It ain't ever pure. But when it is, it's easy.

Kevin O'Neal kevinandt at
Sat Jul 24 07:57:38 CDT 2004

>L. Bird pkeets
><sigh>  This group certainly does like to squabble over definitions,

Perhaps.  I'm just trying to stay interested around here.
And, when a stated inaccuracy starts to persuade people to change their
long-standing and accurate understandings...I get interested.
No biggie...just a free market list.  But, with Paul at the wheel, it's not
quite "Pure", is it?
And that's just fine.

>Anyhow, Mr. Economist,

Nope, that's Tom.
I specifically said I couldn't/wouldn't call myself that.
But, I did sit though 4 years of mind-numbingly boring Econ. courses while I
worked on a much more interesting major....Sociology/Anthropology (African
Cultures was my concentration there).  So, since you brought it up, I really
think of myself more as a Sociologist, a non-practicing Anthropologist
(although I do dig in my son's sand box) who out of financial need got side
stepped into Healthcare.


> (You remember McConnell, right?)

Why would I?
He's not exactly relevant to any sort of economic theory development that's
documented in text.
He just writes books.
There are hundreds of economists that write books.
It's like me asking if you remember Allen R. Thompson.
Who would, unless you happen to read one of his text books?

>Hopefully this will clarify things to
>the satisfaction of at least some of us.  Notice that a free market system
>is not required by all capitalist systems.

Well, that *was* a whole bunch of words there, but it still in no way tells
us that a free market system is something different than Capitalism.
What we're running into is more evidence on how people throw terms around as
if they are absolute.
There are degrees to everything, particularly in multi-faceted things such
as Economics.

The use of "Pure" infront of "Capitalism" and "Free Market System" indicate
both can have variations dependant on amount of interference.
The only thing that I'm reading in what you've copied is that some like to
describe non-pure capitalism with additional flowery words that imply a
greater distance traveled from "Pure".  (See, you have to understand
Economists,..... they like to make up names.  If something changes just
slightly, they'll name it something interesting that makes it sound
different from the original.  Hey, it's all they have.)

If you want to imply that a "Free Market System" exists in only a "Pure"
state, you are both wrong, and chasing an idea that has never, and will
never exist.

Kevin in VT

More information about the TheWho mailing list