>As a matter of logic, exploitation under capitalism is always better than
>the alternative, because people with better alternatives can't be
>exploited. The point is to ask why _that_ alternative is _the_
>alternative.
Crimeny, I don't get it. Admittedly, my statement (above) wasn't very clear or well-put. I wasn't referring to Krugman's alternative - no development whatsoever - but rather to "sustainable development" or to some kind of kinder, gentler, democratic development.
Doug sez: "But Krugman will never ask that, or he wouldn't have a NYT column. To him the only two choices are exploitation or marginalization."
What's the other choice or alternative?
alternatively confused, Peter