----------------- HES POSTING ----------------- 
 
Rod Hay's sensible response may be too old to re-visit, but I think  
that it is worth noting that, in order for him to make his argument,  
he has to define (formerly political) economy in a particular way.   
While that way might be correct, it is certainly different from the  
normative distinctions in economic activity that Aristotle made  
(where 'unnatural' trade -- i.e., trade that did not directly satisfy a  
human need but aimed at profit -- and usury are one kind of  
exchange [aimed at making money] and other kinds of economic  
activity are another kind of activity [aimed at satisfying need]) or  
that Hegel (implicitly) made, between family life and civil society,  
including the economic order (and basically not including the  
state).   
 
I think the point about why "political" was dropped is quite  
interesting, and suggests the kind of deep-seated presuppositions  
or biases that underlie a lot of contemporary economic thought.   
 
Peter G. Stillman 
 
------------ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ------------ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]