----------------- HES POSTING ----------------- 
    Prof. Fred Carstensen from the University of Connecticut 
kindly sent me off-list three articles to be published in 
Romanian economic journals. They are a programmatic 
exposition of US ideals as applied in real-life institutions. 
    In describing 'capitalism' he makes a very good description 
of the Free Enterprise system, based on well-defined property 
rights, and explores the role of the State to create, protect and 
sometimes substitute markets. He argues that the Anglo-Saxon 
common law tradition is a central piece of such arrangements. 
 
    But I argue that is not the point; historical 'capitalism' 
was in fact a Capital-needing Free Enterprise system, and  
currently the best approximation is maybe fast-growing China. 
    The current western system I call 'market economy' is a 
Markets-needing, mostly Free Enterprise system. 
The differences between the two have been partly summarized 
by Alvin Toffler (Second to Third waves), and are reflected 
culturally by the transition from Modernism to Postmodernism. 
    For symmetry, real socialism was a Capital-needing State 
Administration system. 
 
    The transition from Capital-needing to Markets-needing is 
what I want to explore; I feel that most current textbook economics 
is the product of another era and not sufficiently descriptive of 
current realities. Notably the emphasis on comparative statics. 
    I've not yet seen a satisfactory, *quantitative* model of modern 
marketing strategy based on product quality, incorporating the 
product life cycle; entry and exit not just from a market, but from 
public consciousness; technological progress and obsolescence. 
    There are nice theories in marketing, but purely word-based; 
skill in literary criticism seems more valued in this field than 
numerical analysis. There may be empirical models in large 
businesses, but probably top secret to keep the $$$ inside. 
 
    Noteworthy is that pure competition is still presented as an  
ideal, while real firms strive to avoid it - in jargon, to "proactively  
leverage their core competencies to build sustained competitive  
advantage" - that is, to create and then exploit oligopoly rents. 
 
    There is a weird sort of popular literature appearing now in 
Romania, mostly translated from French, which opposes free  
markets as American imperialist tools and accuse 'mondialization'  
to be a way of exploiting peoples and their nature. They denounce  
the IMF, World Bank, and see everywhere Big Business conspiracies. 
    I'm not too clear what they propose instead: some sort of  
autarchic new socialism? or a community-based self-administration? 
    Also I'm not clear what forces around the globe support such  
views; traditionally it has been the Soviet Union, but now? 
When did such views arise? 
 
    Thanks for thinking on this, 
    Mircea 
 
------------ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ------------ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]