
JKS says:Well, Southern Cal, that's where all the loose marbles go anyway . . . . Haven't you read Nathaniel West's Day of the Lucust?
who was it was said that it's as if the whole country had been tipped on its side, so
- Original Message -
From: andie nachgeborenen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It's a logical impossibility. If there's no state, there's no property
or contract law, so no title to anything, and no sanctioned and
enforceable exchanges, so no markets.
A most rare and strange zone,
In that case, the Economist and Peter Drucker won't mind if we abolish the wage relationship and private appropriation of returns on capital, turning the factories and offices and farms over to the workers and farmers, who will manage them themselves and collective appropriate the entire fruits of
- Original Message -
From: andie nachgeborenen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In that case, the Economist and Peter Drucker won't mind if we abolish
the wage relationship and private appropriation of returns on capital,
turning the factories and offices and farms over to the workers and
farmers,
Title: RE: [PEN-L:33272] Re: Re: Re: The Economist considers Karl Marx
in common parlance, even among many economists, socialism refers to any government interference in the so-called free market. (For example, the economic historian Peter Temin referred to the rise of state intervention
- Original Message -
From: Devine, James [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aren't governments unownable by definition? Sure some factions/classes
may think the government their personal property, but don't we deride
that as delusional?
officially, the Absolutist kings owned their states (l'état
Ian Murray wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Devine, James [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[clip]
Markets couldn't exist without the state, but common mythology (shared
by many econo-dunderheads) has it that markets are natural.
Jim
===
Well, since we have no idea as to
Title: RE: [PEN-L:33281] Re: RE: Re: The Economist considers Karl Marx
Aren't governments unownable by definition? Sure some factions/classes
may think the government their personal property, but don't we deride
that as delusional?
I wrote:
officially, the Absolutist kings owned
- Original Message -
From: Carrol Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Well, since we have no idea as to what is non-natural, we can chalk
that
up to insufficient attention to language.
Natural takes up about 14 columns in the OED. I don't think we can
ground ths argument in linguistics or
At 03:59 PM 12/20/2002 -0600, you wrote:
I didn't pry into those 14 columns, but I bet they contain abundant
(respectable) sanction for the linguistic acceptability of the
proposition that Markets are natural.
The question is though Markets are natural to what?
Joanna
11 matches
Mail list logo
