The Observation Deck

Ellen Cormier wrote:So, net-neutrality is a big complicated issue going on right now. You like your freedom to browse the internet and not have huge corporations that control the access to the internet steer you a certain way or limit what you can and can't do or spy on you? You think Boehner and his money from AT&T is going to maintain those freedoms?

First, a quick comment regarding net neutrality: We've already seen DHS shutting down websites. We've got the Patriot Act that is hated so much.
You trust the government to make those decisions? You want them to have that power?

Personally, I would rather see corporate control of access than government control. A person has the freedom to choose another internet provider if they are dissatisfied, but its a little harder to choose another government. Reversing the course of government is like pulling a uie with an Nimitz-class aircraft carrier.

Ellen Cormier wrote:Like Dennis or don't, he's a good check on the neo-conservative corporate oligarchy which is quite important to our freedoms and our democracy.

This is what I really wanted to cover with my reply. Our freedoms have been so abridged that its disgusting. Admittedly, its not just Dennis, its not even just the Democrats. Moron Republicans have plenty to reduce the freedoms of the people as well.

But let's look at a few of our freedoms and Dennis' connections:

• By 2014, it will be virtually impossible to buy incandescent light bulbs. (Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Kucinich co-sponser)
• Increased CAFE requirements force car makers to either produce lighter, more dangerous cars, reduce/stop production of SUVs or push them to more electric vehicles. (Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Kucinich co-sponser)
• We could end reliance on Middle-Eastern oil in a heartbeat if we used our own resources (not to mention the potential cost savings in doing so). Kucinich has repeatedly voted against tapping them.
• How about the freedom to choose where and how we educate our children? Dennis voted a against vouchers.
• Freedom to bear arms...He's always voting against the 2nd Amendment.
• HR 676, the United States National Health Care Act, which failed to garner enough support, would have taken all freedom of choice in health care away from the people. I've seen it refered to as the Conyers-Kucinich bill.
• The freedom to vote without fear of retribution or intimidation, yet he supports card check.
• How about the freedom to reap the benefits of our labors, yet he votes against lower taxes on numerous occasions. Likewise, he seems very willing to give away our tax dollars.

Judge Andrew Napolitano wrote:What is a right? A right is a gift from God that extends from our humanity. Thinkers from St. Thomas Aquinas, to Thomas Jefferson, to the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., to Pope John Paul II have all argued that our rights are a natural part of our humanity. We own our bodies, thus we own the gifts that emanate from our bodies. So, our right to life, our right to develop our personalities, our right to think as we wish, to say what we think, to publish what we say, our right to worship or not worship, our right to travel, to defend ourselves, to use our own property as we see fit, our right to due process -- fairness -- from the government, and our right to be left alone, are all rights that stem from our humanity. These are natural rights that we are born with. The government doesn't give them to us and the government doesn't pay for them and the government can't take them away, unless a jury finds that we have violated someone else's rights.

There's tons more that Kucinich is not directly responsible for, but he's also never spoken out against many of the assaults.

As for the corporate oligarchy, 99.999% of the time, the private sector can do things better and cheaper than the public.
For example:

Ronald Reagan, 1964 wrote:A young man, 21 years of age, working at an average salary...his Social Security contribution would, in the open market, buy him an insurance policy that would guarantee $220 a month at age 65. The government promises $127. He could live it up until he is 31 and then take out a policy that would pay more than Social Security. Now, are we so lacking in business sense that we can't put this program on a sound basis so that people who do require those payments will find that they can get them when they are due...that the cupboard isn't bare?

Last, I'll say it again, we were not formed as a democracy. We are and were formed as a republic.

the primary danger of lighter cars is how well they hold up to colliding with much heavier cars. taxes on gasoline should be raised. don't worry; you're more likely to die in a car accident than be blown up by muslims.

the corporations are our government: they are just the government we don't vote for. these corporations mission is to maximize the amount of soda and cheese burgers and gaudy tacky fashions people consume.

Roy,

You bring up some interesting points but on quite a few I am absolutely certain the facts are against you. Specifically our oil reserves are not adequate to meet our demand by any stretch of the imagination.

On net neutrality, how are you going to be dissatisfied about something you don't even know is happening? Neutrality keeps the government and businesses from corrupting the internet. Of course it is not perfect, and like I said it is an extremely complicated issue that is under the radar for most people and should be followed closely so please do not take a passing glance at the issue.

Some of your other points I am not totally sure about. I don't know what his voting record on gun rights is. I'll have to do some research and would be curious to know. I'm not crazy about any second amendment restrictions but I am also not crazy about people shooting me with a machine gun while I'm eating at McDonald's either.

On health care, it is one big gigantic myth about not getting to choose your doctor or whatnot in order to battle the evils of universal health care. We need to get it over with and create an equitable system that will cover everybody and cost less money and not restrict coverage or choice. It is totally doable and totally necessary.

On light bulbs, are you really going to miss the incandescent light bulbs? This is such a red herring. It makes a dramatic point about choice but the new compact florescent are proven to be vastly more energy efficient and cheaper in the long run. Lots of things go by the wayside to standardize an industry. You know anyone buying beta-max tapes anymore? And the winner of that war, VHS is now in the garbage heap of history too. Perhaps I am being too flip about the poor old light bulb, but there are reasons we can find tools and hardware and things of that nature in a standard size...it's because government decided to regulate things for many very important reasons and this has been going on for quite a long time. You want to take back standard weights and measures and get ripped off every time you go to the butcher or the lumber yard, etc., etc?

Lastly, Just because Reagan said something, doesn't make it true but this claim requires some fact checking again that I don't have time for right now.

sigh, I'm just wasting my breath huh? Anyway, I am very curious to know what this conservative anarchist's paradise that is dreamed about by people with your point of view Roy. I have a hard time visualizing it. I already have enough potholes in my street to look like Berlin after the war. I am not really crazy about an exponential amount of that in my life.

Hay Roy, and Welcome Ellen

Net Neutrality is something I am paying close attention to. So I feel I need to chime in on that point.

Roy Pitchford wrote:First, a quick comment regarding net neutrality: We've already seen DHS shutting down websites. We've got the Patriot Act that is hated so much.
You trust the government to make those decisions? You want them to have that power?

Personally, I would rather see corporate control of access than government control. A person has the freedom to choose another internet provider if they are dissatisfied, but its a little harder to choose another government. Reversing the course of government is like pulling a uie with an Nimitz-class aircraft carrier.

The above quote, In my opinion distorts what Net Neutrality is about. The basic tenant is that all traffic (things on the internet) is created equal. You seem to equate any Net Neutrality regulation with a government take over of the Internet. That will somehow lead to limiting choice in the broadband market. While I have not heard you say it, other have claimed that any regulation will crush innovation and american competitiveness.

It is in fact just the opposite. Properly formed regulation simply keeps private companies in check. And in fact will increase innovation. It is hard to innovate when huge incumbents control the playing field. Current regulation is not a good start for this debate. It was largely writing in closed door sessions buy AT&T lobbyists. It fails to cover wireless broadband that will only increase in the coming years.

Let's come up with a hypothetical to better illustrate my point as I am not the word smith some are.

Comcast is giant broadband incumbent. They are merging with NBC / Universal. Hulu is owned by NBC / Universal. Let's say I created a web site better than Hulu. One where you did not have to wait 30 days for new episodes of Stargate (really hulu!?!). I would then be a competitor to Hulu. Well Comcast now has to protect there interest and make sure there broadband subscribers get steered to Hulu instead of my site. They can do this by outright blocking my site, or throttling the speed at which my site is delivered to there customers. Making my site seem crappy and slow. How am I supposed to innovate in a market like that?

Well if people do not like the fact that Comcast is making my site crappy they can just switch to a different provider right? In many places where there is no competition, no they can not. They could in theory in a place like Lakewood right? Sure to the only other company. You have COX or ATT. Both companies suck. COX charges too much (and raises my bill 5 buck when ever the feel like it, NOTE I choose COX for the simple fact that in 8 years I have never had to call tech support) and ATT puts up stupid boxes in a cheap attempt to get better than DSL speeds. Anyway back to the story. Who's to say that the only other competition in my area is not doing the same tricky things to my site. Who knows they may even have been bought off by Comcast.



God Bless america!

Also responding to you point about DHS. The fact the DHS is seizing domains is not a Net Neutrality issue. That is a whole other debate about the power of government.

Anyway that was my rant. I guess I have more but I tire of typing

Good to talk to you again.

Thanks Jim for chiming in about net neutrality. It's a gigantic issue that people aren't really aware of but should be and it is frustratingly hard to explain and understand the full implications for the future of the Internet.

Ellen Cormier wrote:Roy,

You bring up some interesting points but on quite a few I am absolutely certain the facts are against you. Specifically our oil reserves are not adequate to meet our demand by any stretch of the imagination.

The ANWR deposits are estimated at between 4.3 billion and 11.8 billion barrels.
The Bakken Formation in Montana/the Dakotas is estimated anywhere from 3.6 billion to 24 billion barrels.
If you count Oil sands, which are a difficult (but not impossible) source to use, Utah has an estimated 32 billion barrels of oil.
Even harder to process are the oil shales but rough estimates put US reserves over 1 trillion barrels.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves_in_the_United_States

First, I would argue we have a lot at our disposal, if we'd use it.
Second, even if we didn't, maybe we should use what we have now, get ourselves away from foreign dependency and, in the mean time, develop some real alternatives?

Ellen Cormier wrote:On net neutrality, how are you going to be dissatisfied about something you don't even know is happening? Neutrality keeps the government and businesses from corrupting the internet. Of course it is not perfect, and like I said it is an extremely complicated issue that is under the radar for most people and should be followed closely so please do not take a passing glance at the issue.

That is an intriguing question...how can I be dissatisfied with things if I am prevented from learning about them? Obviously, I can't. That's part of what worries me. If the government has controls over the internet, what can it do in the name of neutrality? In fact, who defines neutrality?
This is not unprecedented in American history.
Sedition Act of 1918

Jim, you mentioned Stargate SG-1...are you a fan? Look up the season 7 episode entitled "Revisions". While a little extreme, this is the kind of thing I'm talking about.

Ellen Cormier wrote:Some of your other points I am not totally sure about. I don't know what his voting record on gun rights is. I'll have to do some research and would be curious to know. I'm not crazy about any second amendment restrictions but I am also not crazy about people shooting me with a machine gun while I'm eating at McDonald's either.

Let me help you out. This is where I got my information:
http://www.ontheissues.org/OH/Dennis_Kucinich.htm

Ellen Cormier wrote:On light bulbs, are you really going to miss the incandescent light bulbs? This is such a red herring. It makes a dramatic point about choice but the new compact florescent are proven to be vastly more energy efficient and cheaper in the long run. Lots of things go by the wayside to standardize an industry. You know anyone buying beta-max tapes anymore? And the winner of that war, VHS is now in the garbage heap of history too. Perhaps I am being too flip about the poor old light bulb, but there are reasons we can find tools and hardware and things of that nature in a standard size...it's because government decided to regulate things for many very important reasons and this has been going on for quite a long time. You want to take back standard weights and measures and get ripped off every time you go to the butcher or the lumber yard, etc., etc?

Yes, I am going to miss them. They provide a more pleasant kind of light, they are safer if broken (no mercury) and they are made in the United States (CFLs come from China). Personally, I think we should leapfrog CFLs and promote LED bulb development.

For the record, BETA was a superior format. Much better quality. No, I don't know anyone that still buys them, but my family still has many tapes and at least 1 player. My father's been transferring stuff from old BETA tapes straight to DVD.
VHS won that battle for 2 reasons: 1. the VHS was licensed to other manufacturers while Sony tried to keep BETA proprietary and 2. Porn chose VHS.

Ellen Cormier wrote:Sigh, I'm just wasting my breath huh? Anyway, I am very curious to know what this conservative anarchist's paradise that is dreamed about by people with your point of view Roy. I have a hard time visualizing it. I already have enough potholes in my street to look like Berlin after the war. I am not really crazy about an exponential amount of that in my life.

Tell you what, if you are open-minded and want to understand why I think the way I do, let me recommend one book to you. Pick up The 5000 Year Leap. Get it from the library. I know they have a couple copies and, in this town, they are probably collecting dust. I would recommend the whole book, but at the minimum, read the first 33 pages.

Roy, I had a post for you yesterday but I lost it. I'm going to have keep posts short and sweet from my iPhone.

I will check out the book you recommend.

Roy Pitchford wrote:Tell you what, if you are open-minded and want to understand why I think the way I do, let me recommend one book to you. Pick up The 5000 Year Leap. Get it from the library. I know they have a couple copies and, in this town, they are probably collecting dust. I would recommend the whole book, but at the minimum, read the first 33 pages.

I really would not suggest that book as a way to promote your point of view, especially since it is pseudo history, something even Princeton University historians acknowledge.

I mean, the book suggests that the free market economy is responsible for all kinds of things like exotic space travel, vaccines, jet propulsion? How is any of this accurate? The Russians, who were Communist at the time, were the first in space, with technology from Germany, which largely produced our nuclear power. I think these claims are an exaggeration. And a lot of vaccines and cleanliness protocol is European.

Another thing this book says is that for 180 years the Constitution was being formed. I don't know how anyone can believe this is true. Especially since the US was happy being colonies only until a few decades before the Revolutionary War.

Also, the US is NOT a true free market economy and never was. The Constitution itself states that the Federal government controls trade between the states. That is not quite a free market, because in a true free market there are no controls over trade at all.

Mr. Pitchford, do you perhaps have another suggestion of a book to read, one that perhaps is more historically accurate and not championed by the perpetually inaccurate Glenn Beck?

energy return on energy invested is what gives context to these estimates of reserves. true conservatives have a handicap in weighing anything in context.

I'd rather our culture grow out of building the junk its built in the last 60 years of easy oil before tapping more easy domestic oil.

This is unlikely to happen soon. our present post-industrial economic priority is to maximize oil addiction. stockjobbing, retail, and outsourcing.

ryan costa wrote:energy return on energy invested is what gives context to these estimates of reserves. true conservatives have a handicap in weighing anything in context.

I'd rather our culture grow out of building the junk its built in the last 60 years of easy oil before tapping more easy domestic oil.

This is unlikely to happen soon. our present post-industrial economic priority is to maximize oil addiction. stockjobbing, retail, and outsourcing.

Totally agree. Thanks for posting this. We have close to $4.00/gallon of gas. Many countries have been paying more than that for years. We may get "cheaper" gas for short periods of time again but the writing has been on the wall for 30 years. If the point was to use all the oil before the 3rd world starting wanting or being able to afford our lifestyle, we have totally won. It's all down to hedging our bets. Democrats threw down on high speed-rail and Republicans threw their heads in the sand. It wasn't just for passengers but also for shipping goods. Kasich had a valid point about the 3-c corridor being slow but failed to mention that once the structure is there, eventually it would be quite fast.

What are we going to do when Chilean blueberries are $10 a box, etc.,etc? We're not going to buy them of course. On the flip side maybe it will become cheaper to manufacture in the U.S. again if it's too expensive to ship the cheap goods. Check out the documentary "Collapse". It's on Netflix instant viewing. It is a little on the paranoid/conspiracy side but the guy makes some seriously valid points about oil and our economy. Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't a conspiracy!

Thealexa, are you related to Bob Becker on WTAM? Just curious.

Thealexa Becker wrote:

Roy Pitchford wrote:Tell you what, if you are open-minded and want to understand why I think the way I do, let me recommend one book to you. Pick up The 5000 Year Leap. Get it from the library. I know they have a couple copies and, in this town, they are probably collecting dust. I would recommend the whole book, but at the minimum, read the first 33 pages.

I really would not suggest that book as a way to promote your point of view, especially since it is pseudo history, something even Princeton University historians acknowledge.

A Princeton historian named Sean Wilentz who is a long-time friend of the Clintons and a contributing editor to the left-leaning magazine, The New Republic. Should I be surprised by his position on the book?

Thealexa Becker wrote:I mean, the book suggests that the free market economy is responsible for all kinds of things like exotic space travel, vaccines, jet propulsion? How is any of this accurate? The Russians, who were Communist at the time, were the first in space, with technology from Germany, which largely produced our nuclear power. I think these claims are an exaggeration. And a lot of vaccines and cleanliness protocol is European.

If you're going to quote the book, do it right:

The spirit of freedom which move out across the world in the 1800s was primarily inspired by the fruits of freedom in the United States. The climate of free-market econonmics allowed science to thrive in an explosion of inventions and technical discoveries which, in merely 200 years, gave the world the gigantic new power resources of harnessed electricity, the internal combustion engine, jet propulsion, exotic space vehicles, and all the wonders of nuclear energy.
Communications were revolutionized, first by the telegraph, then the telephone, followed by radio and television.
The whole earth was explored from pole to pole--even the depths of the sea.
Then men left the earth in rocket ships and actually walked on the moon. They sent up a space plane that could be maneuvered and landed back on earth.
The average lifespan was doubled; the quality of life was tremendously enhanced. Homes, food, textiles, communications, transportation, central heating, central cooling, world travel, millions of books, a high literacy rate, schools for everyone, surgical miracles, medical cures for age-old diseases, entertainment at the touch of a switch and instant news, twenty-four hours a day. That was the story.
Of course, all this did not happen just in America, but it did flow out primarily from the swift current of freedom and prosperity which the American Founders turned loose into the spillways of human progress all over the world.

Morse, Edison, Tesla, Bell, Franklin, Watt, Goddard, Henry Ford, Pasteur, Curie, Einstein...did any of these do their work on the orders of the government? When you free a man from restrictive obligation to a master, he has the freedom to create in any way he sees fit.

Its also worth noting that in war, conventional economic forces take a back seat. Your example of rocketry development under Nazi Germany and later under Soviet Russia is at least partially invalid because both governments were in a state of war at the time of their developments. Germany in World War 2, Soviet Russia in the Cold War.

Thealexa Becker wrote:Another thing this book says is that for 180 years the Constitution was being formed. I don't know how anyone can believe this is true. Especially since the US was happy being colonies only until a few decades before the Revolutionary War.

Again, I'd like to understand where you saw this. Are you talking about the references to Jamestown? I think you misunderstand. Again, I'll quote:

It was in Jamestown that communal economics were experimentally tried out by these European immigrants, who found them to be worse than Plato had described them. Eventually, it was in Jamestown that a system of free enterprise principles began to filter up through the years of "starving time" to impress on the settlers those dynamic ideas which were later refined and developed in Adam Smith's famous book, The Wealth of Nations.
...
The descendants of these Virginia settlers also produced many of the foremost intellectuals who structured the framework for the new civilzationwhich became known as the United States of America. From among them came Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence; James Madison, "father" of the Constitution; George Washington, hero-general of the War for Independence; George Mason, author of the first American Bill of Rights in Virginia.

I see nothing that the "Constitution was being formed" that far back. Perhaps the ideals that it would eventually encapsulate...but you could also go back as far as Marcus Tullius Cicero for some of those. More recent thinkers such as Thomas Aquinas or John Locke are also influences.

Thealexa Becker wrote:Also, the US is NOT a true free market economy and never was. The Constitution itself states that the Federal government controls trade between the states. That is not quite a free market, because in a true free market there are no controls over trade at all.

The specific language in the Consitution is: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
The key word you're looking at is 'regulate'. The trouble is the multiple definitions to that word.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/regulate

Definition of REGULATE
transitive verb
1
a : to govern or direct according to rule
b (1) : to bring under the control of law or constituted authority (2) : to make regulations for or concerning <regulate the industries of a country>
2
: to bring order, method, or uniformity to <regulate one's habits>
3
: to fix or adjust the time, amount, degree, or rate of <regulate the pressure of a tire>

You're looking at the first definition.
If you look at the context of why it was included, you'll find the Framers of the Constitution were using the Second.
That provision was placed within the Constitution because, under the Articles of Confederation, there were no limits place on trade and results were inter-state tariffs that stifled trade and hurt the people. By placing it in the hands of a federal government, the framers of the Constitution hoped to eliminate state-to-state tariffs...they wished to make it regular.

Thealexa Becker wrote:Mr. Pitchford, do you perhaps have another suggestion of a book to read, one that perhaps is more historically accurate and not championed by the perpetually inaccurate Glenn Beck?

If you look at what I wrote, I did not suggest 5000 Year Leap as a history book. I suggested it as a way to understand how I think.
However, if you require additional reading:
I'd recommend the Patroits History of the United States, but that's a massive book and I have no doubt someone here will take issue with its author, Larry Schweikart.
I'd love to recommend Milton Friedman's Free to Choose, but I actually haven't read the book, (though I've watched the entire 10-episode PBS series that came out in 1980).
The PBS series is completely available online through Google Videos:
http://miltonfriedman.blogspot.com/

Here's a quick taste of Milton for you:

Roy Pitchford wrote:If you're going to quote the book, do it right:
The spirit of freedom which move out across the world in the 1800s was primarily inspired by the fruits of freedom in the United States. The climate of free-market econonmics allowed science to thrive in an explosion of inventions and technical discoveries which, in merely 200 years, gave the world the gigantic new power resources of harnessed electricity, the internal combustion engine, jet propulsion, exotic space vehicles, and all the wonders of nuclear energy.
Communications were revolutionized, first by the telegraph, then the telephone, followed by radio and television.
The whole earth was explored from pole to pole--even the depths of the sea.
Then men left the earth in rocket ships and actually walked on the moon. They sent up a space plane that could be maneuvered and landed back on earth.
The average lifespan was doubled; the quality of life was tremendously enhanced. Homes, food, textiles, communications, transportation, central heating, central cooling, world travel, millions of books, a high literacy rate, schools for everyone, surgical miracles, medical cures for age-old diseases, entertainment at the touch of a switch and instant news, twenty-four hours a day. That was the story.
Of course, all this did not happen just in America, but it did flow out primarily from the swift current of freedom and prosperity which the American Founders turned loose into the spillways of human progress all over the world.

Morse, Edison, Tesla, Bell, Franklin, Watt, Goddard, Henry Ford, Pasteur, Curie, Einstein...did any of these do their work on the orders of the government? When you free a man from restrictive obligation to a master, he has the freedom to create in any way he sees fit.

I have no idea how any of their inventions can claim to be inspired by the example of the United States. I'm not saying that your above statement isn't true, but it is fallacious to conclude that because the government did not influence this that it had something to do with the United States. That is faulty logic and only a conjecture.

Its also worth noting that in war, conventional economic forces take a back seat. Your example of rocketry development under Nazi Germany and later under Soviet Russia is at least partially invalid because both governments were in a state of war at the time of their developments. Germany in World War 2, Soviet Russia in the Cold War.

My intention in including those examples was that those innovations again had nothing to do with the US and those were significant moves forward in technology. Soviet Russia, as you point out, was "at war" with the US at the time, so their launch of Sputnik was in fact, not done as inspired by the US. I am not saying that these were not advancements, again, all I am saying is that this book, from what I have seen, wants to try to associate almost all technological advancements to the US and its free market system and that is just not true.

It was in Jamestown that communal economics were experimentally tried out by these European immigrants, who found them to be worse than Plato had described them. Eventually, it was in Jamestown that a system of free enterprise principles began to filter up through the years of "starving time" to impress on the settlers those dynamic ideas which were later refined and developed in Adam Smith's famous book, The Wealth of Nations.
...
The descendants of these Virginia settlers also produced many of the foremost intellectuals who structured the framework for the new civilzationwhich became known as the United States of America. From among them came Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence; James Madison, "father" of the Constitution; George Washington, hero-general of the War for Independence; George Mason, author of the first American Bill of Rights in Virginia.

Ok, so yes, the people who formed the US were born in the colonies. No kidding, so the book is trying to say that Virginia was the birthplace of the people who worked together to get angry with England's unfair taxation, create the failure that was the Articles of Confederation, and then fight amongst each other to get the Constitution. I would not go as far as to say the US is a new civilization. Many of the people living there were still really friendly with the British.

If you look at the context of why it was included, you'll find the Framers of the Constitution were using the Second.
That provision was placed within the Constitution because, under the Articles of Confederation, there were no limits place on trade and results were inter-state tariffs that stifled trade and hurt the people. By placing it in the hands of a federal government, the framers of the Constitution hoped to eliminate state-to-state tariffs...they wished to make it regular.

The US has not been a free market economy since the SEC was formed in 1817. There is supposed to be no regulation. So basically since very soon after the founding, it has not been considered a free market. The US has historically battled with whether or not to use laissez faire. And I would certainly argue that since the 20th century the US is more of a mixed economy. Being a free market has implications that the US government did not want to deal with, especially after the Great Depression. What I am saying, is yes, the US might have been closer to a free market early on, but no one who knows any economics would argue 20th century America is truly a Free Market. So how can this book claim that anything post 1900 development wise was fueled by US promotion of free market economics? I just doesn't seem to be a conclusion that can be continuous throughout the nation's history.

I wonder, did the author's of this book read any economic history and theory, or were they going off of strict constitutional interpretation and regular history?

The People's History of the United States is better than the Patriot's although I think anyone interested in majoring in US history should read both for comparison.

And no, I have no relation to that Becker. Didn't even know he existed.

Nice to have someone who actually is interested in history to banter with.

The SEC was formed in 1934. You apparently are confusing it with the NYSE, which governed trading in a relatively small number of securities. The NYSE hardly prevented the founding of new companies, many of which grew large and chose to be listed on the NYSE.

Your grasp of free trade is lacking in the sense that Americans can work where they want, and produce what they want (although this freedom is being eroded by and overreaching government); in controlled economies those freedoms are lacking, and you work where they tell you and produce what they tell you, even if there is no market for the product. Millions of Soviets died when Stalin decided to make the Soviet Union an industrial society and eliminated the farm workers.

In terms of free trade among the states, the federal government has been fairly good at knocking down barriers, although as in any governmental activity, politics have sometimes got in the way. And in terms of trade between countries, we have generally been a consistent advocate, although again there are many instances where the government has imposed barriers due to political pressure. I seem to recall Mr. Obama imposing a duty on certain tires made in China; a political gesture seen to be a farce when someone realized the China had not been exporting that type of tire to us.

Perhaps that is why many people consider economists to be a useless class of people, poring over their data and giving vague advice about as useful as that you would get at a seance. then blaming defective data when their conclusions turn out terribly wrong. Since they produce nothing, perhaps we should get rid of them and hire a shaman with some chicken bones; we'd save a lot of money and get the same type of advice.

Will Brown wrote:The SEC was formed in 1934. You apparently are confusing it with the NYSE, which governed trading in a relatively small number of securities. The NYSE hardly prevented the founding of new companies, many of which grew large and chose to be listed on the NYSE.

I apologize, I misspoke and mixed my dates a little. You are correct, the SEC was in 1934. In 1817 there was a landmark supreme court case in which the federal government made a ruling about information and trade, which is considered one of the first time the governement imposes restrictions. Thank you for catching that error.

Will Brown wrote:Your grasp of free trade is lacking in the sense that Americans can work where they want, and produce what they want (although this freedom is being eroded by and overreaching government); in controlled economies those freedoms are lacking, and you work where they tell you and produce what they tell you, even if there is no market for the product. Millions of Soviets died when Stalin decided to make the Soviet Union an industrial society and eliminated the farm workers.

My grasp is not lacking in what a real free trade economy is. The United States is a mixed economy. And what I said about the US having battles with regulation for much of the late 19th century is not false. There has been quite a great deal of debate about whether laissez faire economics should hold.

It does however seem like you fail to acknowldge that there is a spectrum that economies fall under. Perhaps I failed to make that clear. There are controlled economies on the one end and free economies on the other and everything in between. Out of all the countries in the world, the US has always been closer to a true free market economy. I was not saying that US is not one, but it is not a pure free market economy. I don't know of a single country that is, do you?

Will Brown wrote:In terms of free trade among the states, the federal government has been fairly good at knocking down barriers, although as in any governmental activity, politics have sometimes got in the way. And in terms of trade between countries, we have generally been a consistent advocate, although again there are many instances where the government has imposed barriers due to political pressure. I seem to recall Mr. Obama imposing a duty on certain tires made in China; a political gesture seen to be a farce when someone realized the China had not been exporting that type of tire to us.

Of course the Federal government knocked down barries ITS IN THE CONSTITUTION. They control interstate trade regulation.

Politics always gets in the way of everything, including rational thought.

And if you really want to talk about this country and tariffs, learn the economic history of the insanely high tariffs in this country from the late 19th and early 20th century.

The point of my comments regarding that book were to say that I think it is faulty to claim that because one country chose a free market economy that it somehow inspired inventions or the pursuit of free thought. There were lots of great inventions and advances before the US. I understand that it is not a history book, but I think, intellectually, it is faulty to cite a country's economic delination as the source of anything beyond the effects that distinction has on that country's economy, and naturally interactions with other economies.

I don't think Marie Curie was sitting in her room one day and thought, "wow! the US has free trade, maybe I should be free and continue doing my research."

I think that book does a great deal to glorify the US, which is great if the intention is to be purely patriotic, but sometimes it is at the expense of 100% accuracy.

Will Brown wrote:Perhaps that is why many people consider economists to be a useless class of people, poring over their data and giving vague advice about as useful as that you would get at a seance. then blaming defective data when their conclusions turn out terribly wrong. Since they produce nothing, perhaps we should get rid of them and hire a shaman with some chicken bones; we'd save a lot of money and get the same type of advice.

There is no need to get hostile about economists. Most of them give amazingly good advice and have definitive answers. Perhaps the "many" you know don't, but I know at least 10 and I would argue they are some of the smartest people I know. I would ask how much you actually know about economics, because I would assume based on your answers, assertion that economists are "useless", grasp of economic history and rigidity of thought that it would be very little, or at least some knowledge acquired through watching 24 hour news networks and reading editorials.

Economics is based off of the study of people and markets. Neither of them are entirely predictable and yes some of the jokes about economists are true that they will give you different answers but that is because there are different theories. An economist will give you a solid answer based on what they believe.

It's frightening that you would suggest that we get rid of anyone, that sounds awfully totalitarian for someone who just came out as a "knowledgeable" proponent of free market economics, which as you stated before, allows people the freedom to do whatever jobs they want.

And economists produce the same thing that mathematicians, historians, philosophers and psychologists produce. You think we should get rid of them too?

Obviously you aren't in academics or aren't fond of academia or you would not make such an ignorant statement. It's fine to be opintionated and think people are wrong, it is another thing entirely to suggest we get rid of an entire profession whose academic research and literature are the basis for a great deal of our business and financial behavior. The Fed and Treasury are run by people with economic experience. Those are not stupid or useless people. You might not agree with them, but that doesn't mean they don't have value.

By the way, it is also never smart to insult what someone is studying and call it useless to their face. I don't know what you do, but I would not think of suggesting we get rid of it in favor of hoodoo. Just food for thought.

I have no idea how any of their inventions can claim to be inspired by the example of the United States. I'm not saying that your above statement isn't true, but it is fallacious to conclude that because the government did not influence this that it had something to do with the United States.

Inspiration by America is not what I was getting at...
If Edison were to try to invent his light bulb today, would it get done? I doubt it, there's too much government regulation getting in the way. There'd be complaints about its energy efficiency, the products used in its manufacture or the ramifications of its use on small children.
What about Henry Ford and his automobile assembly line? Today's environmental lobby would have a field day protesting because adding a car (or two) to every household would be such a destructive force to 'Mother Earth.' On top of that, the Model T couldn't have existed in its original form because of all the government mandates. I doubt it would have complied with CAFE standards.
(Ever heard of the Tata Nano? Its an Indian sub-compact car that costs roughly $2000 in India. For the car to comply with US government regulations, the car's price must rise to roughly $8000.)

A person with an idea that will revolutionize the world next might be sitting in one of your colleges or at the library, but he/she may not act on it because of the government's red tape.

(On a more personal note, I and my business partners have discussed opening an arcade here in Lakewood...well good luck to anyone with that. There are municipal codes that don't outright ban arcades, but rather it imposes such limits that an arcade is impossible.)

The People's History of the United States is better than the Patriot's although I think anyone interested in majoring in US history should read both for comparison.

I've read about Zinn and looked over his People's History. To be honest, with the exception of his work with the civil rights movement, he makes me a little ill. I've rarely seen such a hatred for one's country. He was a 9/11 Truther, Revolutionary Communist Party supporter (strange considering his anti-war stance) and signed a statement requesting the release of a convicted cop-killer named Mumia Abu-Jamal.

And if you really want to talk about this country and tariffs, learn the economic history of the insanely high tariffs in this country from the late 19th and early 20th century.

Up until the Civil War, the US only have a couple ways to generate funds to run the government: tariffs and the sales of public lands. Coming off the Civil War, it does make sense that they'd have to raise additional funds to pay off war debts. There were few, if any, taxes. [sarcasm]Then good-old Woodrow showed up and gave us, joy of joys, the income tax.[/sarcasm]

There were lots of great inventions and advances before the US.

Yes, there were, however, let me share this thought.
When the first copies of the Bible were being written, it would have been done by candle light. When the Founders read the Bible, they did it by candle light.

If I may, I'd like to return to the original point of the thread for a moment. Do you disagree with my original statements, regarding the abridgment of our freedoms?