Re: Growth vs Prosperity

["William B. Ryan" <william_b_ryan@xxxxxxxxx>]

It is well and fine to be "blunt," John, but
please answer the question:  To remunerate
housewives, why do taxes have to be raised?

Otherwise, we will think being "blunt" is just
your way to avoid answering the question.

Bill

--

--------- Original Message ---------

DATE: Thu, 29 May 2003 17:32:29
From: John Vertegaal <vertegaa@xxxxxxxxx>
To: william_b_ryan@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: POST KEYNESIAN THOUGHT <pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

>
>Bill Ryan asks in reponse the below:
>
>> -->You want to remunerate housewives? no problem.
>> Sure, taxes will need to be raised.<--
>
>> Why?
>
>Re. the first sentence: It was the most far-reaching example I could
>think of to broaden the economy in an integrated way, on short notice.
>
>Re. its entirety:  The means of remuneration (i.e. its logical value)
>follows from (previously stated) basic axioms; and therefore rules out
>transitional tinkering with those means.
>
>I am familiar with your SC paradigm Bill.  And though there is a bit of
>logic to it; unless this can be shown to follow from a set of (equally
>valid) stated axioms, I hold that its adherents are just money cranks.
>Sorry to be so blunt.
>
>John V
>
>



____________________________________________________________
Get advanced SPAM filtering on Webmail or POP Mail ... Get Lycos Mail!
http://login.mail.lycos.com/r/referral?aid=27005