joanna bujes wrote:
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....?"
As Keynes said about the "natural" rate of interest, it's the one that preserves the status quo, "we have no predominant interest in the status quo as such."
Doug
- [PEN-L:33281] Re: RE: Re: The Economist considers Karl Marx, (continued)
- [PEN-L:33281] Re: RE: Re: The Economist considers Karl Marx, Ian Murray Fri 20 Dec 2002, 21:46 GMT
- [PEN-L:33282] Re: Re: RE: Re: The Economist considers Karl Marx, Carrol Cox Fri 20 Dec 2002, 21:58 GMT
- [PEN-L:33284] Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: The Economist considers Karl Marx, Ian Murray Fri 20 Dec 2002, 22:07 GMT
- [PEN-L:33285] Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: The Economist considers Karl Marx, joanna bujes Fri 20 Dec 2002, 22:14 GMT
- [PEN-L:33286] Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: The Economist considers Karl Marx, Doug Henwood Fri 20 Dec 2002, 22:18 GMT
- [PEN-L:33278] RE: The Economist considers Karl Marx, Devine, James Fri 20 Dec 2002, 21:26 GMT
- [PEN-L:33297] Re: RE: The Economist considers Karl Marx, andie nachgeborenen Sat 21 Dec 2002, 05:54 GMT
- [PEN-L:33276] RE: Re: Re: Re: The Economist considers Karl Marx, Devine, James Fri 20 Dec 2002, 21:07 GMT
- [PEN-L:33277] The Economist considers Karl Marx, andie nachgeborenen Fri 20 Dec 2002, 21:17 GMT