If Poole is not laisez-faire in your book, your book really doesn't matter.
On Sun, Sep 14, 2008 at 7:50 PM, Eubulides <paraconsistent at comcast.net>wrote:
> Shane Mage wrote:
>
>> But the article is entirely concerned with the case for or against
>> "rule-based" open-market operations by the fed. Not a word can be used to
>> justify the intervention in markets adopted by the Bushits in response to
>> the current crisis.
>>
>> ================
>
> If he were consistently laissez-faire he'd argue against open market
> operations by the Fed; whether by rules or discretion it's an utterly
> activist strategy, duh.
> <http://www.fmcenter.org/site/pp.aspx?c=8fLGJTOyHpE&b=2278485&printmode=1>
> [See notes on District 8]
>
>
> Laissez-faire is utterly incoherent, duh.
>>>
>>
>> No, laissez-faire is completely coherent, just like any other utopian
>> ideology. It's just utterly inconsistent with the realities of imperialism
>> and state/monopoly capitalism.
>>
>>
>> Shane Ma.ge
>>
> ==================
>
> Well I don't buy the apriori/empirical distinction your assertion
> presupposes and stand by my claim. I'm not in the habit of gabbing with
> misogynists so I'll let you have the final word.
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
-- peace,
boddi
http://financialroadtosocialism.blogspot.com/