Do you think that the internal market is possible to achieve with only free movement of goods, services and persons? Increased competitive pressure leads to lower prices. This empowers companies to search new solutions and also this leads to innovation. The internal market allows to get a benefit from the use of a large-scale effect in production and be more competitive. Free movement of capital and workers allows to achieve equalization of prices for production and leads to an economic rapprochement. It is not easy to achieve with only free movement of goods, services and persons. Free movement of capital allows to invest and to borrow without limits between Member States. It leads to the ability to use capital more efficiently and to improve the general well-being. In a country where there is a relatively small amount of capital, you can earn a higher return on investment. As a result of the free flow of capital,
That does not make the metaphors any less good or useful, because metaphor does sometimes have the quasi-perceptual character noted by Davidson; in some cases meta- phor affects one's literally perceptual set. (In other, intermediate cases, the metaphor just puts one in a different intellectual frame of mind for thinking about the topic at hand.) And that is a telling point against Searle. Thus, each view has at least one advantage over the other. I believe that a rapprochement is possible, a hybrid view that combines the advantages of the Causal Theory and the Pragmatic Theory. But I leave that to you as an exercise, and merely note two further objections made against Searle. First, Cooper (1986) and Moran (1997) point out that, if metaphorical meaning is simply speaker-meaning, then it is determined by and confined to the speaker's intentions. Yet in cases of fresh metaphor, as Cooper says (p
annaabi.ee 
