Subject: | |
From: | |
Date: | Fri Mar 31 17:18:38 2006 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
====================== 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]
|
|
|