====================== HES POSTING ==================== 
 
When I see the same people dominating a discussion, it is probably time 
to let the matter drop.  Even so, I will respond to what Thomas Moser 
wrote: 
 
>  
> Apart from the question of the law's or the church's motivation regarding 
> some kind of a 'traditional society': wouldn't the fact that they were 
> "concerned with controlling the spread of the market" mean that markets 
> were so important that they had to be controlled? 
 
Maybe I was not sufficiently clear.  Markets did exist in early 
societies.  They were contained by the law, church, and maybe society as 
a whole.  These institutions made efforts to control the market because 
people recognized how easily market forces could spread, breaking down 
the traditional bonds of social solidarity.  So markets may be said to 
be "potentially important," even though in practice they were not yet 
important. 
 
Michael Perelman 
Economics Department, California State University 
E-Mail [log in to unmask] 
 
============ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ============ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]