From: Mike Lorrey (mlorrey@datamann.com)
Date: Thu Feb 07 2002 - 07:03:30 MST
Olga Bourlin wrote:
>
> From: "Samantha Atkins" <samantha@objectent.com>
> >
> > Dehede011@aol.com wrote:
> >
> > > Samantha,
> > > If I understand you correctly you are right -- under various
> > > dictatorships "progress requiring more concentrated energy/material
> > > resources and greater organization" has been made. However I believe
> > > all of these todate have eventually collapsed of their own weight, in
> > > the long run slowing progress. Or, did I misunderstand you?
> >
> > Are you imply dictatorships are the only alternative to
> > capitalism or what dresses itself up in that name today?
>
> How does capitalism dress up, in your opinion? IMO, whether dressing in
> traditional vestments, or preferring the latest in haute couture fashions:
> oligarchy seems to be the clothing of choice in Capitalism, USA.
Yes, a mercantilist oligarchy is an apt description of a large chunck of
the national government and big business, while the majority of business
is still a free market (since most businesses are and employees work for
small businesses involved in local/regional trade. Keep in mind that
large scale labor brokers (i.e. so-called labor unions) are also
properly classified as mercantilist oligarchs (since their members have
little choice in joining or not, and have no voice in how their
membership dues are spent on bribing politicians), while other special
interests, the so-called NGO's, purport to have their members interests
in mind, but are generally just for anything that for-profit businesses
are against, and vice versa, with a few exceptions, like the NRA, the
Red Cross, etc..
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 13:37:38 MST