I have not shown that the more optimisticrnassumption should be adopted,rnnor have I responded to Keynesianrnclaims that, in some circumstances, biddingrndown wage rates will not relieve unemployment.rnBut the merits of the capitalistrncase are not here the primar)’ point.rnRather, my contention is a more limitedrnone. The issue between the free marketrnand its foes involves economic theory: Itrnwill not do simplv to point to variousrnstatistics, as Mr. Gray has done. Thesernmust be subsumed within some relevantrntheory, and this Mr. Gray has not done.rnWhen one contemplates what he hasrnmade of Ricardo, perhaps it is just as well.rnMr. Luttwak has a much firmerrngrasp of economics than the Professorrnof European Thought. Readers inrnsearch of a good, brief accoimt of Ricardo’srnlaw can hardly do better than to consultrnTurho-Capitalkm:rnhnport barriers arhficially precludernefficiency gains idendcal to thosernachieved bv better technology, betterrnorganization or any other sourcernof domestic produchvity. Thatrngoods or services originate from arnpoint on the surface of the planetrnthat happens to be classified as foreignrnat a given time . . . is an entirelyrnmeaningless attribute in purelyrneconomic terms.rnLuttwak, accordingly, advocates marketrncapitalism, but not for everyone. If arncountry labors under inefficient restrictions,rnthen by all means let the marketrnoperate. ”In poor countries, given favorablerncircumstances including foreign investment,rnfree trade can drastically alterrnthe total economy, lifting much of thernpopulation to a much higher level of income.”rnNo doubt the market dislocatesrnpeople used to a certain way of life, whornnow find they must suddenly adjust tornchanged conditions. Given their low levelrnof wealth, the difficulties are worth it,rnhe says. But Luttwak refuses to joinrnforces with Mises and Hayek. Thoughrncapitalism benefits the less well-off nations,rnthis is not, for him, the full story.rnIn more prosperous nations, such asrnthe United States and the countries ofrnWestern Europe, economic dislocationsrncaused by the market may be socially toornmuch to bear. What of those thrown outrnof work bv foreign competition? Arerntheir losses canceled by the slight gains inrnconsmner welfare that come to thosernwho already have a high standard of living?rnFree-market capitalism, Luttwak argues,rnis good, but directed capitalism, asrnit has existed in the United States and £AIropernin the decades since World War II,rnis even better. A wise government canrncushion the shocks of an unfettered market,rnand governmentally planned researchrnand development can achievernwonders beyond the scope of the market.rnMr. Luttwak knows frdl well the main objectionrnto his proposals:rnI he case against indu.strial policyrncan be summarized in one word:rnbureaucracy. More specifically . ..rn[the] unitary decisions [of efficientrnbureaucrats] will lack tiie blindrnwisdom contained in the sumrntotal of competing firms and entrepreneurs.rnAnd, of course, efficiencyrnand honest)’, let alone wi.sdoni,rncannot be taken for granted.rnNevertheless, he will not abandon hisrncase. Does not die success of Japan’s industrialrnpolicy show what air cfRcient bureaucracyrncan achieve? Unfortunately,rnLuttwak does not fit his observationsrnwithin a theory but relies instead onrnanecdote and authority. (For thernJapanese case, he appeals to ChalmersrnJohnson.) But facts do not interpretrnthemselves, and, absent a theory of howrnhis directed capitalism works, Turbo-rnCapitalism is ultimately no more of an effectivernchallenge to the free market thanrnJohn Grav’s Fake Dawn.rnLilies for Lot’s Wifernby Charles Edward EatonrnThe man was steeped among yellow lilies.rnStay long enough and he would turn to stone,rnLily-colored with perhaps yellow spitrnDribbling from his hard mouth as if he meantrnTo chew up the world before it got to him.rnBut an icon of his own indolencernHolds all the silt of sun and savagery.rnHe who would have been tapped of yellow winernFor filling the cups of friends and lovers—rnThis is a jaundiced spot that all have known.rnThat full, fulsome figure in the garden,rnHandsome in a wa’ but still a hostagernTo the gross instructions from the flowers-rnWorst of all, you cannot blame them either:rnYesterdav, the roses, their man of quartzrnPinked up with a passion to drip rose wine.rnIf you cannot pour, pretend to pollinate,rnLong for friends to brush against you.rnHide in the groin a bag of yellow seed.rnRemembering yesterday’s pink potpourrirnfield shriveled in a jar of jaded hours —rnA smile, a touch, and the stone man totters,rnA push, he falls head over heels in love.rnThe quarry of yellow stone shoveled, spent:rnYou are tiie tumbled thing you meant to bernThe yellow lilies thrashing everywhere.rnTomorrow is another colored dayrnAt the lip of the maze of metaphors.rnIf you look back like Lot’s wife on lilies.rnSomeone you know is gathering up shards—rnFragments, more fragments, for lovers and friends.rn30/CHRONICLESrnrnrn