I have not read all the posts in this thread -- but has anyone explicitly noted that "Drugs" in reference to business has two quite different (well -- perhaps) references. I presume that Tom's "blown away" refers to the less "respectable" of the two referents. Though, again, that could be argued.
Carrol > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:pen-l- > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Tom Walker > Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 5:39 PM > To: Progressive Economics > Subject: Re: [Pen-l] Cartels [was JPMorgan ...] > > Oh yeah? And if I was a drug cartel kingpin and you attempted to augment > the supply, you'd be blown away by more than the intellectual depth of my > argument. > > > On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 3:33 PM, Jim Devine <[email protected]> wrote: > > > me: > >> Drug cartels -- in Colombia or elsewhere -- don't fit the > economist's > >> definition of "cartel." Economic cartels restrict supply, while drug > >> cartels hope to expand it. > > > Tom Walker <[email protected]> wrote: > > Wrong. > > I'm blown away by the intellectual depth of your argument, Tom. > > Of course, there are no intellectual property rights attached to the > word "cartel." You can use it any way you like. > > > -- > Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your > own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > > > > > > -- > Cheers, > > Tom Walker (Sandwichman) _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
