>well, "global capitalist market economy" is not vacuous, is it? isnt it
>the reality of today? isn't it also the argument of the market humanists
>(bhagwati, krugman, etc) that this is the best way for all, especially
>the poor? how then, to explicate miles' question, does one address the
>paradox of the ascendancy of global capitalism and the polarization of
>wealth? wait, unless, perhaps, polarization is not really a bad thing.
>nor is decrease in real wages of the poorer segments?
>
>
>
>
It certainly is the reality today. But, to paraphrase what Doug said
elsewhere on the list, when a concept becomes that broad, it becomes
nearly useless. What one is trying to understand is why India, with all
its poverty, is producing more billionaires than many other (wealthier)
countries in which the
"global capitalist market economy" is equally operational. I for one
don't have an answer. And the fact that I'm unhappy with the knee-jerk
"global capitalist market economy" type of analysis does not make me a
proponent of "market humanism" or any other label that you may choose to
apply.
Sujeet
-- The farther you go, the less you know.
-- Lao Tsu, "Tao Te Ching" * TagZilla 0.057 * http://tagzilla.mozdev.org