On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 09:29:38 -0500 (CDT) Joe Greco <jgreco@ns.sol.net> wrote:
The key thing in that definition is the lack of government intervention in its various forms. That's D'Arcy's point. Where there is government subsidy, regulation, or other intervention, it cannot be described as a free market.
Actually, it could... but you have to understand the situation better.
Ah. I didn't realize that I just didn't understand the situation as well as you. Thanks for setting me straight. If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one. Abraham Lincoln As I said, I mostly agree with you in your analysis. The main thing I differ on is your definition. The market is not free and just calling it free doesn't change that.
This will be my last post along this thread, due to thread drift.
Me too. -- D'Arcy J.M. Cain <darcy@druid.net> | Democracy is three wolves http://www.druid.net/darcy/ | and a sheep voting on +1 416 425 1212 (DoD#0082) (eNTP) | what's for dinner.