You, Bill Bartlett, wrote:

>If Gailbraith isn't a pro-capitalist economist then what is he? An
>anti-capitalist? We are all one or the other in the final analysis -
>Chomsky is anti. I'm anti.
I said he wasn't a *shill* for capitalism. Nuance, nuance. Words matter.
Also, as Noam reminds his listeners, the truth value of a statement does
not depend on who's uttering it.
>
>In the latter case they are though, contrary to your assertion, objectively
>quite a lot more efficient than corporations in that they will often be
>able to extract a greater proportion of surplus value from their workers
>than the big corporation.
Paying lower wages and overworking your employees may be the only
feasible short-term strategy for competing with larger businesses, but
it's hardly efficient, any more than is redlining your 4-cylinder car to
outrace a V-8. But on your larger point, I don't see where the
disagreement is.

>if you want to see a capitalism dominated by small business, just look back
>to the 19th century, that's what it would look like. Not a pretty picture.
Human history rarely is.

_________
Tresy Kilbourne, Seattle WA
"There was a time in this great country when the word 'crackpot' really
meant something."  --Ann Richards