"Would social unrest increase if the market were, for once, left alone? Has compromise moderated the calls for its destruction?" Anton, Thanks for clarifying for me.
Armchairs, this is more along the lines of what I meant by my question. It seems to me, at least from talking to many other students here at UGA, that popular opinion is that capitalism will be the downfall of us all and our only hope is for further government intervention. If the compromise of unemployment benefits and other programs was designed to "moderate the calls for [capitalisms] destruction," it is not immediately obvious that the comprimise was successful. Bryan >From: Anton Sherwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: economic history question >Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 22:57:32 -0700 > > > --- Bryan Etzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Would we have seen an increasing level of social unrest > > > had capitalism been left alone? > > > Has/was capitalism been saved? > >Fred Foldvary wrote: > > There seem to be two different meanings of "capitalism" here. > > 1) "capitalism left alone" implies a pure market or close to it. > > 2) "been saved" implies the mixed economy we have always had. > >No contradiction. >Would social unrest increase if the market were, for once, left alone? >Has compromise moderated the calls for its destruction? >The questions are not obviously absurd. > >-- >Anton Sherwood, http://www.ogre.nu/ _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
