----------------- 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]