This sounds like "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion." Can you really
analyze the workings of an economic system based on the clever designs
of a few manipulative people with a special knack for "reification." Are
the ill effects of an economy always or even usually reducible to the
intentions of a few people in charge? Isn't this a substitution of
Manichean theology for economics and sociology?
Vunch wrote:
>
> In a message dated 5/16/98 7:23:41 PM Eastern Daylight Time, je4@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> writes:
>
> << I find it is interesting in this dicsussion that there is an "we" versus
> "they"
> mentality- as if in any sort of free-er market society there is such thing as
> a
> "they" that does not include "we".
>
> This sort of thinking would suggest, on economic grounds, that "we" operate
> outside of a world which is constituted by the "they".
>
> But, whether one likes it or not, we don't. >>
>
> Now aren't you being provocative. Did you read my post. I pointed out that
> everyone's mundane activity was primarily economic. But, exploitation does
> exist. The avaricious do constitute a they as distinct from everyone who is
> not avariciously exploiting the market.
> Also, there are laws and government controls. These people also constitute a
> they as distinct from normatively operating economic agents, that is,
> everyrone else. Sorry you think we should lump all the bad guys in with
> everybody, but I don't. In a sense, the people who exploit as well as the
> people who try to control the market forces, read herd,
> use reification techniques to manipulate everybody's perception.
analyze the workings of an economic system based on the clever designs
of a few manipulative people with a special knack for "reification." Are
the ill effects of an economy always or even usually reducible to the
intentions of a few people in charge? Isn't this a substitution of
Manichean theology for economics and sociology?
Vunch wrote:
>
> In a message dated 5/16/98 7:23:41 PM Eastern Daylight Time, je4@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> writes:
>
> << I find it is interesting in this dicsussion that there is an "we" versus
> "they"
> mentality- as if in any sort of free-er market society there is such thing as
> a
> "they" that does not include "we".
>
> This sort of thinking would suggest, on economic grounds, that "we" operate
> outside of a world which is constituted by the "they".
>
> But, whether one likes it or not, we don't. >>
>
> Now aren't you being provocative. Did you read my post. I pointed out that
> everyone's mundane activity was primarily economic. But, exploitation does
> exist. The avaricious do constitute a they as distinct from everyone who is
> not avariciously exploiting the market.
> Also, there are laws and government controls. These people also constitute a
> they as distinct from normatively operating economic agents, that is,
> everyrone else. Sorry you think we should lump all the bad guys in with
> everybody, but I don't. In a sense, the people who exploit as well as the
> people who try to control the market forces, read herd,
> use reification techniques to manipulate everybody's perception.