What goods and services? In this sense, there was the market of goods and services in the state and its political representatives at the time. But there also were market of goods and services that were not only not politically representative, but were not even economically representative, and that were, therefore, considered to be no market, at least in the sense of the existence and circulation of such a market. For example, the state was not concerned in the 19th century with the production of the goods and services of the market — that would have been done by private actors, and even then, only if some economic incentive gave rise to such activity. It was, in other words, concerned only with supplying the state, by way of state power, with goods. The question, however, was: Which goods and services is the state, as a whole, allowed to use as means of its economic functions, and which items, such as foodstuffs and clothing, are left out (i.e., “unnecessary goods”?). And the answer is that these are “unnecessary goods” because these items do not benefit the state, because they do not serve the political ends that the state pursues. Hence: The state is allowed to use as its own means things like clothing and food. In other words, to use as its own means, as its own private property, as the means to its economic ends, whatever the specific category of goods or services.
Another category of goods and services that were considered to be “unnecessary” goods were “unnecessary goods of the state” — the products of what was originally considered the state’s business. The goods and services that the state wanted to provide and use as its own economic means were left out, except within the narrow context of public use. And these goods and services would, therefore, have to be sold by an outside vendor. Again, no more market at that time — not the political market, and certainly not the market of goods and services. The state decided, in other words, which goods and services are to be bought and sold.
Why not? Because the state, as an instrument of economic power, was a monopoly producer of goods and services in this regard. (In fact, the reason the state produced what it produced was that it wanted to do so, to get that which it wanted). The state — or rather, the state’s representatives — were thus unable to compete with the use of the goods and services of the market as a whole. What they
swing trader stock options, swing trading forex strategies, swing trading strategy guide ally financial phone, top books on swing trading, swing trading strategies thinkorswim