Dear Social Credit members,
Below is the second part of the Austrian's critique of binary economics. In
responding to the first part I pointed out that Austrians strongly object to
the idea of EVERYBODY in an economy (that even includes children) having
some ownership of productive capital paying out its full earnings.
They will deny this, of course, and will do anything to hide the truth.
Thus, to take another example, they do not appear to understand that, at
present, new capital goes into the hands of existing ownersand not new ones.
However, b.e proposes encouraging new owners. Anything wrong in that? Of
course not! But the Austrians will do anything to stop it because, at base,
they represent the interests of the present narrow owners of capital.
Thus the Austrians object to b.e wanting to put a limit (or, more
accurately, to discourage) huge, really huge, accumulations of capital
beyond a certain point. As can be seen below, they object to the binary
proposal that, on death, there should be NO (yes, NO) inheritance tax if an
estate devolves in such a way as to spread capital ownership (but there
would most certainly be tax if the estate devolves so as to give
unreasonable amounts to one or two people).
What's wrong with that? Come on now, you Social Crediters, be brave!
Where do you stand on huge, really huge accumulations of capital and the
fact that most people throughout the world own little or no productive
capital? Show a bit of courage, please!.
I have got fed up with reading the Austrian as set out below -- he cannot
even get my academic qualifications right (they include being a barrister) .
His alleged review is a hatchet job which makes it perfectly clear that the
Austrians wish to maintain the narrow ownership of capital.
Please don't forget -- in a week or two, go to
www.globaljusticemovement.net
Rodney Shakespeare.
----- Original Message -----
From: "William B. Ryan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 6:21 PM
Subject: [SOCIAL CREDIT] critique of binary economics2
> Below is approximately the second half of Professor
> Terrell's critique of binary economics written from
> the "Austrian" perspective.
>
> Rodney Shakespeare is quoted extensively. He is
> invited to post a reply.
>
> I will be posting comments regarding the deficiencies
> of both the "Austrian" approach and binary economics
> as they relate to the economics of C. H. Douglas.
> ----------------
>
>
> Fair Use Claimed
>
> contends that the Fed's independence would be
> jeopardized as "need" is introduced to the criteria
> for these central bank loans.43
>
> The amount of discount lending that would occur under
> the binary economists' plan is not clear, but it
> would necessarily be large. Yet, if more discount
> lending would promote more rapid growth, why not make
> the initial discount window loan truly enormous,
> perhaps ten times the current U.S. GDP? Certainly
> this would allow even more rapid capital
> accumulation, if the binary economists are correct.
> The limits to such lending are not made clear.
>
> V. Binary Economics, Property Rights and Freedom
>
> As we have seen, the binary economists' plan for
> capital dispersion would produce a massive business
> cycle. It is also important to show that the plan is
> in no way compatible with a free market economy -as
> the binary economists claim. At its core is the
> government, reinsuring credit acquisition loans and
> setting up need based criteria for such loans. As
> Roth wrote, "Good intentions notwithstanding, the
> binary property system would simply substitute a new
> political redistribution process for the extant
> process.44 Besides, as Roth points out, the federal
> government already is the largest underwriter of
> financial risk in the United States (probably student
> loans and home mortgage loans?). The redistributive
> nature of these underwriting programs produces
> enormous losses.45
>
> "...more likely than not, the government's decisions
> would reflect the concentrated benefit -dispersed
> cost calculus: credit would generally be allocated to
> well-defined constituencies, while the (largely
> hidden) costs would be broadly dispersed across all
> taxpayers. This would be the inevitable consequence
> of binary financing; an outcome which would hardly be
> congruent with the goals of binary economists."46
>
> Where the binary economists' antagonism toward the
> free market is most plainly seen is, perhaps, their
> proposed limitation on capital ownership. Kelso and
> Kelso want to set a limit on the amount of capital
> that a family can own. "[The state] must prohibit the
> sterilization and morbidization of capital ownership
> by those who seek too much capital-productive
> power."47 Saving, apparently, would be a crime:
> "Economic health also requires vigilance in
> preventing families from accumulating more capital-
> earning power than they can or wish to spend on their
> own consumption."48
>
> Kelso and Kelso also want to restrict or even
> eliminate bequests, as an extension of their proposed
> "principle of limitation." The state would step in to
> regulate intergenerational transfers and distribute
> assets after death.
>
> "Property ceases at death...The right to make gifts
> of one's capital and assets ceases at death.
> Transfers of property at death, either through
> institutions or by will, including their taxation,
> belong to the domain of positive law and public
> policy. This is also true of limitations on
> transfers, such as those to charitable foundations,
> intended to circumvent laws regulating testamentary
> gifts. Thus the principle of limitations extends to,
> and countermands, all stratagems to subvert it.
>
> "The legal implementation of the principle of
> limitation-its application to every situation-is, of
> course, a task for federal and state legislatures. No
> specific legislation regulating a capitalist economy
> is more critical than this."49
>
> At least binary economists want to privatize public
> property in order to sweep more capital into the
> constituency trusts they have concocted.50
>
> The Kelsos argue from the de facto existence of
> government involvement in the economy, and prevalent
> opinion that it should be so involved, that this
> constitutes an obligation to be involved. 'Is the
> federal government responsible for the health and
> prosperity of the American economy?...Today, both
> voters and officeholders take it for granted that the
> answer is yes."51 Vox populi, vox dei. "At issue,
> then, is not whether government will assume
> responsibility for economic prosperity, but how it
> will choose to discharge its ohligation to do so."52
> The Kelsos are emphatic, and will brook no dissent:
>
> "...there can hardly be any basis for questioning the
> establishment of the Capital Diffusion Reinsurance
> Corporation (CDRC [CCRC in Figure 1]) as a U.S.
> government backed capital credit reinsurance
> underwriter, supported by the full faith and credit
> of the U.S. government. This entity would fulfill a
> function that is already the government's but that
> the government is not carrying out in the most
> rational and purposeful way."53
>
> "Federal and state governments have the duty to adopt
> a sound economic policy. It is also government's duty
> to take primary responsibility for interpreting,
> administering, and enforcing the policy of
> redemocratizing economic power...If we want to
> redemocratize economic power, we must do it through a
> new binary national economic policy."54
>
> To remove all doubt as to the legality of the binary
> economists' proposal, Kelso and Kelso suggest a
> modification of the 1946 Employment Act (15 U.S.C.
> 1021) to include reference to "capital workers."55
>
> Ashford and Shakespeare argue that a true free market
> obviously has failed, because there are so many
> government interventions-bailing out big firms,
> subsidizing farming, research, etc., redistribution
> of income, etc. "[T]he redistributions continue and
> on a very large scale precisely because the market
> distribution of income has proved economically and
> politically unacceptable to almost everybody."56 This
> is begging the question. A true free market does not
> work, they argue, because the government is in fact
> intervening to correct failings. Ashford and
> Shakespeare condemn hypocritical defenders of the
> "free market" for favoring all these interventions.
> Then they want to say that their hypocrisy imp lies
> that the free market must not work. This is clearly
> an ad hominem attack.
>
> Incredibly, Ashford and Shakespeare claim that binary
> economics is "more faithful to free market principles
> than the theories, critiques and proposals of even
> the most ardent `free market' advocates."57 They
> refer to free market capitalism as "Unfree, unfair,
> and inefficient market capitalism."58 It is called
> unfree because "although everyone is theoretically
> free to acquire productive capital, effective freedom
> to acquire it is unnecessarily denied to the m any
> and enjoyed by only a few."59
>
> "Moreover, the binary economy is structured to
> operate in a way more faithful to free market
> principles than any existing economy. It is a true
> free market effectively open to everybody instead of
> a few. In accordance with true free market logic, it
> eliminates unnecessary market barriers so as to allow
> the law of supply and demand to work more efficiently
> for all people individually. It therefore offers a
> level of efficiency well beyond that which can be
> achieved in the existing unfree market economies."60
>
>
> Later, Ashford and Shakespeare write, "In binary
> terms, true free market principles are those of open
> participation, voluntary exchange, and respect for
> private property."61
>
> This is a semantic game with the term "free market."
> These binary economists want to redefine a free
> market as an economy in which there is freedom from
> all constraints that might prevent a person from
> attaining command over capital assets. This
> definition inserts equality of individual capability
> as a precondition of a free market. A free market,
> properly understood, is one in which two individuals
> are free to voluntarily exchange their property
> without the coercive intervention of a third party.
> The binary economists' concept of freedom is
> egalitarianism. One might well ask, what if that
> person who owns so little capital in the "unfree"
> economy is less capable of sending those capital
> assets to their highest and best uses? What if that
> person has a time preference that is inconsistent
> with the postponing of consumption that is necessary
> to invest in capital? Is that person therefore less
> free? Yet the binary economists are arguing in their
> ideal world of dispersed capital ownership, everyone
> would be able to handle capital asset management with
> an equal degree of skill.
>
> The so-called "binary property right" actually
> strikes at the core of property rights. It is not
> mere hubris, then, when Ashford and Shakespeare call
> the binary property right a "paradigm-altering
> concept." It is "at the heart of the binary private
> property system and is the right of all people to
> acquire, on market principles, private and individual
> ownership of wealth-creating capital assets..."62
> And, "the basic binary property right is the right to
> acquire capital on non-recourse corporate credit and
> to repay the loan with the earnings of the capital
> acquired."63
>
> "The binary property right is...a right to
> participate in production and in market transactions
> with willing buyers and sellers of goods and services
> with re spect for everyone's private property. It is
> not the right to compel a transaction or to barge in
> on, or prevent, the voluntary transactions of
> others...
>
> "Nevertheless, although the binary property right is
> a market right which respects the rights of others
> and requires voluntary transactions for its
> implementation, it is intended to be an effective
> right and not a merely theoretical one. In other
> words, it is intended to enable people without
> capital to compete in practice with existing owners
> for new capital acquisition. This is done by
> modifying the present legal and administrative
> structure to make the right effective in practice."64
>
> Again, the binary economists want to have the
> voluntary nature of a free market but none of the
> constraints that might prevent a person from
> attaining command over capital assets. According to
> the binary economists, each individual has the right
> to engage involuntary transactions to acquire capital
> (and a substantial amount of it). If an individual
> lacks sufficient wealth, creditworthiness, or income
> to purchase this capital, it must mean that he
> doesn't have an effective right. To grant the
> effective right to that individual means that someone
> is going to have to increase his wealth,
> creditworthiness, or income. Transferring wealth to
> that person, or requiring others to ignore certain
> factors relevant to his creditworthiness, is
> inconsistent with "respect for everyone's private
> property." Yet this is exactly what is required by
> the binary proposal for capital dispersal. In the
> view of binary economists, no one should be denied
> credit for the purpose of buying capital for any
> reason. Inadequate collateral, a poor repayment
> history, or any other justification a lender might
> provide for denying a loan are all swept aside as
> violations of the binary property right. Even the U.
> S. Constitution is supposedly consistent with the
> binary proposal:
>
> "The essence of economic democracy lies in the
> elimination of differences in earning power resulting
> from denial of equality of economic opportunity,
> particularly equal access to capital credit.
> Differences of economic status resulting from
> differences in advantages taken and uses made of
> economic opportunities are natural, proper, and
> desirable. But all differences based on inequality of
> economic opportunity, particularly those that give
> access to capital credit to the already capitalized
> and deny it to the non- or undercapitalized, are
> flagrant violations of the const itutional rights of
> citizens in a democracy."65
>
> The alleged "right ...to be adequately capitalized"66
> is violated whenever someone accumulates "more
> capital than is required to meet the owner's
> consumption needs and wants and to free him or her
> from subsistence toil...""67 Any returns to
> productive work that are not immediately consumed are
> apparently illegitimate, to binary economists. The
> Kelsos go on:
>
> "This is the essence of social injustice. It denies
> the capitalless majority of citizens their right to
> be productive-a right dependent in our industrial age
> upon effective opportunity to acquire, own, [p. 26]
> and protect capital. It denies them equal protection
> of the laws, which would give them equal access to
> the freedom and independence that capital ownership
> provides and enhances.
>
> "It follows that if every household must own enough
> capital, no household can or should own too much
> because the aggregate of what is produced equals the
> aggregate power to consume generated by production.
> If the few produce what must be consumed by the many,
> the many are deprived of their power to produce for
> themselves and either become wards of charity or die
> of privation. The condition of too much is reached
> when a household or consumer unit's capital holdings
> produce more income than its members wish to spend
> and in fact do spend on consumption patterns, freely
> chosen by the individuals concerned, and to the
> prevailing state of technology."68
>
> Similar "rights" are mentioned elsewhere: a "right to
> good livehhood" is implied,69 and Franklin Delano
> Roosevelt's claim that "every man has...the right to
> make a comfortable living" is approvingly quoted .70
> Binary economists also refer to a "right to produce
> goods and services."71 A right to produce requires
> the right to command resources necessary for
> production--and this implies an obligation on the
> part of others to provide those resources. If they
> are not voluntarily tendered to the person with the
> "right to produce," they may presumably be taken. A
> position more consistent with private property rights
> acknowledges that before trade no one has a "right"
> to the property of another. The "economic democracy"
> of the Kelsos strikes at the foundation of property
> rights. Ironically, even in the same page they
> celebrate the free market.
>
> How large, exactly, is the capital portfolio that
> each person should have? Binary economists link the
> size of the portfolio to the indeterminate "physical
> capacity of the economy," a nonsensical concept.72
> Ashford and Shakespeare say that the goal should be a
> "capital estate large enough to supply sufficient
> current consumer income to support at least one half
> of an affluent life style (measured in the context of
> what society as a whole can efficiently produce)."73
> "Reasonable" people, it seems, will stop increasing
> their consumption after a certain standard of living
> has been attained. "When one has acquired sufficient
> capital-sourced earning power to satisfy one's
> consumer needs and wants, sufficient to reasonably
> provide the living one wishes to enjoy, one has
> enough capital-oriented earning power."74 Once one
> has "enough" capital, any excess would be violating
> the rights of the capital-deprived, so that
> government intervention is necessary. The state will
> also need to decide what a "reasonable" standard of
> living is:
>
> "What constitutes a viable capital estate? How large
> should it be? In a free society that is a question
> for each household to decide for itself, subject to
> the power of government to enforce the limitation set
> forth in the common law of property. But the logic to
> which Congress must resort, both under the concept of
> economic justice and under the philosophy behind the
> Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, is
> the equal right of each consumer unit to the
> opportunity to produce under competitive conditions
> the income necessary to enjoy the standard of living
> it reasonably chooses for itself. "Reasonably" refers
> to the physical capacity of the economy. If its
> physical capacity is smaller than the aggregate of
> chosen living standards--a condition that modern
> technology makes highly unlikely-then Congress must,
> with equal protection to each, define a lower limit
> of viability that will prevent any capital-owning
> family from injuring anyone else's person or property
> or the public welfare. Social policy concerning
> family size will here become an essential political
> consideration."75
>
> Clearly, the binary proposal amounts to a severe
> attenuation of basic individual property rights.
> Savings would be illegal, caps would evidently be set
> on standards of living, and even family size would be
> regulated.
>
> VI. Conclusion
>
> The claims of binary economists can be quite
> extravagant, and they lack no confidence in the
> ultimate success of their new paradigm. Ashford and
> Shakespeare write that "...the binary view of
> production...has momentous implications which will
> reshape the way people look at everything economic
> and much else besides. Those implications will
> eventually fill articles and books..."76 Kelso and
> Kelso make other bold claims:
>
> "We can, in time, inoculate people against poverty.
> ...[W]e can raise the earning power of the
> underproductive and prevent the sterilization of
> excess capital productive power accumulated by those
> who will not and cannot use it for their own
> consumption. We can tame, if not wholly eliminate,
> the business cycle in the American economy. We can
> plan and deliberately effect economic health, both
> for the national economy and for each consumer unit
> within it. We can indeed demonstrate for the world
> how to produce goods and services in such a way as
> eventually to make all consumers economically
> autonomous, as they were under nature's original
> economic plan for preindustrial humanity."77
>
> In this society of evenly dispersed capital, there
> will be no need for welfare or charity. "Welfare,
> private charity, boondoggle employment, and other
> modes of redistribution might well be necessary as
> temporary political or emergency expedients. But once
> the democratic capitalist goals have been attained,
> charity and other forms of redistribution should no
> longer be needed.78
>
> The benefits of binary economic s are said to extend
> even to a change of human nature, so that people will
> become happier with less:
>
> "...as all people acquire an increasingly secure
> capital base, it is conceivable that there will be a
> diminution in perceived human needs (which, in the
> case of some people today, amount to almost limitless
> dreams of conspicuous consumption) to a more balanced
> understanding of what is really required for human
> happiness. Fear of, and the reality of, material
> insecurity are probably the main reasons why some
> humans come to have almost limitless wants and
> greedy, highly possessive attitudes. ...The binary
> economy, however, holds a potential for greatly
> improving attitudes because it provides a profound
> material security for all."79
>
> Elsewhere the Kelsos claim that their "economic
> democracy" will eliminate inflation as well." Other
> binary economists believe that binary economics is
> also going to produce environmental purity and
> habitat preservation, because incomes will be so high
> that we can afford to produce using more expensive
> methods that are less damaging to the environment.81
>
> Binary economists stress the uniqueness of their "new
> paradigm." Yet the theory is riddled with severe
> problems. Milton Friedman, who once debated Kelso,
> called Kelso's "two-factor economics" a "crackpot
> theory," and with considerable justification, it
> seems. It is not clear from reading binary economists
> that they understand the "conventional" economics
> that they are criticizing. Many binary economists are
> not formally trained in economics. This is not
> necessarily a problem, as many of the greatest
> insights in economic thought came from people who had
> no such training. Yet, for an organized effort to
> reform the discipline of economics, binary economics
> reveals surprisingly little participation from those
> schooled in the discipline. Louis Kelso himself had
> degrees in law and finance, Robert Ashford is trained
> in law, and Rodney Shakespeare has a degree in
> history. Shakespeare, co-author (with Ashford) of a
> major work defending binary economics, states that he
> "tried to study conventional economics but found that
> every book on economics gave him a headache."82 From
> which he concluded that economics was fundamentally
> flawed.
>
> Binary economics is, in sum, a cluster of significant
> theoretical errors masquerading as a market-friendly
> solution to our worst economic problems. Kelso's
> employee stock option plan is a legitimate method of
> simultaneously compensating employees and solving a
> pervasive principal-agent problem. Binary economics
> takes the ESOP and turns it into a fantastic
> Wolkenkuckucksheim, heedless of the massive inflation
> that would necessarily accompany its policy
> proposals.
> --
>
> Notes:
> 1 Ashford and Shakespeare (1999), p. 7.
> 2 Ashford and Shakespeare (1999), p. xi.
> 3 See Kelso and Adler (1958, 1961), Kelso and Hetter
> (1967), Kelso and Kelso (1986), Ashford (1990, 1996),
> Gauche
> (1998), Ashford and Shakespeare (1999).
> 4 Ashford (1996), p. 10.
> 5 Kelso and Kelso (1986), p. 20.
> 6 Roth (1996), pp. 58, 59.
> 7 Roth (1996), p. 60.
> 8 Ashford and Shakespeare (1999), p. 60.
> 9 Kelso and Kelso (1986), p. 17.
> 10 Kelso and Kelso (1986), p. 165.
> 11 Kelso and Kelso (1986), p. 168.
> 12 Mises (1956), pp. 84, 85.
> 13 Ashford and Shakespeare (1999), p. 28.
> 14 Ashford and Shakespeare (1999), p. 30.
> 15 Ashford and Shakespeare (1999), p. 23.
> 16 Mis es (1956), p. 86.
> 17 Mises (1956), pp. 86, 87.
> 18 Roth (1996), pp. 61, 62.
> 19 Roth (1996), p. 59.
> 20 Ashford (1996), p. 8.
> 21 Kelso and Kelso (1986), p. 17.
> 22 See Roth (1996), p. 61.
> 23 Kelso and Kelso (1986), p. 8.
> 24 Kelso and Kelso (1986), p. 114.
> 25 Ashford and Shakespeare (1999), p. 128.
> 26 Mises (1956), p. 85.
> 27 Kelso and Kelso (1986), p. 20.
> 28 Kelso and Kelso (1986), p. 128.
> 29 Kelso and Kelso (1986), pp. 35, 36.
> 30 Kelso and Kelso (1986), pp. 36, 37.
> 31 Ashford and Shakespeare (1999), p. 39.
> 32 Kelso and Kelso (1986), pp. 34, 35.
> 33 Kelso and Kelso (1986), p. 37.
> 34 Ashford and Shakespeare (1999), p. 126n.
> 35 See Roth (1996), p. 61.
> 36 Kelso and Kelso (1986), p. 36.
> 37 Kelso and Kelso (1986), p. 34.
> 38 Kelso and Kelso (1986), p. 40.
> 39 Kelso and Kelso (1986), p. 40.
> 40 Ashford and Shakespeare (1999), p. 125.
> 43 Roth (1996), pp. 65, 66.
> 44 Roth (1996), p. 64.
> 45 Roth (1996), p. 64.
> 46 Roth (1996), pp. 64, 65.
> 47 Kelso and Kelso (1986), p. 33.
> 48 Kelso and Kelso (1986), p. 20.
> 49 Kelso and Kelso (1986), p. 27.
> 50 Kelso and Kelso (1986), pp. 121, 122; Gauche
> (1998).
> 51 Kelso and Kelso (1986), p. 109.
> 52 Kelso and Kelso (1986), p. 110.
> 53 Kelso and Kelso (1986), p. 111.
> 54 Kelso and Kelso (1986), p. 122.
> 55 Kelso and Kelso (1986), p. 123.
> 56 Ashford and Shakespeare (1999), p. 65.
> 57 Ashford and Shakespeare (1999), p. 17.
> 58 Ashford and Shakespeare (1999), p. 10.
> 59 Ashford and Shakespeare (1999), p. 11.
> 60 Ashford and Shakespeare (1999), p. 17.
> 61 Ashford and Shakespeare (1999), p. 19n.
> 62 Ashford and Shakespeare (1999), p. 7.
> 63 Ashford and Shakespeare (1999), p. 47.
> 64 Ashford and Shakespeare (1999), p. 48.
> 65 Kelso and Kelso (1986), p. 115.
> 66 Kelso and Kelso (1986), p. 25.
> Kelso and Kelso (1986), pp. 24, 25.
> 68 Kelso and Kelso (1986), pp. 25, 26.
> 69 Kelso and Kelso (1986), p. 12.
> 70 Kelso and Kelso (1986), p. 23.
> 71 Kelso and Kelso (1986), p. 11.
> 72 Binary economists apparently regard the existence
> of temporarily idle capital (factory downtime at
> night, etc.) as
> evidence of unused physical capital.
> 73 Ashford and Shakespeare (1999), p. 49.
> 74 Kelso and Kelso (1986), p. 29.
> 75 Kelso and Kelso (1986), pp. 27, 28.
> 76 Ashford and Shakespeare (1999), p. 32.
> 77 Kelso and Kelso (1986), p. 21. Note here the goal
> of "economic autonomy" or self-sufficiency. If this
> means that
> people have greater ability to fulfill their own
> economic goals, this is fine. But if this means less
> reliance on others
> through specialization and trade, then this autonomy
> will lead to poverty.
> 78 Kelso and Kelso (1986), p. 37.
> 79 Ashford and Shakespeare (1999), p. 54.
> 80 Kelso and Kelso (1986), p. 26.
> 81 Ashford and Shakespeare (1999), pp. 54, 55.
> 82 Ashford and Shakespeare (1999), p. 464.
> --
>
> Works Cited
> Ashford, Robert H. 1990. "The Binary Economics of
> Louis Kelso: The Promise of Universal Capitalism,"
> Rutgers Law
> Journal 22:3-120.
> ______. 1996. "Louis Kelso's Binary Economy," Journal
> of Socio-Economics, 25:1, 1-53.
> ______, and Shakespeare, Rodney. 1999. Binary
> Economics: The New Paradigm. Lanham, MD: University
> Press of
> America.
> Gauche, Jerry N. 1998. "Binary Economic Modes for the
> Privatization of Public Assets," Journal of Socio-
> Economics,
> 27:3, 445-459.
> Kelso, Louis O., and Adler, Mortimer J. 1958. The
> Capitalist Manifesto. New York: Random House.
> ______. 1961. The New Capitalists. New York: Random
> House.
> Kelso, Louis O., and Hetter, Patricia. 1967. Two-
> Factor Theory: The Economics of Reality. New York:
> Vintage.
> Kelso, Louis O., and Kelso, Patricia H. 1986.
> Democracy and Economic Power. Cambridge, MA:
> Ballinger.
> Mises, Ludwig von. 1956. The Anti-Capitalistic
> Mentality. Princeton: Van Nostrand.
> Roth, Timothy P. 1996. "A Supply-Sider's
> (Sympathetic) View of Binary Economics," Journal of
> Socio-Economics,
> 25:1, 55-68.
> --
>
> Binary Economics:
> Paradigm Shift or Cluster of Errors?
> March 14, 2003
> Timothy D. Terrell
> Assistant Professor of Economics
> Wofford College
> 429 N. Church St.
> Spartanburg, SC 29303-3663
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
> http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
>
>
>
==^================================================================
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?a84IaC.bcVIgP.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html
==^================================================================
