🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <philDCKFzA.KzH@netcom.com>, Phil Ronzone <phil@netcom.com> wrote:
>
>See - Soviet Centralised Economic Planning or take a micor-economics course
>at you local junior college.
>

Ah, now that clears things up a bit for me, Phil - your understanding of
microeconomics in the real world does seem to be at about a
junior-college level. A really *lousy* junior college.

You profess to believe that there are exactly two possible conditions on
the free-market continuum:

A) No government intervention or involvement of any kind, which is what
you define as a "market"

B) The government is involved in setting some conditions of the buying
and selling of a commodity, such as an initial price or limiting who can
buy and sell; this you define as "no market exists."

That's an, um, interesting view of the world, of roughly the same
sophistication of my 2-year-old's view of dinnertime ("ice cream!" and
"stuff" being the defined options as he sees them). However, in the
world that most of the rest of us operate in, there is in fact a vast
and varied range of market conditions with an ever-changing degree of
government involvement. To say that because Manhattan has rent control,
there is no apartment market with supply and demand driving rents up and
down in Manhattan, is just plain dense. Indeed, by your definition, I
cannot offhand think of an example of a "market" functioning in these
here United States, since there isn't anything you can buy or sell for
which the price isn't influenced in some manner by limitations set by
government. Well, maybe crack cocaine, though even there the
government's efforts to interrupt the trade, which drive up the costs of
doing business and hence the price, could be seen as government
internvention in the otherwise free market....

here United States, since there isn;

-- 
This email was sent by Paul Botts:  prb@mcs.com