4 ms·
(I'm very much no expert) Thanks. So it seems you don't read that particular quote as endorsing unregulated markets in the face of state interference. It sounde
by yesenadam 9y ago
(I'm very much no expert) Thanks. So it seems you don't read that particular quote as endorsing unregulated markets in the face of state interference. It sounded like you did, thus my surprise.
Also, people in the 18th C from the same trade having a meeting, is so far from what we imagine by "unregulated markets" that..well, two things could scarcely be more different.
edit: Oh, you added your snarky first sentence. That's not an improvement.
- CryptoPunk 9y agoI wasn't trying to be snarky. I genuinely don't see how his multiple warnings about particular regulations in that short passage doesn't contradict the author's claim that he opposed the unregulated market position. If anything, it supports the notion that he supported unregulated markets. >>So it seems you don't read that particular quote as endorsing unregulated markets in the face of state interference. It sounded like you did, thus my surprise. If "unregulated markets in the face of state interference" means that markets being unregulated and free of state interference, yes I do read that particular passage as endorsing that view, for reasons I've articulated. >>Also, people in the 18th C from the same trade having a meeting, is so far from what we imagine by "unregulated markets" that..well, two things could scarcely be more different. I don't understand what you mean by this. Could you elaborate?