I summarize ~ as heard here and mulled:

We may not 'blame' the economists for their simple models, though twit same, whenever the dialogue becomes too religious. These have demonstrated utility -- about the buy/sell process only. Clear enough now re 'market forces' and the need to separate that *idea* from meta-(market forces).

Then maybe we can define~ a mercantile culture is one in which buying/selling is a major daily occupation and, one might say - becomes also a preoccupation (the buy/sell process). Then it seems: whether inevitably? or just usually - the "means of barter" (money) Itself becomes a Larger aim than, the more tawdry details of the exchange mechanism. It follows: maximizing personal advantage becomes the (for some.. only?) major goal - certainly Not 'equitable distribution for least overhead possible'. Psych enters too: "what the traffic will bear" - always sets price more than does cost - except as limits are reached.

Further, at least in our case: the items exchanged.. long since have gone beyond any idea of "those things needed to support life" and on into the land of er 'manufactured Wants' (an industry we call marketing, one based largely upon exaggeration and other forms of lying-for-$)

So within this context, however imperfectly described:

It appears that The Market is ever agnostic; is irrelevant to - specifically - any smallest idea of say, "quality of life produced" via mere, laissez-faire er marketing forces No?

If this is close enough for government work (?) it would seem that, vastly most important to *any* idea of "the quality of life" is precisely:

Some (wise! but at least responsive?.. effective then) means of meta-market oversight. And necessarily, for reasons of the limits of language and within our employment of phrases like, quality of life - the exploration and implementation of this 'function':

Can never have the pseudo- 'mathematical precision' of the mere "ideas of a free market left to equilibrium via the named simple forces".

I believe that these may be some of the clashing concepts lying behind ~ why.. much in Econ 101 leaves many a bit too cold and others a bit over-heated in zeal (to apply math to: human events).

(Hell, it may even 'explain' why some of the polarized labels get attached, as for ex. to er Repos (not to be confused with the 'Republican'-half of the single party with 2 Right-wings) Darwinian Capitalism?

Perhaps Repos are ones (of whatever other 'politics') who really do imagine that math can cover it all. Libruls tag might be for those who imagine that the math is irrelevant; social consequences are all.

So much for the extremes but, seems clear enough that the math AND the social consequences ever must modify any idea of Capitalism else: it, being amoral in every sense - can indeed morph into (whatever brand of) Totalitarianism, hegemony of the few; anti- any concepts of 'democracy'.

As.. lately, perhaps?
Billy n'Bally our D.E.W. line.. focussing attention on the weaknesses of integration, to date.


My 3 zlotys..


Ashton Smith G\ufffddel