On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 09:29:38 -0500 (CDT) Joe Greco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | 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.